In light of DOE's recently-announced reliance on NERC for y2k expertise, the following documents, available on NERC's public access Y2K database, are extremely disturbing. Do these documents evidence an internal policy formulated by NERC for deceiving DOE and the public through withholding unfavorable "readiness exceptions" information?

"From the horse's mouth" . . . Logging onto the NERC public access database at ftp://www.nerc.com/pub/sys/all_updl/docs/ and then selecting the /y2k database, start with "contingency.pdf" - "NERC Year 2000 Contingency Planning Guide Version 1.0" dated 10/23/98 for in-depth assessment of multiple contingencies and potential failures. Next, review "y2k-reporting-changes-1-12-99.pdf" and "y2k-exceptions-instructions.pdf" documents, which outline NERC's information blackout strategy to WITHHOLD DATA FROM DOE AND THE PUBLIC regarding two critical areas: (1) READINESS "EXCEPTIONS" reported to NERC by utilities which are attempting to achieve y2k readiness but do not expect to meet NERC's deadline; and (2) information about non-conforming y2k programs in utilities (definitions included in NERC document, quoted below). In "y2k-reporting-changes-1-12-99.pdf" NERC states that utilities attempting to conform but which will miss the due dates because of "readiness exceptions" will be allowed to report their mission-critical systems as "y2k ready" and will be listed on reports to DOE and the public as "Y2k ready" for the target industry deadlines of May 31, 1999 and June 30, 1999, as long as these utilities report y2k deficiencies to NERC in secret, "confidential" emails. For these utilities, NERC states (in y2k-reporting-changes-1-12-99.pdf) "All identified exceptions will be held in strict confidence and will not be reported to DOE or the public. The exceptions will be reviewed by NERC Y2k project staff for reasonableness and reliability impact on operations into the Year 2000. The NERC Y2k project staff may forward any reliability issues to the NERC Security Coordinator Subcommittee or the NERC Operating Committee for review." These utilities are given explicit follow-up instructions on the confidential Exception Reporting methods in the document entitled "y2k-exceptions-instructions.pdf": "For those organizations for which the above condition is the case [*i.e., utilities which will not be "y2k ready" by June 30, 1999*], an Exception Reporting mechanism has been established by which those organizations can report themselves Y2k Ready [*italics emphasis in original text*] by June 30, 1999 in the NERC Y2k Readiness Assessment with the noted exceptions on this new report . . . . All information provided in the exception list will be handled confidentially by NERC. This information will not be included in the NERC report to the Department of Energy nor will it be released to the public. The information will be used by NERC to evaluate reliability risks associated with Y2." Also, for blatantly NON-CONFORMING utilities, NERC states (in "y2k-reporting-changes-1-12-99.pdf"): . . . beginning in January 1999, any Y2k program meeting any of the criteria listed below will be designated as a Non-Conforming Y2k Program. The Y2k Program Manager will be contacted and provided an opportunity to clarify the reported data. If the issue is not resolved, a letter will be sent from the NERC President to the chief executive of the organization noting the deficiencies. If the issue is not resolved, the status of the program may be reviewed by the NERC Operating Committee or the Board of Trustees. These activities will remain confidential within NERC at least through the first quarter of 1999 and longer, if possible. This information will not be released to the public or reported to DOE. It is essential that reports to NERC focus on those facilities and items that are mission critical to electric operations. Nonmission-critical items that may be completed after the industry target dates should not be the cause of reporting a late completion date. The criteria for a Non-conforming Y2k Program are: 1. Expected to complete Remediation and Testing or Y2k Ready status for mission-critical electrical facilities past industry targets of May 31, 1999 and June 30, 1999, respectively. Reasonable, specific exceptions may be justified for a limited number of facilities, if they do not pose a risk to electric operations into the Year 2000. 2. Reported exceptions are excessive, not reasonably justified, or may pose a risk to electric operations into the Year 2000. 3. Missed Y2k readiness status reports for two consecutive months. 4. No written Y2k plan. 5. Program does not report to executive management. COMMENTS: Combining the above information with the unsettling charts, graphs, and projections from "contingency.pdf" - which is a thorough, statistical analysis that includes worst case projections - a "dark" scenario emerges in which NERC's junk data lulls DOE and the public into a false sense of energy complacency: "Don't worry, be happy." Tick, tick, tick.... Last but not least, also note that NERC's y2k database seems to contain a "y2k bug" -- numerous documents have original 1999 *creation dates* which have not yet occurred, all the way through *creation dates* listed as December 1999. Whooops :-(

-- Anonymous, March 14, 1999

Answers

Oh Christ....

(long pause, searching for words beyond expletives, that might alienate the Holy Names that simultaineously run through my imploring mind...here.)

***** Five Star Post = You're a rare gem.

-- Anonymous, March 14, 1999

In light of DOE's recently-announced reliance on NERC for y2k expertise, the following documents, available on NERC's public access Y2K database, are extremely disturbing. Do these documents evidence an internal policy formulated by NERC for deceiving DOE and the public through withholding unfavorable "readiness exceptions" information?

"From the horse's mouth" . . . Logging onto the NERC public access database at ftp://www.nerc.com/pub/sys/all_updl/docs/ and then selecting the /y2k database, start with "contingency.pdf" - "NERC Year 2000 Contingency Planning Guide Version 1.0" dated 10/23/98 for in-depth assessment of multiple contingencies and potential failures.

Next, review "y2k-reporting-changes-1-12-99.pdf" and "y2k-exceptions- instructions.pdf" documents, which outline NERC's information blackout strategy to WITHHOLD DATA FROM DOE AND THE PUBLIC regarding two critical areas: (1) READINESS "EXCEPTIONS" reported to NERC by utilities which are attempting to achieve y2k readiness but do not expect to meet NERC's deadline; and (2) information about non- conforming y2k programs in utilities (definitions included in NERC document, quoted below).

In "y2k-reporting-changes-1-12-99.pdf" NERC states that utilities attempting to conform but which will miss the due dates because of "readiness exceptions" will be allowed to report their mission- critical systems as "y2k ready" and will be listed on reports to DOE and the public as "Y2k ready" for the target industry deadlines of May 31, 1999 and June 30, 1999, as long as these utilities report y2k deficiencies to NERC in secret, "confidential" emails.

For these utilities, NERC states (in y2k-reporting-changes-1-12- 99.pdf) "All identified exceptions will be held in strict confidence and will not be reported to DOE or the public. The exceptions will be reviewed by NERC Y2k project staff for reasonableness and reliability impact on operations into the Year 2000. The NERC Y2k project staff may forward any reliability issues to the NERC Security Coordinator Subcommittee or the NERC Operating Committee for review.

" These utilities are given explicit follow-up instructions on the confidential Exception Reporting methods in the document entitled "y2k-exceptions-instructions.pdf": "For those organizations for which the above condition is the case [*i.e., utilities which will not be "y2k ready" by June 30, 1999*], an Exception Reporting mechanism has been established by which those organizations can report themselves Y2k Ready [*italics emphasis in original text*] by June 30, 1999 in the NERC Y2k Readiness Assessment with the noted exceptions on this new report . . . .

All information provided in the exception list will be handled confidentially by NERC. This information will not be included in the NERC report to the Department of Energy nor will it be released to the public. The information will be used by NERC to evaluate reliability risks associated with Y2." Also, for blatantly NON- CONFORMING utilities, NERC states (in "y2k-reporting-changes-1-12- 99.pdf"): . . . beginning in January 1999, any Y2k program meeting any of the criteria listed below will be designated as a Non- Conforming Y2k Program. The Y2k Program Manager will be contacted and provided an opportunity to clarify the reported data. If the issue is not resolved, a letter will be sent from the NERC President to the chief executive of the organization noting the deficiencies.

If the issue is not resolved, the status of the program may be reviewed by the NERC Operating Committee or the Board of Trustees. These activities will remain confidential within NERC at least through the first quarter of 1999 and longer, if possible. This information will not be released to the public or reported to DOE. It is essential that reports to NERC focus on those facilities and items that are mission critical to electric operations. Nonmission-critical items that may be completed after the industry target dates should not be the cause of reporting a late completion date.

The criteria for a Non-conforming Y2k Program are: 1. Expected to complete Remediation and Testing or Y2k Ready status for mission- critical electrical facilities past industry targets of May 31, 1999 and June 30, 1999, respectively. Reasonable, specific exceptions may be justified for a limited number of facilities, if they do not pose a risk to electric operations into the Year 2000. 2. Reported exceptions are excessive, not reasonably justified, or may pose a risk to electric operations into the Year 2000. 3. Missed Y2k readiness status reports for two consecutive months. 4. No written Y2k plan. 5. Program does not report to executive management.

COMMENTS: Combining the above information with the unsettling charts, graphs, and projections from "contingency.pdf" - which is a thorough, statistical analysis that includes worst case projections - a "dark" scenario emerges in which NERC's junk data lulls DOE and the public into a false sense of energy complacency: "Don't worry, be happy." Tick, tick, tick....

Last but not least, also note that NERC's y2k database seems to contain a "y2k bug" -- numerous documents have original 1999 *creation dates* which have not yet occurred, all the way through *creation dates* listed as December 1999. Whooops :-(

Thought I'd put the above in easy to read paragraphs.

-- Anonymous, March 14, 1999

Malthusienne (after Thomas Malthus, inspirer of Darwin?) I'm glad you posted this and not me! Not only do I not have to take any heat for posting something else which might be considered uncomplimentary about NERC, I get to answer only as a bystander! *grin*

I think it's completely reasonable that NERC would promise those utilties which might not make the agency imposed deadline that the "non-conforming" information would not be released to the public. I'll leave the debate about the public's right to know versus legal privacy of information aside, and go to the fact that NERC does not have any legal enforcement capacity in their oversight of the utilities. If they didn't promise anonymity concerning Y2K status details, they would get NO reports from utilities. The information well, even such as it is, would dry up completely. No utility which does find itself facing project delays or problems would ever indicate that if they thought they would be singled out to the public. Plummeting stock values putting the business at grave risk wouldn't even be the worst, compared to the panic of the utility's customers.

It's my opinion that oversight agencies and our government leaders are walking a tightrope between how much they are legally empowered to do, and what information they believe might cause more harm than good -- from their perspective. I fully realize that this tightrope could end up as a noose around the same government and agency's necks if they fail to warn the public and serious consequences result. (That's one more topic which has already had plenty of debate and will likely have a lot more said about it.)

As I stated in response to Drew Parkhill's question, "Have you all noticed...", I have never expected negative details from business or government sources, so NERC's stance on non-conforming utilities doesn't surprise me. Suffice it to say that NERC has some legitimate reasons for promising anonymity, whether we agree with those reasons or not.

What *does* surprise me is NERC's statement that they would also not inform the Department of Energy, "at least through the first quarter of 1999 and longer, if possible." I see no reason for this stance unless they somehow think the DOE would go public with any info of negative connotations. The DOE certainly hasn't done that to date, so I can only conclude in my own mind that not informing them has more to do with a proprietary industry insularity than anything else. THIS bothers me. In my opinion, government oversight agencies keeping information from other government entities is counterproductive to the national interest and will not help in dealing with contingency plans on a national basis. I can't help but remember the complaints of Senator Bennett and Senator Dodd that Y2K status information was very difficult to come by. In my view, it's looking like the typical bureaucratic turf fighting is so ingrained it's not being given up even for a national/global problem with the potential to affect everyone.

I just read the 2/11/1999 Nuclear Regulatory Meeting "Briefing on Y2K" transcript. It's long, but well worth a thorough reading. It can be found at:

http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/COMMISSION/TRANSCRIPTS/19990211b.html

I'm putting the URL here because there is a section of the briefing which corresponds to what has been posted in this thread:

CHAIRMAN JACKSON: What is the status of activities at the slowest plant? MR. DAVIS: Status of activities at the slowest plant? CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Right, in terms of their degree of detailed assessment, remediation, et cetera. MR. DAVIS: I don't remember the specific numbers for which plant was at the slowest end, but my analysis shows that every plant can meet the objective of completing their program by 1 July and making the report. CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I guess I'm interested in the actual work being done, the testing, and so forth.

[my note - James Davis, Director, Operations, for the Nuclear Energy Institute, which is the gathering agency for the data from the nuclear plant Y2K status surveys, was the presenter at the above NRC Commission briefing. "Completing their program" and "making the report" by 1 July refers to a report including those items of a project which will not be finished by that date.]

Like Chairman Jackson, I'm also interested in the actual work being done, etc., because I'd prefer to be able to have an independent "analysis" outside of Mr. Davis's assessment. My preference isn't going to make it happen, though, and Chairman Jackson didn't get the details she wanted, either.

I think we're all going to have to get used to the idea that we're not going to get all the information we want. If it's bad, we're going to find out the hard way. "Risk management" has recently become a word the government and industries are using. I'm now calling my personal preparations to withstand possible Y2K disruptions, my "risk management" program. If it's good enough for them, it's appropriate for citizens, too.

-- Anonymous, March 14, 1999

Bonnie, I've got an answer for you on the DOE "right to know", as it were. Actually, I'll answer your question with a question. Do you know of any government agency that doesn't leak news like a sieve? If DOE had the answers to the million dollar Y2K questions, I'd like to think that I'd be one of the first to know. ;-)

-- Anonymous, March 14, 1999

If I was the NERC, and it was getting pretty obvious that the electricity industry was not going to meet my June 30 deadline:

1. I would not want to tell that to the DOE.

2. I would not want to tell that to the general public.

3. I would, however, want that information for myself.

4. I would need one man to have all the information reported to in order to control leaks.

That's exactly what these letters do.

-- Anonymous, March 15, 1999

Here is an article that I posted to the euy2k forum that may be relevant.

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

NRC wants more private meetings for commissioners

WASHINGTON, March 1 (Reuters) - The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said it wants to allow certain meetings of three or more commissioners to be held in private to improve "efficiency and collegiality."

Current regulations prohibit more than two of the agency's five commissioners from meeting to discuss business unless the session is open to the public.

The NRC said in a statement that it planned to propose a change in the regulations that would allow technical or informational briefings and "generalized 'big picture' discussions" to be held privately by several or all of the commissioners.

Any private meetings would not decide any public policy issues, the NRC said.

In 1985, the NRC proposed a similar change but dropped it after some members of Congress expressed concern.

To allay any concerns this time, the NRC said it would be willing to keep records for the first six months documenting the date, subject and participants in any private meetings of three or more commissioners. "After six months, the commission will consider whether the record-keeping practice might usefully continue," the NRC said.

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

Ahh yes, what's a few secrets between friends !!

Ray

-- Anonymous, March 15, 1999

Why is this getting on my nerves?

It's like I want all of the *pop* y2k sites to post it.

-- Anonymous, March 26, 1999