Hello- Can anyone comment on the claim by many people that assessment is only 5-7% of the project for utilities?

Does anyone know how long utilites need for testing? Is the 40-70% claim an accurate guesstimate for this industry? Does it differ by type of generating plant?

Is it likely that all phases are being worked on at the same time, negating the assumption that since assessment/remediation is not done, testing has not started...?

-- Anonymous, January 14, 1999

Answers

R.A., I'm not a project manager but I can relate some information from the utility 10Qs. Some utilities specifically mentioned that work on the various project phases (inventory, assessment, remediation and testing) was proceeding concurrently. In other words, they were assessing and/or fixing problems as they were being discovered, or as they could.

Other utilities appeared to be proceeding in the direction of finishing one phase, then going to the next. It seemed to depend on 1. whether they felt they were pressed for time in fixing critical systems, and 2. the size of the project and how their project plans were organized. (Different teams for different sections? An overall strategy? You get the idea.)

Some specific fixes were also mentioned as being stalled, while others were ongoing. The project may have reached the point where one system was ready to be replaced but the vendor wasn't going to get an upgrade to them before late 1999.

It's a mixed bag and there's a a lot of variance in how projects are being addressed. There is a definite time advantage to working on all phases at the same time, but there's also a technical disadvantage. What if you discover at a later date that something affects another system in a way you hadn't anticipated and you have to rework it all? Then you're back to square one. One utility had done an in-house assessment of embedded systems, then decided to hire a specialist firm to do it again because they weren't sure if they'd found all the problems.

Also, finishing the inventory and assessments first better allows you to order replacements from vendors in time to receive them. Several utilities mentioned having to wait for vendor products because the suppliers were overwhelmed and backlogged. I don't think there's one single strategy that applies to everyone.

Testing embedded systems is also listed on the 10Qs as one of the problems utilities are encountering. Some systems can't be tested until a scheduled outage. Some vendors were recommending not testing certain components except at the vendor's special test facilities because of the difficulty of recovering from a failed test. Many utilities were finding great difficulty in arranging for testing of telecommunications. It's very hard to test things that are in constant use because there's always the possibility that the test might cause problems, too.

I guess it's like most of life - there's not a "one size fits all" answer, just some generalizations.

-- Anonymous, January 14, 1999

Thanks Bonnie,

Your comments seem to indicate that it is very difficult to assess where the industry, as a whole, stands... With so many different proceedures being used, it it likely that many self-reported status reports could be based on different sets of values. When a utility says it is only 40% done with assessment, it could be 40% done with remediation and testing, too! Conversly, a utility that reports that 60% of systems are tested may be nowhere near 60% finished ! I guess we should take all surveys and even 10Q's with a grain of salt. :-)

RA

-- Anonymous, January 14, 1999

RA, I completely agree about the difficulty of appraising "compliancy", as in the entire remediation project. NERC has set out certain guidelines for the "readiness" of critical systems in the electric utility industry, however. There is less individual leeway regarding critical systems, so the reporting process for those is likely to be more accurate. Although even NERC has noted that some utilities have misinterpreted, or misunderstood what the critical systems guidelines meant.

I find it interesting that the public has now become so used to the term, "Ready", that the fact that there are a whole lot of systems being put on a back burner as far as fixes go, doesn't get much attention. This applies not only to the utility industry, but government and other infrastructure areas as well. A year ago, "compliancy" was still being mentioned and "readiness" was deemed to be much less desirable. I wonder sometimes just how many "non-critical" systems can fall by the wayside without serious cumulative effects, even if everything else was "Ready"?

-- Anonymous, January 14, 1999

I have noticed the "concurrentness" of tasks in the 10Qs also. I think that is probably just a consequence of division of labor within the Y2K team. I recently recieved the monthly report that Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) sent to NERC. The divisions between project phases are interesting. NERC asked for data on inventory, assessment, and remediation/testing. As of 11.28.98, LCRA was 98% inventoried, 90% assessed, and 30% remediated/tested. However, the report was further broken down into nuclear generator, non-nuclear generation, transmission, EMS/SCADA, substations, communication, and business systems. There was a wide variation in completeness of the various systems. This LCRA report showed that most of their communication services were finished. In their non-nuclear generation units, the turbine units were OK, but the fuel handling, boiler feed, and balance of water/steam systems were only 10% remediated/tested. Obviously these systems are critical to generation. The utilities must average numbers but it seems that they could have "happy" numbers overall and still have a mission critical system (e.g. water/steam balance) that would complete preclude the operation of the unit. To me, this makes the summary NERC reports rather uninformitive.

-- Anonymous, January 14, 1999