Northwest PUC notes

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Electric Utilities and Y2K : One Thread

Greetings all!

I thought you might be interested in hearing what was said at the Public Utility Commission meeting in Salem last Wednesday. All of the big public utility phone/gas/electric companies representing the entire northwest were there reporting to the PUC their status on their y2k compliance. I took some notes as each speaker presented. I didn't get many names- unfortunately they went by too fast. I'll try to save any personal commentary to the end. In retrospect, I realize I didn't take very good notes. Unfortunately, much of the discussion was quite technical in nature and I found it was hard to understand let alone take notes on and figure out how it fit together. I primarily went as a concerned citizen to see what progress PGE (our local electrical utility) had made since their last mediocre report back in July, not as a reporter for the event.

Prior to the meeting overall the mood felt fairly light- some laughter, chatting, upbeat discussions among the suits. Lots of people in suits. I wasn't sure how many of the "public" were present short of myself. There was no press of any kind that I could see, no cameras, I appeared to be the only one taking notes. The meeting began right on time, very few stragglers arriving late.

My notes, I'll apologize at the start if some of them are unclear, people talk fast and I'm not a stenographer. I'll add any clarification in parenthesis if I can:

The 2 leaders of the PUC gave the reasons for the meeting, and stated that y2k is "still a critical issue."

The companies were requested to provide information as to the current status of their "business plan" and their "contingency plan" and then there was some questioning about what that meant. Business plan referred to "what they're doing now to remedy the situation", the contingency pan referred to "what they plan on doing if y2k affects something."

The gas companies went first:

Northwest Natural (gas) spoke first

Status- they were confident they would be able to provide gas after y2k.

They were working on their contingency plans. They were working on an internal/external plan in an A-B-C- fashion.

A-identify issues B-backup plans if A fails C-Plan in case of a main failure.

These plans were "on the boards"

They made it clear that they were "critically dependent on electrical & telecommunications" to keep up and running.

They have a website.

(The question was asked by the PUC chair if the "good samaritan bill" had aided anyone yet-there was some murmuring, was a bit too early to tell.)

They discussed their contingency plans and was asked by the PUC if NWN had contacted their suppliers.

They had and they said there has been "hesitancy in providing information from suppliers"

(They mentioned some company that I didn't get the name of but referred to it as "the pipeline" or the "pipeline company". I gathered that they meant whoever it is that supplies NWG's gas.)

They expressed difficulty in getting information from this "pipeline company" and it sounded like this company would play a critical role in NWG's ability to continue operations after y2k.

The next company to speak was Washington Water Power & Gas.

They have 1100 computers 350 failed y2k tests.

They identified 550,000 embedded systems of those 3000 were date sensitive fewer than 300 needed to be replaced, none felt that would be problematic or disruptive. (I got the impression that all of the embedded chips that needed to be replaced had been.)

they were "cautiously optimistic" that they would be ready for y2k. Though they still have risks. They have 6 million lines of code, 260,000 lines fixed.

(that's only 5,740,000 lines left to check)

they're checking applications, mitigation. They're continuing testing through 1999.

Regarding their contingency plans, there was more discussion about this "pipeline company" and that they (WWPG) were working on the issue and that this "pipeline company" hadn't said anything yet.

(I was under the impression that is was the same company previously mentioned by NWN, and that it was critical in WWPG's company continuing their operations after y2k)

The PUC requested that this "pipeline company" be represented at the next meeting.

WWPG also stressed that they too were heavily dependent on telecommunications & electricity.

Cascade National gas was the final gas company.

They are in the inventory & assessment phase.

They are "still reviewing internal systems"

They have the "hourglass 2000" software.

They expect to meet their June 1999 deadline for y2k compliance.

They had 280 computers, 18 still need to be tested.

The next group (the electrical utilities) began.

The NERC (North American Electrical Reliabilty Council) spokesman began the electrical discussion.

(I didn't catch his name but he was from a power comapany in Salt Lake City)

He said they send out monthly surveys to all of their power companies that NERC has contact with and gives quarterly reports.

He mentioned their website

(which I eventually found here it is: http://www.nerc.com/y2k/y2kplan.html)

The results of their most recent survey:

44 members responded

91% of all the companies have completed their inventory.

68% of all the companies are in the assessment phase.

28% are in the remediation phase.

He expected that all their members would meet their June 13, 1999 y2k deadline.

The PUC chair commented along the lines - You said 44 members responded, how many members are there?

There were 107.

There was some discussion about concern when the year rollover changes across the mountain/pacific time zone and "reducing loading"

(sorry no comment here on what "reducing loading" means, I just wrote it down)

They'll be doing some drills in April and September regarding the grid

There was some discussion about overgeneration and that all of the generating facilities would be up and running on Dec. 31, 1999 so there would be power on like to re-route if necessary.

Telecommunications was still considered a "critical" issue.

There was some positive discussion about having 16 hours prior notice if the far east has any problems. That is if the satellites are still operational... (general laughter in the room)

Nerc has a website, it took me a while to find it but here it is: http://www.nerc.com/y2k/y2kplan.html

(general laughter in the room)

Pacificorp spoke next.

Their computer systems were on track to be y2k ready by June 1999 deadline.

Regarding contingency plans they identified 1500 vendors that they deal with for operations. 130 were critical to their operations 60 had a time frame must be done by June of 1999. There were some stragglers that were not going to be ready

(my notes are a bit sketchy here, sorry- I wrote down the following but I don't remember how it fits together:

informations flow 100 different risk factors emmissions controls fall out of compliance)

There was more discussion about dependence on telecommunications and that Pacificorp's "system interacting with the internet" was critical

(whatever that meant)

The pacificorp rep then told the following story:

They invited Senator Bennett (Utah) to a test rollover at one of their generating plants.

(I think it was a geothermal generator, but I'm not sure)

He went on to say that (of course) they would test the rollover a few days before the senator was actually present to make sure that it really would roll over correctly.

He went on to say that when they did the roll over "2 of the 4 operating screens went blank" in the control room.

(I have a note that says "2 of 4 peaking unit" but I don't remember what that refers to)

It took them a while to get the problem with the screens repaired and suggested that one of the contingency plans for all of the utilities was to make sure that their parts "vendors are available on 1/1/2000"

PGE (Portland General Electric) was the next speaker.

The spokesman was an underling of Carol Lindenberg (PGE's y2k project manager)

He was very difficult to understand,speaking at a low volume.

(Here's everything I wrote down that I he said):

"we've only just begun" in assessment

reluctant to issue any dates

(The room was very quiet)

The PUC chair asked him if PGE had done any testing similar the the example from Pacificorp, he responded that PGE has done "no testing yet"

Bonneville was next up.

(and again my notes are sketchy)

The spokesman said they were 30% complete with remediation.

They had done contingency panning.

They spoke of their ability to do a blackstart plan quite easily, there was some lighthearted discussion that all it took to do a blackstart was to open one of the doors in the dams to get the water/generators moving.

There was some optimistic discussion about how on Dec. 31st that loads would be low, it was midnight, on a holiday, over a weekend.

(I have some more notes that again I don't understand. I feel like Dr. McCoy now- "Dammit Jim, I'm an audio guy, not an electrician!")

Underfrequency load shed Key interties to the east coast reducing allowable power so lines aren't overloaded.

The bright spot in the meeting came when Bonneville announced that they would not be affected by the phone company since their telecommunications is done on a BPA analog microwave system. And that sometimes it's better to be out of date on your equipment.

There was some discussion about other smaller companies related to BPA that have aggressive programs for y2k but are way behind...

The phone companies were up next

(and my notes aren't getting any better)

OTA telecom association spoke first.

All companies are working on the issue.

The "switches all in by the end of 2nd quarter 1999."

Single exchange operator has no way of testing-sending a bad signal into the system

(?)

Clear creek/oregon telco spoke as well all I have for them is): 2 date failures

Then US West spoke:

(the only female spokesperson in the room)

US west has broken their y2k plan into 3 arenas:

1. Public switching 2. IT internal systems 3. A category she described as "everything else"

(the spokesperson for US west was somewhat vague at times, she would be quite confident in some areas, quite soft spoken in others. Something happened in the middle of her presentation like she had something stuck in her throat, she paused for a long time, coughed, someone got her a glass of water...it was kind of wierd...)

They were in the beginning stages of their contingency planning and they were training crisis managers...

In the 1. Public switching category they are 95% complete in testing and implementation plan phase.

2. IT internal systems

(this was where she had something stuck in her throat. She provided no information about their internal IT systems except to say):

we have 400 applications and 21 major business processes.

(she almost sounded like she was going to cry, some more pauses, then came back with):

they expect completion by mid-January

She didn't really give an explaination for #3. "everything else"

The last spokesman was for GTE

GTE is spending 350 million on y2k

1200 emplyees working on the issue

15,000 products impacted

(not sure what that meant)

1300 still to certify

Oregon is 100& digital

Continuing testing through 1999

GTE has some dependencies on suppliers

On schedule for June 1999 completion

more info: www.gte.com/e/ehfaq.html

(This gentleman sounded quite confident that GTE would be ready for y2k. I did go and look at their website and it is an impressive plan, but the website didn't give any facts about how far along they were, though it sounded like they have made considerable progress.)

Well that's it for notes. The next meeting is scheduled for mid January 1999 and I'm planning on being there for that one as well. I'll take better notes, maybe I'll even tape it.

My personal remarks:

The mood for this meeting appeared to be pretty light, even at it's conclusion. I felt pretty confident that the utilities were o.k. Almost all of the presenters sounded like this y2k business shouldn't be a really big deal, and that they were on track for completion. Until I came home and re-read my notes regarding what was not said. I'm trying to not be a suspicious pessimist, but,

The spokesman for NERC gave these statistics:

44 companies responded (but didn't say that 63 companies did not respond and would not have had he not been prompted by the PUC)

Of those 44 91% have completed their inventory (8% have not & have the other 63 even started?)

Of those 44, 68% have completed their assessment (32% or 29 companies have not and have not even begun remediation. That makes 92 of 107 companies that have not completed their assessment phase-that's a lot of power companies in the Northwest.)

28% have completed their remediation-meaning 12 are finished remediation (72% or 95 of the 107 aren't finished with the remediation phase.)

None have completely tested their systems to make sure they won't have a problem.

That kind of makes me nervous. I think I did the math right. If I'm wrong please let me know. I guess I'm looking at this with a "the-glass-isn't- eve-half-empty" slant. But maybe we need to look at this that way. I mean PGE at least came out and said "we think we have a glass, but we dont know yet..."

The phone companies sounded better than I expected, though there seemed to be some holes in US west. Especially in their own IT systems.

I'll be especially attentive to the discussion about the "pipeline company" and who exactly that is.

Anyway, again my apologies for bad note taking. Here's my disclaimer: My notes on what I did have are accurate to the best of my abilities, and I have no greivances against any of the power companies that were represented. I'm just "Joe Citizen" trying to make sense out of this y2k business and not feeling like we (the people) are getting as much information as we can in this regard. If I didn't get some of the facts right, my mistake, if you've read this and have more questions I'm sure a phone call to your own local utilities will take care of any confusion you may have, if you can actually reach someone who knows anything...

thanks and keep in touch,

Jeff

-- Anonymous, November 02, 1998

Answers

Jeff,

Thanks for the report! While I take any Y2k statements provided by any company in public testimony with a grain of salt, (hey, I'm not just picking on power companies here), information of this type provides a basis that we can all use locally to base some of our own perceptions and preparations on.

-- Anonymous, November 04, 1998


Jeff,

Very good. Just a suggestion: for anything you consider important (like future meetings of this type) - get a cheap but reliable tape recorder. I've been in journalism for 20+ years, & I've learned that notes- unless you know & practice shorthand regularly- really won't take the place of audio or videotape. You'd be amazed sometimes how much you miss the first time around. If you really want to do it right, take notes *while* you're recording something- that will jog your memory later (for instance, you could record a thought or question that comes to mind when someone makes a statement that you can later refer to when you're reviewing the tape).

I'm posting this too for the benefit of others in the forum who will or may attend such meetings in the future, and want to give a report of it here. This may help them.

Drew Parkhill/CBN News

-- Anonymous, November 04, 1998


Moderation questions? read the FAQ