Rick Cowles first blush response to GAO report on Electric Utilities

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

From the EUY2K forum at

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000jFs

Cowles' comments:

Link to GAO report (you must have Adobe reader):

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/ai99114.pdf

-- Rick Cowles (rcowles@waterw.com), April 16, 1999. _____________

'Just passin' it on. . .

:) I'm going to take a look at it - but based on the CNN FN report, it looks like more of the same. Just the raw figures quoted by GAO on the CNN FN site lead me to believe that it's based on some old news.

-- Rick Cowles (rcowles@waterw.com), April 16, 1999.

Whoo. I was wrong - this is *not* "more of the same". While some of the information is based on aged data that denizens of this forum are already familiar with, there's definately some new information. Let me say this up front:

Joel Willamsen of GAO has been one of the few governmental pit bulls on Y2k. I honestly expected him to get the czar position last year, not John Koskenin.

I'm slogging through the entire GAO report as I type. I already have some problems with the report (it isn't deep enough, and totally neglects the impact of IPP's, Independent Power Producers). But please consider putting this immediately in your "required reading" file, whether you are an industry insider or lay person. I'll be commenting shortly; this will also be synopsized in the newsroom as soon as I wade through it.

Looks like I have a busy weekend ahead. Darn, and I have to mow the grass, till the garden (before anyone jumps on me, I grow tomatoes, beans and peppers every year), and walk the dog, too...

Again, the link to the GAO report is at:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/ai99114.pdf

You must have Adobe reader installed to read this document.

-- Rick Cowles (rcowles@waterw.com), April 16, 1999.

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), April 17, 1999

Answers

Something strange happened when I tried to post Cowles' comments. (They were interspersed with mine) Anyway: here goes again:

Cowles' comments:

Link to GAO report (you must have Adobe reader):

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/ai99114.pdf

I'm going to take a look at it - but based on the CNN FN report, it looks like more of the same. Just the raw figures quoted by GAO on the CNN FN site lead me to believe that it's based on some old news.

-- Rick Cowles (rcowles@waterw.com), April 16, 1999.

Whoo. I was wrong - this is *not* "more of the same". While some of the information is based on aged data that denizens of this forum are already familiar with, there's definately some new information. Let me say this up front: Joel Willamsen of GAO has been one of the few governmental pit bulls on Y2k. I honestly expected him to get the czar position last year, not John Koskenin.

I'm slogging through the entire GAO report as I type. I already have some problems with the report (it isn't deep enough, and totally neglects the impact of IPP's, Independent Power Producers). But please consider putting this immediately in your "required reading" file, whether you are an industry insider or lay person. I'll be commenting shortly; this will also be synopsized in the newsroom as soon as I wade through it.

Looks like I have a busy weekend ahead. Darn, and I have to mow the grass, till the garden (before anyone jumps on me, I grow tomatoes, beans and peppers every year), and walk the dog, too...

Again, the link to the GAO report is at:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/ai99114.pdf

You must have Adobe reader installed to read this document.

-- Rick Cowles (rcowles@waterw.com), April 16, 1999.

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), April 17, 1999.


Thanks for posting Rick's comments. I check his forum, but not very often. It realy helps when somebody like you tells us about the important posts there - thanks!

-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@Anonymous99.xxx), April 17, 1999.

Thanks FM,

will wait with baited breath for Monday - hope it's good news but I'm not baiting my.. oh, never mind

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 17, 1999.


Y'all are most welcome!

:)

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), April 17, 1999.


Well, I had just started to let go of being so mad on the other GAO-util thread ..... but I'm ready to heat up at a moments notice. May not have time to read GAO report today. Keep us updated, FM.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 17, 1999.


Pg. 28 of report.

**************************

While the electric power industry has made substantial progress in making its equiptment and systems ready to continue operations into the Year 2000, significant risks remain. According to NERC's survey, the industry Year 2000 readiness target date of June 1999 is expected to be missed by

46 percent of the reporting bulk power entities

20 of 66 nuclear power plants,

26 percent of municipal distributors, and

10 percent of cooperative distributors.

******************* This doesn't look good kids.

-- LM (latemarch@usa.net), April 17, 1999.


FYI guys, I can't hope to differentiate the "old" info from the "new" info in the GAO report. Since Rick Cowles has immersed himself in this issue, I'll just check his newsroom for his analysis. Here's hoping his tilling goes fast or--maybe it'll rain! :)

Here's where it should show up:

http://www.euy2k.com/newsroom.htm

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), April 17, 1999.


What isn't clear is the nature of the missed target dates.

As I understand it, some utilities will still have remediation to complete at that time, while others are ready to test during their next scheduled outage, which just happens to be later than June.

I wonder how many utilities fall into which categories.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 17, 1999.


Flint is correct. What is starting to be of critical importance is the reason for missing the deadline. Its a lot different if some just finished assessment and are starting remediation versus not getting the Coke machine passed of as compliant.

-- RD. ->H (drherr@erols.com), April 17, 1999.

My .02 suggests that it is equally important if we ARE talking about a Coke machine or an electric plant! Priority to the most vital systems should become national policy (with $$$ support), not just the domain of private enterprise.

OK, time for political flames.... 5,4,3,2,1... go.

-- Sara Nealy (keithn@aloha.net), April 17, 1999.



Oh come on, RD. Your coke machine comment was not very constructive.

You ought to know what the NERC guidelines are regarding 'exceptions'. I don't recall seeing anything resembling coke machine compliance in their guidelines. But seriously, this needs to be taken a bit more seriously.

"Recognizing this, the NERC monthly Y2k reporting status will be modified beginning with the January 1999 reports...to allow reporting of specific exceptions....The exceptions will be reviewed by NERC Y2k project staff for reasonableness and reliability impact on operations into the Year 2000....It is essential that the 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.

-- (mass@delusions.com), April 17, 1999.


By this point I don't care very much what I read. Recently the Director of our state Public Utilities Commission purchased a large generator for his personal use. Actions speak much more loudly than words. Hold on for the ride of a lifetime!!!

-- Zev Paiss (zpaiss@earthlink.net), April 17, 1999.

From Yahoo Y2K News April 17, 1999 <:)=

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The lights are at risk of going out in parts of the United States on New Years Day because some of the nation's utilities are still far behind in making sure their computers will work in 2000, a government report said Friday.

The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, said more needs to be done to ensure the computers of electric utilities don't confuse the last two ``00'' digits in 2000 as the year 1900.

``While the electric power industry has reported that it has made substantial progress in making its equipment and systems ready to continue operations in the Year 2000, significant risks remain,'' the GAO said.

The agency pointed out that in response to a survey last November, the nation's electric power utilities said they were only 44 percent complete in testing and fixing their computers.

In addition, almost half of the utilities, including those that operate 20 nuclear power plants, said they didn't expect their computers would be ready by the June 1999 target date set by the industry.

``About one-sixth of the respondents indicated they would not be ready until the last three months of 1999 -- leaving little time margin for resolving unexpected problems,'' the GAO warned.

There are about 3,200 electric utilities in the United States with about 700 of them operating power generating facilities.

Computers are critical to utilities for monitoring circuit breakers and relays on high voltage transmission lines that carry the nation's electricity supply.

``Resolution of Year 2000 problems in control systems and equipment used in the electric power industry is essential for a dependable supply of electricity necessary for transportation, industrial operations, home heating and other activities that affect our daily lives,'' the GAO said.

The GAO urged the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to work more closely with utilities that are behind in their computer repairs.

The NRC should also publicly disclose the Year 2000 readiness status of each of the nation's nuclear reactors, the report recommended. The NRC said it plans to do that in July.

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 17, 1999.


At this point I think Big Dog had it right in the other thread. Really guys, what difference does it make at this point? Arguments about terminology, timeframes, drop dead deadlines, who cares? The only thing that would make any of the _very late_ reports significant is if high percentages of the companies involved began to report compliance - an even that would only be a start because of the cloud of unknowing surrounding embedded systems.

These reports, their in depth analysis, the forum response to both, shrug - I just can't see that it makes one whit of difference unless you are collecting material to write a blow by blow book on how y2k came on.

As one person noted, actions speak louder than words. Whether it is a PUC buying their own generator, or various UtilCo's including warning in their bills - those are Loud & Clear Actions!

I predict that I'll be 100% correct in this prediction: Not a single one of these reports, and there will be more of them over the weeks and months, will contain within them the "holy y2k grail" that so many seem to be looking for. Not a single one of them is going to tell us what is going to happen come y2k. You have to figure that out for yourself, and there is already an enormous number of pages of reports which have said, ballpark, just about what the reports are still saying.

Rick will give his analysis on Monday, or whenever, but what difference will it make, other than to provide yet another topic for Forum discussion in which people will commiserate and yank each other's chains.

-- Mitchell Barnes (spanda@inreach.com), April 17, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ