Can you believe that they want to get money for a problem that never was?

Utility wants rate surcharge to cover Y2K costs Something doesn't match up here to me... If it's business as usual, then it should be money as usual... Shouldn't it?

-- Anonymous, May 11, 1999

Answers

The cost has trippled, but only half has been spent. Now we are done. But.... wait a minute.... What are you doing with that money?
http://www.y2knewswire. com/19990512.htm
How stupid do they think I am?

-- Anonymous, May 11, 1999

Reporter,

Do you really need an answer for your question?

When you go to the doctor with a potential health problem, you pay the doctor regardless of the outcome. Why should Y2K be any different.

Most of the Y2K cost is in the assessment/testing phase. That money is gone forever regardless whether a utility finds big Y2K problems or just a lot of minor problems.

You aren't suggesting that no one should have even tried looking for Y2K problems, are you?

bob

-- Anonymous, May 11, 1999

Bob, actual I do, in the sense that the trade associations (or IEEE, or ASCE, or whatever) should have determined a long time ago where the effort was needed. An enormous amount of time and money and worry and consternation might have been averted. It was the only responsible way to proceed, and they blew it!

-- Anonymous, May 12, 1999

Bob,

They are *still* holding the money for a problem that doesn't exist. They have only spent about half. I say give it back.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 1999

Reporter,

This is typical of regulated utility cost recovery processes. The regulatory agency, politically motivated to keep customer costs down regardless of some of the long term risk to the customer, do things like freeze rates. Investor owned utilities must get operating funds, for unanticipated or special situations, from either the customer (rate increase), the investor (lower returns), or the banks (short term loans). What investor or bank would be interested in investing in a company with a fixed rate of return well below the stock market rate of return, that also has its rates frozen. Few outside of the pension funds etc. who have a very long term investment focus that would even look twice let alone buy (or loan money to) a dog like that. The Utilitys alternative is to cut operating costs. This means the people who climb the poles to get your power back after it goes out. People are the biggest operating cost other than fuel for a vertically integrated electric and gas utility. Responders seem to suggest that rather than pay for the assessment and remediation work expended in good faith on their behalf, they would rather force the utility to take actions which would save them money now but increase their risk come winter. There is no free lunch. I also am not saying that the rate relief is justified in this particular case, believe me, the regulator will want to see plenty of justification for why anyone should have not anticipated the year 2000 in a rate case that closed in 1997 before anyone gets billed anything above the current set rates.

As for EEI, NEI, NERC etc being able to assess much of anything as it relates to what is in use in the field. Good Luck. That is not what they have traditionally been doing. Tens of years, thousands of vendors, lowest bidders, patches and enhancements. What one common entity could proclaim all is well from that basis? Who would accept the proclamation as fact?

I have addressed the cash flow issue for IT projects in this forum in the past. For contracted projects, the big bucks often come at the end. Usually if you dont hold out at least 1/3 of the entire project cost nothing ever gets done  done. You do not buy the seats for the underlying data base etc. until you need them and those costs often are deferred until just prior to putting the new computer system into production. Remember, they have to borrow money to cover costs not previously covered in rates that they are using to bill the customer today. They try not to do this early because that means higher interest payments. For imbedded stuff, they dont pay for what theyve ordered until they receive it , inspect it, QA it etc. Some of those items are still in the fulfillment process because plant and system outages are taken in low load periods (usually the spring and fall).

OOPS Sorry just fell off my lurking perch.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 1999

Brooks,

As already stated, the trade associations weren't the right people to be responsible for an issue like Y2K. I put more "blame" on those who hyped the embedded Y2K problem without backing it up with facts. Their most common statement was "Embedded devices cause infrastructure issues due to Y2K problems, but I can't publicly identify a single specific example because (insert lame reason here)". The biggest reason this was so necessary was to support the scientific process. It is too easy to screw up a Y2K test, and see a system failure, when in fact all you had was a faulty test procedure or a concurrent non-Y2K problem. This resulted in people thinking something existed that didn't, sort of like "cold fusion".

Reporter,

I never said the Y2K problem doesn't exist at all. It should be obvious that the Y2K problem in software that deals with date manipulation is very real. In high level DCSs and SCADA systems it can be real (but pretty rare for problems that affect functionality. In the lower level embedded devices, it has turned out that functionality is never* lost, but know one knew that until most of us had nearly completed Y2K testing.

*someone, some where, some time, might find an exception, but no one has yet.

bob

-- Anonymous, May 12, 1999

Brooks, I am not sure what trade groups you hold responsible for the y2k problem, remember that a huge % of the problem, mainly away from embedded chips granted, is that computer systems and a lot of the hardware have way out lived there expected live cycles. Software packages that where written in 1985 with a life cycle of 10 years maimum are still in production, so it appears that a lot of money is being spent now to replace this software, but it is only money that should have been spent 5 years ago. the only difference is that lucky poepe like me get to charge more because of the panic!! graham Graham

-- Anonymous, May 13, 1999

What about the accounting and billing programs, etc.? I would think that updating or replacing these types of programs would be a major undertaking for power and telephone companies. They won't cause any power failures in January, but if employees and vendors can't be paid, correct bills cannot be issued, and supplies cannot be replinished, service will be affected within a few weeks.

I am wondering if we aren't focusing too much on embedded systems, and not enough on mainframe computer systems that are required for ongoing operations.

-- Anonymous, May 13, 1999

Will anybody try to get their money back for unused generator, and dehydrated strawberries from the folks selling Y2K prep kits? Just a thought.

Main point is Danny's post. It illustrates the self-sustaining nature of this problem. Of the radical gloom and doomers (I am not suggesting anyone here is of this category, and I wasn't really aware they existed until a link of this forum went to "Timebomb" last week) a widespread, simultaneous, catastrophic electric power system failure is necessary as a catlyst to support a domino effect in societal infrastructure.

Because the classical Y2K problem is an IT/computer code function and utilities don't have much in power production/delivery systems, the embedded chip became the greatest threat. Thus the big Y2K testing programs.

When perceptions are beginning to accept that the utility tests are REALLY proving the embedded chips issue to be incapable of creating the catastrophic failures necessary to support the domino, then they shift the public focus to avoid the testing successes. "OK, but what about fuel delivery." When it turns out that embedded chips are at the heart of that issue also, the "OK, but what about telecom?". NERC drill demonstrates that the utils can operate even in the (unlikely) event of a telecom failure, now - back office systems.

I won't speak about industries or aspects of utils that I am not directly involved in, but it seems the arguments are becoming circular.

-- Anonymous, May 13, 1999

cl wrote:

> a widespread, simultaneous, catastrophic electric power > system failure is necessary as a catlyst to support a > domino effect in societal infrastructure.

Well, actually, no. It's certainly sufficient, but not necessary. I suspect that there are a lot of things that could cause a complete collapse, including:

- world-wide super-plague - large asteroid impact - nuclear war - economic collapse

Any of the above could cause a collapse of the grid by indirect means, and all but that last includes large numbers of deaths directly.

Last fall, I thought the chances of a direct, full, grid collapse were pretty high. Now I think it's probably under 5%, which is still much too high for my comfort. But an indirect, delayed collapse -- well, that's a whole different can of worms. I can't put a percentage on it, but my intuition says it has a pretty good chance of happening as a result of widespread Y2K problems in various segments of the infrastructure, as well as overseas problems.

CL, I know you don't believe Y2K is going to cause any bad problems. I wish you well with your life, because you have to live with the consequences of your decisions.

Today, I took delivery of my solar/wind system, and I'm a happy boy. While it costs about the same as a middle-line generator ($2000), I don't need to worry about gas or diesel, it's mostly quiet, and for the most part low-maintence.

Also, given the rural location where we live, it will be ideal for normal power outages.

If Y2K is a bump in the road, I'm planning on building a new house in a couple years, and it will be fully off-grid, with solar, wind, and possibly micro-hydro as well if the location is right.

Jon

-- Anonymous, May 13, 1999

When perceptions are beginning to accept that the utility tests are REALLY proving the embedded chips issue to be incapable of creating the catastrophic failures necessary to support the domino, then they shift the public focus to avoid the testing successes. "OK, but what about fuel delivery." When it turns out that embedded chips are at the heart of that issue also, the "OK, but what about telecom?". NERC drill demonstrates that the utils can operate even in the (unlikely) event of a teleco

I won't speak about industries or aspects of utils that I am not directly involved in, but it seems the arguments are becoming circular.

cl,

you are a bright guy...why can't you get it? it is a circular problem, it keeps on going round and round and round. the problem is systemic. can you can isolate your knee from your leg and still walk correctly? no, you limp along, at best, with the help of crutches. is this life as you know it? no!

the electrical industry is dependent upon many other industries in order to fuction. and please, do not speak about business as usual in the event that you are required to go manual. the human error factor increases the risk exponentially. and the longer the electrical industry has to operate in this fashion...the higher the risk.

as for the embedded chip problem being a non issue, call the cio at general motors.

i can't find the results of the 4/9/99 test, but if i remember correctly they had their fair share of glitches.

I won't speak about industries or aspects of utils that I am not directly involved in, but it seems the arguments are becoming circular.

-- Anonymous, May 13, 1999

marianne,

>you are a bright guy

Thanks,I think.

>...why can't you get it? it is a circular problem, it keeps on going round and round and round.

No, the arguments go around and around. Joke: God was handing out brains and the Y2K fanatic thought he said trains, and he said "give me one that goes round, and round and round" (grin)

>the problem is systemic. can you can isolate your knee from your leg and still walk correctly? no, you limp along, at best, with the help of crutches. is this life as you know it? no!

Utilities have long know and engineered a highly interdependent system. This is not news to us, nor is it relevant to the argument.

>the electrical industry is dependent upon many other industries in order to fuction. and please, do not speak about business as usual in the event that you are required to go manual.

Never said it was business as usual - just business like it was prior to about 1980 or so. We can do it, have practiced doing it, and will have the forces deployed necessary to do iteven though we won't need to do it.

>the human error factor increases the risk exponentially.

Risk of what? You sound sure of your assessment. Got data?

>and the longer the electrical industry has to operate in this fashion...the higher the risk.

I can agree with this one. Maintenance people used to operate SCADA manually will not be able to maintain stuff while being meter reader/radio operators. But, there isn't a certainty of a human induced trip. The system doesn't need minute by minute switching today. Manual operation of switching is pretty common now because disconnects must be manually operated in conjunction with remotely operated breakers.

>as for the embedded chip problem being a non issue, call the cio at general motors.

How many megawatts do they generate, transmit and distribute? We didn't find any and we're 98% complete.

>i can't find the results of the 4/9/99 test, but if i remember correctly they had their fair share of glitches.

Try the Bill Clinton honesty in communications website. There were no failures to operate without external telecom, only areas where efficiencies and adjustments could be made. (poor radio coverage, need for efficient jargon, report by exception protocols etc.)

-- Anonymous, May 13, 1999

cl,

Utilities have long know and engineered a highly interdependent system. This is not news to us, nor is it relevant to the argument.

yes, it is relevant. the body i was refering to has the electrical utilities for the nervous system, the mouth is the telecommunications system, the legs are the oil industry[keeps you going] if the leg is not functioning properly neither is the rest of the body. how can the industry supply electricity without fuel? this problem is not as simple as you tend to make it appear.

Never said it was business as usual - just business like it was prior to about 1980 or so. We can do it, have practiced doing it, and will have the forces deployed necessary to do it...even though we won't need to do it

how often does this 'well honed' manual approach to running a power plant, for a 'protracted' period of time, take place? often enough that it is second nature and no one has to think.

Risk of what? You sound sure of your assessment. Got data?

reread your industry reports on the TMI 'partial' meltdown.

How many megawatts do they generate, transmit and distribute? We didn't find any and we're 98% complete.

Embedded Systems and the Year 2000 Problem (The OTHER Year 2000 Problem) http://www.tmn.com/~frautsch/y2k2.html

This places a significant assessment, remediation and testing burden on organizations with a large investment in embedded systems within their mission critical infrastructure. The electric power utilities are among the organizations with the greatest exposure. Utilities that have completed a thorough assessment program have generally elected to test all embedded systems, including those with existing documentation, due to significant variations between observed performance and documentation. There are as many as ten levels affecting the overall Year-2000-compliance of an individual embedded system in a particular application that may be affected by the chip maker, the OEM, the end-user or various combinations (Strem, 1997). Beginning at the "black box" or "device" level it is appropriate to examine the individual embedded system from as many as ten technological viewpoints. These are:

 Chips and microcode (with either manifest or internal date functions)  Pre-manufacture custom functionality  Post-manufacture custom functionality  Interfacing of devices  Drivers  Operating Systems  Vendor-supplied application libraries  User defined functionality  User integration of systems  Devices and the business processes associated with system use.

i have read too much disparate information that suggests there might be problems regardless of testing...particularly 'type' testing.

-- Anonymous, May 13, 1999

marianne,

Is that the best you can do? Utilities need fuel. Utilities have a lot of embedded chips to test. And a vague reference to Three Mile Island. GET REAL. Why don't you drop the emotional TMI crap and go all the way back to the great northeast blackout? That is a more relevant example anyway. (But both these problems have been constantly addressed since the 60's - 70's).

YOU CAN'T NAME ONE EMBEDDED DEVICE THAT HAS BEEN PROVEN TO FAIL AND PREVENT FUEL, COMMUNICATIONS, OR CAUSE A POWER OUTAGE!!

Drop it already. Give up the lame hotlinks and SHOW US ONE STINKING FAILED DEVICE. (Since you can't and won't find anything, I'll give you a hint - search for "battery alarm" and you'll find a valid failure that Rick posted. It just won't trip a single breaker or turn out a single light.) We've tested the hundreds of embedded chips you mentioned and didn't find anything close to what you are implying. Quite trying to overstate your case to justify your spending.

-- Anonymous, May 14, 1999

gee cl, did i hit a nerve?

actually spock, i did'nt think that you had that much emotion in you.

now, to address your concerns,

your comments: Is that the best you can do? Utilities need fuel. Utilities have a lot of embedded chips to test. And a vague reference to Three Mile Island. GET REAL. Why don't you drop the emotional TMI crap and go all the way back to the great northeast blackout? That is a more relevant example anyway. (But both these problems have been constantly addressed since the 60's - 70's).

well, last time i heard...utilities do require fuel to function, that is, of course, unless you know something that you are not sharing with us.

regarding TMI, i don't believe there was anything vague in my reference...i believe that it was straightforward and to the point. are we going to discuss the operator error that exacerbated that fiasco?

btw, i live right down the road from TMI and while it could be said that i can get rather emotional when discussing that subject...it was alot more real than i ever want to experience again.

you ought to try a government ordered evcuation sometime, does wonders for the central nervous system.

YOU CAN'T NAME ONE EMBEDDED DEVICE THAT HAS BEEN PROVEN TO FAIL AND PREVENT FUEL, COMMUNICATIONS, OR CAUSE A POWER OUTAGE!!

you are shouting at me. you are right i can't, but,then again, i don't have to. i am not an engineer. but i do know that those that are feel that it is a problem. i also know that there is a possibility that you are not correct.

i have always felt that a liberal arts degree gives one a better perspective on 'the big picture,'so to speak, specialization sometimes causes 'hyper-focus,' you know,...tunnel vision.

Drop it already. Give up the lame hotlinks and SHOW US ONE STINKING FAILED DEVICE.

i don't know no steenking device...but that doesn't mean there aren't any. and just because *YOU* haven't found any...it doesn't mean there aren't any.

Quite trying to overstate your case to justify your spending.

now, we have changed hats, a quantum leap, from an engineer to a psychologist.

i do not have to rationalize my spending, to you, or anyone else for that matter. i make quite a nice living and my disposable income, is just that, mine...to do with as i please.

-- Anonymous, May 14, 1999