Hi all; I am wondering if anyone following Y2K and utilities closely knows anything regarding the Y2K compliance/status of PSE&G here in New Jersey? I recall seeing two unconfirmed bits of info months ago, that as of December 31, 1998, PSE&G was 15% complete or 30% complete with its Y2K program, this following one year of effort (as I said, these are anecdotal stats). Now, there are 3 nukes in Jersey, none yet compliant, according to the recent NRC report (and 80% of Jersey's total power is nuke-generated); I believe that PSE&G operates at least one of these bad boys. Recently, PSE&G has been issuing happy-face, weasel-word press releases to small community newspapers about the utility and Y2K, and, interestingly, they have been including mention of the basic American Red Cross Y2K guidelines (alternative cooking and lighting sources, etc.) in those press releases. Hmmmmmm, not very confident for a Fortune 500 nuclear power, I'd say. Well, if anyone has any accurate info on PSE&G and electric/gas systems and/or embeddeds, I would greatly appreciate it.

-- Anonymous, July 15, 1999

Answers

Editor Last fall ( Nov. - Dec. ) their was information posted on Ed Yordon's site that said PSE&G would not be ready till 2001 - 2002 ! While in Atlantic City , I ran this info by a dozen NJ residents. Duh? was the basic reaction . None cared that in was from a reliable source , because (?) ... they are having too much fun , NOW ; and/or , blank stares . Don't know if their is any way to research any files now , as the site is down. If marrianne is the same one who was on this site , she may remember this and/or may have downloaded same. Wish I had. Eagle

-- Anonymous, July 19, 1999

Site is down. You mean Yourdon's? No, he left his Y2K stuff up. http://www. yourdon.com/articles/articlesummary.html.

-- Anonymous, July 21, 1999

Editor, here's a run down of what PSE&G has said in its SEC filings, beginning with the 10Q for the third quarter of 1998.

The total cost estimate related to Year 2000 readiness was $92 million, with $8 million incurred in 1997 and $25 million expected to be spent by the end of 1998. PSE&G stated that the costs for an ongoing phased implementation of SAP business systems was not included in those estimates. " The phased implementation of SAP is scheduled to be completed by January 1, 2000."

The "Inventory is more than 70% complete for all information technology, process control and infrastructure systems." Assessment work and Remediation/Testing was in progress. "PSEG and PSE&G expect to complete required Year 2000 readiness work for more than 50% of their critical systems by the end of 1998."

On the nuclear plant side of things: "As of September 30, 1998, PSE&G's NBU [Nuclear Business Unit] Year 2000 effort is on schedule. Additionally, at a meeting held on September 29, 1998, PECO informed PSE&G that Peach Bottom's Year 2000 effort is on schedule to meet the July 1999 NRC response schedule."

The 10K405 filing, with info as of the end of 1998, put cost estimates for the total at $83 million, with $8million spent in 1997, and $27 million spent in 1998. [The total cost estimate went down by $9 million, while the 1998 incurred costs were up $2 million over the previous estimates.] The SAP implementation remained separate from the cost estimates and also remained scheduled to be completed by Jan. 1, 2000.

Inventory is now stated to be more than 99% complete, with "substantial" assessment work done and Remediation/Testing in progress. " PSEG and PSE&G have completed required Year 2000 readiness work for more than 80% of their critical systems by the end of 1998. The work required by the remaining critical systems is expected to be completed by July 1999 except for certain systems operated by PSE&G's nuclear operations, as discussed below." [The Energy Holdings branch and subsidiaries are expected to be completed in 1999. I guess this is the "below" exception mentioned, because Peach Bottom is still said to be on schedule to meet the NRC July 1 deadline.]

The most recent 10Q filing for the first quarter of 1999, has the same cost estimates as three months prior, except PSE&G stated they had spent $5 million in the first three months (of the $33 million expected to be spent in 1999). The SAP installation is continuing, costs not counted above, etc., same as before.

No percentage estimates are given regarding inventory, assessment, etc. in this report. PSE&G does state they "have completed required Year 2000 readiness work for more than 85% of their critical systems as of March 31, 1999."

Also, "As of March 31, 1999, PSE&G's Year 2000 effort at its nuclear facilities is on schedule to meet the NRC's response date of July 1, 1999 and to have all mission critical systems ready by January 1, 2000. Additionally, at meetings held in March 1999, PECO again confirmed to PSE&G that Peach Bottom's Year 2000 effort is on schedule to meet the required July 1999 NRC response schedule."

I am puzzled by the terms PSE&G uses here. They are "on schedule" to meet the NRC July 1st "response" date, but then state all mission critical systems will be ready by Jan.1 instead of July 1. I can only assume they're speaking of the Exception Reporting process.

Going to the PSE&G web site to gather the most recent info on their Project Status, this is all I found:

"Approximately 90% of our utility companys critical systems were made ready in 1998. By July of 1999, all utility critical systems are scheduled to be Y2K ready, except for a small percentage of our nuclear systems, which will be remediated during planned maintenance in November 1999." The copyright date at the bottom of this statement was 1998.

I can only conclude that the company has not updated their Y2K web site information at all this year. And since the SEC filing data stated they were 85% ready with critical systems as of March 31 this year, the 90% for the end of 1998 given on the web site appears to have been ...optimistic? Or maybe the 80% number at the end of the year which was given to the SEC could be construed to be "approximately 90%"? We also know from the NRC Summary that Peach Bottom 2 and 3 are part of the Exception Reporting process, which confirms the use of the term "response" date earlier.

There's the info that the company has provided. I've run across other utilities which were a lot more forthcoming with details, but what we've got is what we've got. I hope this helps.

-- Anonymous, July 22, 1999