http://www.y2ktimebomb.com/Industry/Utilities/lcore9914.htm

relevant quote:

"That's the most important thing to remember about the electrical utilities' industry-wide event on April 9th: it is not a test of Y2K remediation. It is a drill of what procedures would be followed in case of Y2K-related communications failures.

Indeed, considering that different utilities are at different stages of remediation, it would be the greatest of follies to conduct an industry-wide test of Y2K preparedness at this time. Thank heaven that's not what they're doing.

The April 9th Event Is NOT a Sham

Some reactions to the planning of the April 9th drill have been based on several statements in Y2K Drill Preparations, a question-and-answer document at the NERC website in the form of bullet points (which is not linked to at the NERC Y2K Contingency Planning/Drills webpage). The first discussion question is this:

"The April 9 drill is intended to instill public confidence through success and at the same time be a real test of our ability to operate with limited communications capabilities. How can these two goals be balanced to provide the greatest value from the exercise?" (page 1)

The document -- on the face of it, a summary of issues discussed at a workshop -- also includes the following in a bullet point: "We want to have a successful and meaningful story for publication" (page 2).

Those two statements -- "The April 9 drill is intended to instill public confidence through success" and "We want to have a successful and meaningful story for publication" -- have been fastened upon by some as clear and indisputable proof that the electrical utilities are planning to perpetrate a fraud upon the public. That the April 9th event is a sham to fool the public into believing the industry is going to be ready for Y2K when the industry knows it won't be ready.

That does not really seem to be the case.

If -- I say if -- the April 9th event were a test of Y2K remediation -- then the Y2K Drill Preparations document would indeed be an indicator of collusion. But -- I say but -- the April 9th event is not a test of the success of some Y2K remediation, it is a drill in case of the failure of some Y2K remediation in telecommunications.

Far from being an event rigged to fool the public, the April 9th drill is part of exactly what we should hope the electrical utilities are doing: preparing and testing fall-back procedures to use in case of Y2K remediation failures.

But the April 9th Event IS a Show

Before you stand aghast and appalled, calling me a Supine Sycophantic Defender of the Establishment (which one could hardly do if one is familiar with my other essays on Y2K topics), let me explain what I have done here so far. I have established, as far as I can from available documentation, the real nature of the April 9th event. Having done so allows me to now level accurate criticism. What other way is there to level accurate criticism than to first establish, precisely and without prejudice, the nature of what one is examining?

While the drill is not a sham, it is at least as much a show as it is a drill."

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), April 06, 1999

Answers

Arlin,

I appreciate fine distinctions like the ones you're making. Thank you for the post.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 06, 1999.

Prior to homeschooling our children, I spent many hours attending education conferences for administrators & teachers. It was at these conferences that I learned to interpret what bureaucrats were saying. This method has proved quite valuable when listening to the y2k debate.

Facts and truth are a rare commodity. If the electrical test is a sham or not, the true test is whether the companies are shooting straight with us. Do they desire to tell us what the facts are? If not, than they are using outcome based results and do not deserve our trust.

Many laugh or scoff at terms like "truth" or "facts". But until there is a verifiable report, it is prudent to be skeptical. The greatest value of reported information on y2k remediation from the government and companies is what is not said. This site is an excellent place to sit back, absorb, evaluate and then make one's appropriate conclusions.

If the outcome of the test is a given, than the exercise is a show. They have the test, they have the answers and they know the grade. Go through the motions so the press can report the success.

Rah, rah, . .tell'em what they wanna here, don't worry - watch TV - go have a beer. Rah, rah, . . tell'em to all hang loose, but on Jan. 1 there'll be no juice.

-- Daryl (rushmore@dailypost.com), April 06, 1999.

Wheras the primarily stated purpose of the drill is "to instill public confidence through success" with the prime directive "to have a successful and meaningful story for publication," I conclude that the planned drill is to be little more than a publicity or public relations stunt. Of course, individual companies may discover weak points in their contingency plans, but when "all identified exceptions will be held in strict confidence and will not be reported to DOE or the public," can public perception can be any other than one of flawless unity?

Now, this doesn't mean that anyone will be *lying* to us, but I am afraid that the complacent public, tired of Y2K warnings, will *interpret* the news reports as a reassurance that "all is well" with the power industry.. This thought was suggested by Rick Cowles. The quote of his csy2k post is in my article at:

http://geocities.com/Area51/Vault/1157/NERC-y2k.htm

I became interested in this subject because a friend of mine has medical need of reliant power to charge battery packs for her heart pump. Her husband, a very positive and likeable guy, is a tad too open-minded to optimistic reports on y2k. He absolutely *refuses* to consider the need for a one-panel solar system. If need be, I will wind up buying one for them, but how many others will suffer or die if power is lost for even a few days in uncertain areas because human nature tends to avoid threatening news of historically unique hazards? People understand hurricanes far better than y2k.

There is an almost gleeful "Oh, that's all hype" attitude out there toward y2k pessimism which is almost certain to soak up any positive news, be it hype or untainted fact.

I would guess that everyone reading this discussion is a self-assessed "seeker of the truth". Take a look at the article I wrote and, if you too see the importance of this issue, consider emailing it to your local newspeople. Perhaps some lives can be saved; doubtful, but possible.

-- Zach Anderson (zma@rocketmail.com), April 06, 1999.

The real verifiable report will occur after 2-1-2000.

-- Gearhead (2plus2@motown2.com), April 06, 1999.

It IS a SHAM!! The article you posted ignores is the following:

From the NERC Drill Preparations at: ftp://www.nerc.com/pub/sys/all_updl/docs/y2k/drill-preparation-strateg ies.pdf

7 What will the final report look like. Work backwards from this in the development of the drill procedures.

7 Do not make the drill to complex. We want to have a successful and meaningful story for publication.

To be fair they do claim to want to make it a real test, but I'm sorry, when you only do non-complex tests and write the report before the tests even occur, it's rigged. By the way, April 9th is a real Y2K problem date (it's the 99th day of the year 1999 or '9999'). Interesting that they chose this date to run drills, no?

-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), April 06, 1999.

Tech32

if you'll go to the url I posted you'll see that the author does in fact deal with both of those issues.

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), April 06, 1999.

Having read Arlin's stuff in the past, Tech32, either:

A) He has been replaced by space aliens.

B) He is in receipt of a large heavy bundle of gold Eagles.

C) He truly believes that the drill is a "Good Thing".

I vote (C).

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (reinzoo@en.com), April 07, 1999.

NERC's April 9 Y2K Drill: What It Is, And What It Is Not By E.L. Core April 6, 1999 We have known for some time that the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) has scheduled two Y2K drills this year; for example, NERC's January 11, 1999, report to the Department of Energy mentions them at least twice:

"Additionally, the industry is preparing to conduct two coordinated drills on April 9, 1999 and on September 89, 1999 to prepare for operations under Y2k conditions" (page ii).

"The industry will conduct a drill on April 9, 1999, aimed at operating with limited communications under simulated Y2k conditions" (page iv).

Let's take a look at the available documentation on the April 9th drill to find out more precisely what is, and what it is not. (Some of the documentation, in PDF format, is available at NERC Y2k Contingency Planning/Drills on the NERC website.)

It's a Drill of Procedures, Not a Test of Y2K Remediation

Here are two brief explanations of the event from NERC Y2K April 9, 1999 Drill Development Guide (dated February 22, 1999):

"This initial drill on April 9 focuses on the ability of bulk power systems to maintain critical voice and data exchange during a partial loss of primary voice and data communications systems. Participating entities will develop drill scenarios that assume the partial loss of voice and data communications. Loss of data communications is assumed to partially effect EMS/SCADA functionality. The scenarios will address maintaining acceptable communications in a simulated operating environment" (page 2).

"The intent of this drill is to implement an industry-wide exercise to demonstrate the ability to operate the bulk electric system with limited voice and data communications and reduced EMS/SCADA functionality. The drill may involve as few as several people or up to hundreds of people depending on the size of the organization and the scope of the scenarios. The drill itself should not interfere with or disrupt normal operations; instead it should run separately from and parallel to normal operations, if possible" (page 3).

So, the scheduled event is not a test of Y2K remediation: it is a drill of procedures to be followed in case of Y2K problems such as full or partial loss of communications, and of what might result in case of communications failures. Well, in a way it is a test -- a test of the procedures to be followed in case of failures -- but it is not a test of Y2K remediation.

That's the most important thing to remember about the electrical utilities' industry-wide event on April 9th: it is not a test of Y2K remediation. It is a drill of what procedures would be followed in case of Y2K-related communications failures.

Indeed, considering that different utilities are at different stages of remediation, it would be the greatest of follies to conduct an industry-wide test of Y2K preparedness at this time. Thank heaven that's not what they're doing.

The April 9th Event Is NOT a Sham

Some reactions to the planning of the April 9th drill have been based on several statements in Y2K Drill Preparations, a question-and- answer document at the NERC website in the form of bullet points (which is not linked to at the NERC Y2K Contingency Planning/Drills webpage). The first discussion question is this:

"The April 9 drill is intended to instill public confidence through success and at the same time be a real test of our ability to operate with limited communications capabilities. How can these two goals be balanced to provide the greatest value from the exercise?" (page 1)

The document -- on the face of it, a summary of issues discussed at a workshop -- also includes the following in a bullet point: "We want to have a successful and meaningful story for publication" (page 2).

Those two statements -- "The April 9 drill is intended to instill public confidence through success" and "We want to have a successful and meaningful story for publication" -- have been fastened upon by some as clear and indisputable proof that the electrical utilities are planning to perpetrate a fraud upon the public. That the April 9th event is a sham to fool the public into believing the industry is going to be ready for Y2K when the industry knows it won't be ready.

That does not really seem to be the case.

If -- I say if -- the April 9th event were a test of Y2K remediation -- then the Y2K Drill Preparations document would indeed be an indicator of collusion. But -- I say but -- the April 9th event is not a test of the success of some Y2K remediation, it is a drill in case of the failure of some Y2K remediation in telecommunications.

Far from being an event rigged to fool the public, the April 9th drill is part of exactly what we should hope the electrical utilities are doing: preparing and testing fall-back procedures to use in case of Y2K remediation failures.

But the April 9th Event IS a Show

Before you stand aghast and appalled, calling me a Supine Sycophantic Defender of the Establishment (which one could hardly do if one is familiar with my other essays on Y2K topics), let me explain what I have done here so far. I have established, as far as I can from available documentation, the real nature of the April 9th event. Having done so allows me to now level accurate criticism. What other way is there to level accurate criticism than to first establish, precisely and without prejudice, the nature of what one is examining?

While the drill is not a sham, it is at least as much a show as it is a drill.

The question-and-answer bullet points in the Y2K Drill Preparations document don't indicate fraud, but they do indicate that the utilities understand the public relations value of the drill, and that the utilities greatly desire the event to be a public-relations success as well as a successful drill. Who wouldn't?

Combined with other factors, the desire for positive PR must give us pause, at the least.

Jim Lord put one of the factors very well in his March 29th Westergaard column:

"NERC is a trade association for Pete's sake. Its board of directors is made up of 38 executives from the electrical utility industry. They have a built in bias to make the industry look good."

Despite that fact, and its obvious corollaries, the federal government is more than happy to let NERC run the show, as far as possible, in getting ready for Y2K; The Newsroom at Rick Cowles' Electric Utilities and Year 2000 website reported on March 8, 1999:

"The March 9 issue of Commerce Business Daily (GovCon.com) reports that the 'U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Management and Administration, intends to award a sole source (non-competitive) contract to the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) to access its unique knowledge of, and expertise in, electric utility industry reliability issues. This action is in support of the Department's industry oversight responsibilities to assure readiness for an uninterrupted transition at the Year 2000 boundary.' NERC will also support activities to independently validate and verify on a sample basis information that is self-reported to NERC and cooperating organizations on a confidential basis by the utility industry. This is pursuant to the Department's May 1, 1998 request that NERC coordinate Y2K readiness activities within the electric utility sector."

Sure, the EUY2K report mentions that "NERC will also support activities to independently validate and verify." There is not, however, the slightest indication in any of the available drill documentation that there will be any independent observation or verification of the drill when and where it is happening.

And, as one of the bullet points in the Y2K Drill Preparations document says, "Companies should have a clear definition of what success is and how to measure it" (page 4).

So, we now have other important things to remember about the April 9th drill:

The utilities want the drill to be a "success" so they can tell us it was a "success."

They themselves will have defined what "success" means.

They themselves will have determined whether they achieved "success."

There is no indication whatever that anybody else will be around, on site at the time, to say otherwise.

A sham? No. A show? Count on it.

What To Do With This Information

Now that we have a better understanding of what the April 9th event is, and what it is not, we know better what to look for in the news coverage:

Will it be called a "drill" (or, alternatively, a "simulation") more often than it's called a "test"?

Will it be called a "drill" as loudly as it's called a "success"?

Will the utilities and/or the media take pains to explain to the public that it's a "drill" of procedures, not a "test" of how well the utilities have fixed their software and hardware and firmware for Y2K?

As far as I can see, NERC's own documents almost invariably refer to the event as a drill, sometimes as an exercise, but not as a test. But there will, indeed, be a test of the utilities on April 9th: how accurately, precisely, and honestly the nature and results of the event are conveyed to the media and to the public.

Reality Check

How did we get into this situation? What would we think of a world in which students were assigned an essay, then allowed to define all the requirements -- subject, length, tone -- then allowed to write the papers among themselves, privately, then allowed to grade the papers among themselves, privately, then allowed to report the results to the teacher -- knowing that the results would (of course) influence the teacher's opinion of the students? What kind of wacked-out world would that be?

Can somebody please tell me, then, why we let the electrical utilities -- and ourselves -- live in just such a world?

An Aside on April 9, 1999, and September 9, 1999

NERC's Y2K drills coincide with supposed "trigger dates": the 99th day of the 99th year, and the ninth day of the ninth month of the 99th year. Indeed, considering that a drill, by its very nature, requires the exclusion of unknown factors lest its purpose be defeated, there is much speculation about why NERC chose two supposed "trigger dates" for holding the first-ever industry-wide drills. About that, I have no opinion. Unfortunately, though, the situation undeniably lends itself to accusations of ulterior motives.

But I have already discussed these dates at length in two articles: The Dreaded Nines: Will They Be So Bad? and More on The Dreaded Nines and Other Proverbial Dates. I would like, though, to briefly reassert my opinion in two respects:

April 9, 1999, will come and go without any date-related data- processing problems worth talking about; and whatever happens -- good or bad -- with data processing on April 9, 1999, it is no sure indicator of what will happen on and after January 1, 2000.

-- more (trying@to.help), April 07, 1999.

Whether Arlin's in category A, B, or C, I'm no further ahead now than I was when I read

"Work backwards from this in the development of the drill procedures.

and

We want to have a successful and meaningful story for publication.

It really doesn't take a lifetime of interpreting bureaucratic doublespeak to understand what's being said here. It's not even doublespeak, it's perfectly plain talk, specific orders to the troops.

It's rather depressing, though, that these people are less interested in the actual test ("Don't make it too complex") than in the press release they will be spinning out of it.

Even more depressing is the fact that the individuals making these decisions are (broadly speaking) our neighbors. We see them on the street, in their cars, in their offices, in their backyard playing with the dog, pruning the shrubbery on Saturday, in church on Sunday, at PTA meetings. They is us. (Credit Pogo with that one.)

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), April 07, 1999.

look folks, I didn't mean to suggest this was the be-all and end-all of testing...and yeah it's a show, but I guess my thought was that at least they're looking at the contingency planning response issue. that's all...guess I should have been clearer when I quoted the original article.

and no Chuck, no gold eagles at all...sigh...

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), April 07, 1999.

As I've said before, the problem that I have with this so called test is what the media reaction will be. If it is successful (almost cetrain), what will the headlines say on 4/10?

"POWER GRID PASSES Y2K TEST"

So, John Q. Public will read this, turn to the wife, and say "See honey, I told you this whole Y2K thing is a bunch of nonsense". This is the problem that I have with "instill public confidence through success" and "a successful and meaningful story for publication". <:(=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 07, 1999.

This is an AP article from today's San Diego Union-Tribune, which I'm sure will run in other papers in various forms:

U.S. power plants to get test of Y2K tomorrow Exercise will check telecom equipment

http://www.uniontrib.com/news/uniontrib/thu/index.html

Brief quote:

The drill -- which in some cases will involve engineers reporting data to each other on old-fashioned two-way radios -- tests only communications and will not affect the power grid that actually delivers the electricity to the nation's consumers.

"It's a limited-scope, totally simulated exercise that will run in parallel with normal operations," stresses Debra Durbin, spokeswoman for Northeast Utilities, New England's largest electricity supplier.

The article makes no bones about the fact that this is just a drill, which is excellent. Now if we could get this quality of reporting on other aspects of Y2K...

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), April 08, 1999.