Power firms face Y2K woes

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

from c.s.y2k today:

Power firms face Y2K woes CNNfn

NEW YORK (CNNfn) - The nation's electric power utilities have completed only 44 percent of Year 2000-related preparedness and testing, giving rise to concerns about the possibility of widespread power failures as the new year approaches, according to a government report.

The General Accounting Office (GAO) also reported that 46 of the participating organizations said they don't expect to be Y2K ready by the industry's June target date.

Furthermore, 16 percent of those organizations said they don't expect to be Y2K- compliant until the fourth quarter of 1999.


Recently, an imbecile sauntered in here and asked why I thought it was worse now than a year ago.

A year ago, there was at least the PIPE DREAM that enough could be done in time. And now, we have the same old pattern of IT failure right in front of our eyes. First they missed the Dec 31st deadline, leaving a full year for testing. Now they have missed the March 31st deadline and next they are now admitting that they will not make the NEXT deadline. They claim they will finish up towards the end of the year. LOL LOL LOL

This is standard. Testing is OVER half the job and they are not even to that stage yet.

Only submoronic, cretinous, self-decieved, imbeciles fail to see the handwriting on the wall. And this is in the US, supposedly one of the MOST advanced. Now consider the state of utilities globally.

The bottom line is that UNIVERSALLY, the IT METRICS will not be proven mistaken at this juncture. Only 15% of projects of this scope and magnitude will accomplish what they set out to do. The other 85% will experience varying rates of failure. This is nothing upon which to base even a remotely optimistic opinion. Not with utilities mising deadline after deadline after deadline.

-- Paul Milne

-- a (a@a.a), April 19, 1999


What? Us worry???


They'll fix it in time. I have a good feeling about it.

There's too much at stake for them to let the lights go out.

They'll find a way.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), April 19, 1999.

"A": As has been discussed on several other threads, this is probably based on old news....within a month, NERC will be issuing an updated report through March, 1999, and I think you'll see much progress. All the major utilities I talk to are essentially complete with testing and remediation, and will certainly be 100% complete before 1/1/2000.

Dan the Power Man

-- Dan (dgman19938@aol.com), April 19, 1999.


It's all fixed already.

Dan said so.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), April 19, 1999.

Let's see, the NERC report (self reporting) is expected to show amazing progress, even if that mean old GAO did file a nasty report.

Does this mean NERC personnel have completed their crash course from the William Jefferson Clinton College of Prevarication?

Ah, yes, Dan, you are a smooth one. So much slicker than the bank shills. Yes, the power companies will get their money's worth from you.

-- not impressed by (dans@shill.com), April 19, 1999.

Dan: If so, I would suggest that your industry get on the stick and relay this positive info to the GAO and business press.

The URL for the story, dated 4/16/99, is http://cnnfn.com/digitaljam/9904/16/y2k_electricity/index.htm

On a related note, you never replied to my repeated requests for you to divulge the power company that you work for which you claim is 100% y2k ready. Why the secrecy if you, as you said, "do not have anything to hide"?

-- a (a@a.a), April 19, 1999.

You guys are too much.

This old GAO report is largely based on what NERC said back then. At the time, utilities had a ways to go, NERC said so, GAO reported this, and you guys take this is good, hard evidence of big trouble.

Soon, NERC is expected to issue a report showing much progress. Suddenly, NERC goes from being gospel to being a shill! Amazing.

Hey, I'm being asked to accept Hamasaki's rumors based on his credentials. So here we have Milne the Pig Farmer saying things will be bad, and Dan the Power Man saying otherwise. Credentials? I guess they only count if you like what you hear. Otherwise, experts become shills and pig farmers become experts!

Pretty sorry commentary, folks. Sounds like the doomboobs are getting a little desperate around the edges.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 19, 1999.

Flint (or Flinty, as your buddy Cory calls you),

Can you not read ASCII text? Did you not see that it was not the lowly pig farmer that reported this curious bit of bad news but rather, CNN Financial News Network?

Now Flint, do you know who CNNfn is? I didn't think so, you dumb ass. Did you also see today that NASDAQ posted its 2nd largest point drop ever and the pundits are partially blaming Y2K? I didn't think so, you dipshit.

Now run along, finish taking the rest of your cash from the bank, as you say you will, or already have done, and stop dissuading people to prepare by distorting the facts.

And when your asshole partner Dan the Power Ranger is ready to respond to my 6th request for the name of his 100% y2k ready utility, I'm waiting.

-- a (a@a.a), April 19, 1999.

Flint, you make alot of sense.

-- Joe Six-Pack (Average@Joe.Blow), April 19, 1999.

Here's another point for you Joe-Six-Pac..er, Flint:

I KNOW that Milne is a Pig Farmer. I DO NOT KNOW Dan works at the power company. See how that works Flint? Verifiable things are called


like we know Mr. Milne (his real name) farms pigs, cause we seen them on that there TV thingy.

Things like where the nebulous "Dan" (a fake name) works are


Can your big brain grasp the difference Flint? BTW, got all your cah out of the bank yet?

-- a (a@a.a), April 19, 1999.

Here Flinty, more "hot air" from the "pig farmer":


Let there be light? Maybe not. Utilities not ready for Y2K

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.


Recently some knucklehead in here posted how much better things seem now than they did a year ago. LOL LOL

A year ago they were laughing at the idea of any electrical outages at all. Now, It is clear that they admit that lights will go out in at least portions of the country. And six months from now that will morph into "power will be out in signifigant numbers of areas". And that again will turn into something worse.

Every step of the way the deadlines have been missed and still the sub-moronic imbeciles do not understand that this is par for the course in any **FAILED** IT effort.

And yet the wishful think, nay, the 'magical' thinking prevails in the human heart.

Even though the deadlines are continually missed and no project of this scale could be globally successfull, everything will be OK, except for 'minor' inconveniences.

-- Paul Milne

-- a (a@a.a), April 19, 1999.

What's all this about old data? How old, 30 days, 60 days, 150 days, before the Senate report? All of this great work has been done in just a few months, after a few years of trying? Oh yea, that's right, they got a late start, silly me. This is starting to sound just like the .gov, making all this fantastic progress in such a short time. Believe me, I'm waiting for all these reports that Dan keeps talking about... <:)=

PS - Why is this showing up with a 4/16 date on CNN, Infoseek, Yahoo etc. etc. if it's so old? You don't thing they're trying to scare people, do you?

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 19, 1999.

Anybody know why I always type thing when I mean think? I don't have an accent...
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 19, 1999.


The GAO report was up on the site on the 16th, which is probably why CNN reported it then. It was dated the 6th and has some NERC figures dating from late last year.

I just try to remember that NERC is a trade organization and members self-report.


Power firms face Y2K woes--GAO report says nearly half of electric utilities will miss preparation deadline

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

Or ...

Rick Cowles first blush response to GAO report on Electric Utilities

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

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), April 20, 1999.

Power co. needs to keep up show till it's to late, There worried, too. With all generator sales, people ready to "Get off Line" This month bill at my shack $58.00, this will be the last one. I hope the sun keeps me charged.

-- See ya (F@ir.well), April 20, 1999.

Thanks Diane. I've been following both threads, but haven't had a chance to read the full report yet, maybe later this week. Swamped with work, big sigh. I'm wondering why it's in the news now, with such "old" data. The Senate report seems to already have covered much of this. Also wondering about the great progress being cited by Dan, CJS, Hoff and others. Oh well, I'll shut up at least 'til I read the report. See ya! <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 20, 1999.

Dan -- "All the major utilities I talk to are essentially complete with testing and remediation, and will certainly be 100% complete before 1/1/2000."

It seems odd that this good word has not percolated up to the Dept. of Defense -- they will be glad to hear it.

Check out this Army presentation: Electric Power Systems in North America, dated February 1999.

And threads here discussing it:


-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), April 20, 1999.

Lost one of the threads I meant to include there for Dan-- see http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000jn1

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), April 20, 1999.

You know what bugs me most about Paul Milne?

His insults always make me laugh.

And his logic usually works for me.

I don't want to be like him, I don't want to feel doomed, I don't want to -- well you get the idea.

But damn it, every time I see something from him like the little posts above, I'm reading along thinking, "Yes, yes, hahaha, yes..." and then I see his name at the bottom.

I think in my head I have categorized him into the "extreme" group, and I don't consider myself there, so I keep wondering why I keep agreeing with him.

That really bugs me.

PJ in TX

-- PJ Gaenir (fire@firedocs.com), April 20, 1999.


Flames are hot today...but glad to see you posting re: electric. Our electric company tested...really tested...and was y2k ok!! I know, I know...spin you say, spin...sorry ya all! not spin on this one! A-ok!!!!! Really Really Good news!!!!!! SMile! It's ok to have electric come 1/2000!!!!! (I still believe in preps though! So relax, and don't overwork those fingers that are itching to type those nasties! :>)

-- Moore Dinty moore (not@thistime.com), April 20, 1999.

PS..... It wasn't April 9th!

-- Moore Dinty moore (not@thistime.com), April 20, 1999.


Yes, you may want to actually read the report before commenting on it. Additionally, I haven't cited the utilities great progress (you may want to refrain from putting words in my mouth: I think its called spin)- I pointed out (on another thread) that the report uses information from November of 1998. When you read the GAO report, you will see that, several times.

Moreover, any progress on this forum is summarily dismissed. Even if someone were to show documents with testing results, the people on this forum would simply say that they were all lies. The bottom line is that you are searching for information that backs up your position of disaster, and dismissing anything that refutes it.

Hey a,

Does a utility need to be 100% Y2K ready in order to ensure continuity of operations? I assume that you know. You seem to be an expert on everything.

-- CJS (onandon@andon.com), April 20, 1999.

"The bottom line is that you are searching for information that backs up your position of disaster, and dismissing anything that refutes it." -- CJS

No, CJS.

Many of us are searching for the "truth" of the situation. Or as much of the truth that can be gleaned within our limited online searching capabilities. Personally, I would LOVE to see lot's of accurate, verifiable GOOD NEWS. Problem is, we're NOT.

When my electric company, PG&E sends out a statement IN EVERY CUSTOMERS BILL last month saying they are "working on" compliance BUT it would be a good idea to prepare because they can't GUARANTEE their services ... well, I take notice.

PG&E's Y2K Statement In Latest Bill (& California Energy Links)

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

I will listen to them, rather than you too.

Diane Far more than NERC's self-reporting "good news."

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), April 20, 1999.


Has anyone on this forum proven that the NERC has been lying? Some people are searching for the truth. Others here seem to be more intent on creating their own truth. I'm glad that you are searching for the truth. You don't seem to be arrogant some like some of the others, who make determinations on what will happen in the future without really knowing.

Also- How come bad news doesn't have to be accurate and verifiable? Why isn't it held to the same standards as good news? Many times, it appears that opinions on bad news are treated as facts.

At no point did I ask you to listen me. I am preparing as well. Certainly not to the extent that you are, but far moreso than what the Red Cross, FEMA, and Peter DeJager recommend. My preparation is done calmly, and based upon the uncertainty of the situation. I do not prognosticate, as so many others seem to do. So far, the prognosticators appear to be wrong, although that does not insure that they will be wrong in the future.

-- CJS (onandon@andon.com), April 20, 1999.

The salesman, faced with telling the client that the new process control computer would be 6 months late, sulked out. At the door, he whirled and pointed to us: "I know you programmers, AND IF THE SOFTWARE HAS SLIPPED THIS FAR, IT'LL SLIP ALL THE WAY!!"

-- K Stevens (Kstevens@the wheels are comming off this puppy.com), April 20, 1999.

CJS: I just penned your name in my "rational" little black book.

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), April 20, 1999.


Let's see if I can get this right for once.

If NERC ever said there were problems, this proves y2k will be very bad. If NERC now says those problems have been fixed, this proves NERC reports are self-reported whitewashes, and y2k will *still* be very bad.

If huge amounts are being spent for remediation, this proves y2k will be very bad. However, if huge amounts are NOT being spent, this *also* proves y2k will be very bad.

If someone known to have no credentials says y2k will be bad, this proves y2k will be very bad. If someone actively involved in testing says otherwise,' we can't trust his credentials and y2k will *still* be very bad. Unless someone suspected of real knowledge says things will be bad. Then the credentials can be accepted at face value, and y2k will be very bad.

If a UK government official says financial institutions are in bad shape, this proves y2k will be very bad. If a government official says financial instutions are in good shape, this proves government officials are liars and y2k will *still* be very bad.

If XYZ corp. hasn't announced compliance, this proves y2k will be very bad. If XYZ says they're in good shape, this is self-reporting and y2k will *still* be very bad. If XYZ has undergone IV&V and says they're ready, it doesn't count because they rely on infrastructure and vendors, and because XYZ is only one outfit, so y2k will *still* be very bad.

If spike dates had caused real problems, this is proof y2k will be very bad. If there weren't such problems, this proves that spike dates didn't really matter, and y2k will *still* be very bad.

Hey, this is fun! I'm glad you showed me the path to clear thinking.

Oh yes, almost forgot. Juvenile name-calling emphasizes how smart you are. I still need work on that part.

CJS: You've got the local thinking in a nutshell. Welcome to the medicine show.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 20, 1999.

Another thing Mr. Pig Farmer gets wrong: Fixing any power generation and distribution problems is NOT an IT project but really an engineering project. You can't compare that to so-called IT Metrics for data processing projects.

Doomslayer If you live within 5 miles of Paul Milne, you're as crazy as he is.

-- Doomslayer (1@2.3), April 20, 1999.

The trolls-plus-flint are out in full force. Gee, this GAO report must be REALLY bad news.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 20, 1999.

Ok Flint. Whatever. Now tell us again, why exactly are you planning on taking all your money out of the bank? If you are so sure Dan the Power Man and Bob the Banking Shill are reliable, why the need to take such drastic steps?

CJS: I never said I was an expert on power. I said I trust the GAO more than NERC, just as I trust the GAO more than FAA, and the GAO more than DoD. And you should too, unless you fail to understand the fallacy of self reporting.

-- a (a@a.a), April 20, 1999.


Read the GAO report again. Much of the information (including the 44% tested and compliant number) is taken from the NERC report of January 11, 1999, which uses information current through November of 1998. It says this several times in the report. READ IT!

-- CJS (onandon@andon.com), April 20, 1999.

CJS -- Here is something simple enough that it is possible you might be able to understand it:

the utilities are already six to twelve months behind where they should have been with Y2K. They're not alone, alas, but they are behind, taken as an industry (and it's worse, taking util worldwide)


they are culpably arrogant in their manipulative efforts to communicate "progress" to citizens

Arguing about a few percentage points, which are themselves absurd, is not germane to the basic point. Hopefully, we'll have uninterrupted power next year. If so, it won't excuse the obstacle course which this industry placed in front of everyone, including the government.

I repeat (lest, despite all, this can't be understood):

the utility industry is late and arrogant. Even some of its defenders are candid enough to admit the obvious. This happens to infuriate me, because, among other things, it means that my local coop, which can't get honest answers from NYSEG even though they are prime NYSEG customers, have to advise local citizens of modest means to buy generators and otherwise protect themselves against uncertainty that (so say the pollys) doesn't "really" exist.

No doubt this is too "simple" for you but it is readily and immediately understandable by dairy farmers at our local diner in this poor rural community: "NYSEG is screwing us."

What about this is beyond you?

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 20, 1999.


Neat insults. You may want to read a little more and assume a little less. When I initially posted about the GAO report, others were contending that it was based on newer information. I said that it was old news. That, for the most part, remains true. The GAO did some independent assessments of their own, from August of 1998 through February of 1999.

I am fully aware that the utilities are behind where they should be. It is not beyond me, nor at any point did I question that. Did I? Nor did I say that there were no problems, as your brain would lead you to believe.

a stated that he trusts the GAO more than he trusts the NERC. In my most recent post, I pointed out that the GAO that he trusts more than the NERC is using the old NERC numbers for the GAO report.

Why does that bother you so much?

I have not had the same problems with my local power company that you have had. Commonwealth Edison (Chicago) has a website with charts and graphs showing remediation status, and they say that they are about 92% complete. They have put out several press releases and have spoken candidly on the subject. Of course, they are probably lying, right?

-- CJS (onandon@andon.com), April 20, 1999.

CJS --- I don't know. Sometimes, arrogance equals lying, sometimes not. Good luck with your paternalistic friends over there.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 20, 1999.


Why the heck don't all of those dairy farmers already have generators? Seems to me it should be standard equipment on a dairy farm.

-- Doomslayer (1@2.3), April 20, 1999.

Doomslayer --- That IS a fair question and the local lectric coop makes this very point with local famers alongside of the Y2K concerns. Any dairy farmer who doesn't have a genset is truly nuts, really. However, there are obviously lots of non-farmers up here too who fall under the curse of all this uncertainty. BTW, the coop has taken some of its scarce capital and bought some large generators just to be a help to the community if things go south. Which goes to show there are exceptions to the arrogance ......

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 20, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ