I usually don't pass along these press releases (I've been getting one every other day or so from Jon Arnold at Edision Electric Institute), but I thought this one was interesting. For the sleuths in the crowd, let's play "guess what's wrong with this PR release" (answer at the end):

To: "EEI Public Information List for Y2K Information" 
Subject: United Illuminating Y2k Readiness
From: "Jon Arnold" 
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 16:42:50 -0400

"Bring on the New Millennium"

UI Systems are Ready for the Year 2000

NEW HAVEN, Conn.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--July 22, 1999--The United Illuminating Company has completed the necessary upgrades to its critical systems and they are now 100% Year 2000 compliant.

``As of June 30, we have verified that 100% of our mission critical systems and applications are Y2K ready,'' said Frank Marini, UI's Director of Information Resources.

``Y2K is a serious issue and we're quite confident that our prudent planning efforts will eliminate or minimize any potential problems associated with the turn of the century and providing power to our customers.''

For UI, critical Year 2000-related systems are those business processes that could have a significant impact on safety, reliability, revenue or regulatory compliance. System reliability, ensuring that the lights remain on, is a major component of those critical operations.

UI began preparing for the Year 2000 in 1997 by creating a companywide Y2K project team to identify, prioritize and correct deficiencies in its systems.

Company representatives also joined forces with Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC), a Norwich, Connecticut-based information technology world leader. Together, the two companies established a series of comprehensive procedures to address the issue and prepare for the pending changes.

``We don't expect any major problems,'' continued Marini. ``But as a responsible business, we will take steps to have comprehensive contingency plans in place which will include the availability of experienced personnel on duty on the night of December 31 to ensure that `Lights out is NOT an Option.'''

For the remainder of 1999, UI will continue to work with other utilities in the region and on a national level on integrated contingency planning efforts for the Year 2000. UI representatives will also continue to share information, test processes, equipment and applications with its vendors, suppliers and business partners to help ensure Y2K readiness.

UI is a New Haven-based regional distribution utility that provides electricity and energy-related services to more than 313,000 customers in municipalities in the Greater New Haven and Greater Bridgeport areas.

UI's World Wide Web address is www.uinet.com and the company is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol UIL.

This year 2000 Readiness Disclosure is made pursuant to The Year 2000 Information and Disclosure Act of 1998.

Contact: Myra Stanley 203/499-2817 or Sandra Ahearn 203/499-2175 or After hours 203/499-2812

END

Ok, here's the deal - given the rest of the press release, would you accept that UI is "100% Year 2000 Compliant"? (My lawyer might.) This seems to be "press release by executive summary" - maybe it's simply a mistake, but my guess is that most people won't read beyond the first paragraph. I'm very surprised that this passed through the legal channels at this company.

-- Anonymous, July 22, 1999

Answers

Rick,

Well, I give them credit for publishing something this strong. However, they seem to be talking only about their "mission critical" systems, which of course is never more than *part* (sometimes a very small part) of all their systems. And they don't provide any evidence of outside IV & V. And they use the word compliant when they likely only mean ready. Guess they don't pay much attention to the suggestions from NERC!

-- Anonymous, July 22, 1999

another case of cognitive dissonance.

NEW HAVEN, Conn.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--July 22, 1999--The United Illuminating Company has completed the necessary upgrades to its critical systems and they are now 100% Year 2000 compliant.

in one sentence they are 100% compliant and in the next

``As of June 30, we have verified that 100% of our mission critical systems and applications are Y2K ready,'' said Frank Marini, UI'S Director of Information Resources.

they have only verified 100% of mission critical. and as if that isn't bad enough they further complicate even that statement with the following

UI representatives will also continue to share information, test processes, equipment and applications with its vendors, suppliers and business partners to help ensure Y2K readiness.

so they aren't 100% compliant... they aren' even 100% 'mission critical.' just what are they?

jon arnold says they are what? does anyone read these things before they go out?

they aren't even good at 'bullshit.' what else is new.

-- Anonymous, July 22, 1999

Whats wrong??? Hmmnnn-they havent finished testing, and havent ensured business partners compliance (and so I am extrapolating supply chain issues) and therefore the contingency plans probably arent really complete either without that critical info... Just what is the *legally accepted* definition of compliance, anyway? Or is there one? Is there an industry accepted standard they will be held to? or does each entity just interpret the word-and thus their preparations status- for themselves?

-- Anonymous, July 22, 1999

Marianne, you're right about this mission-critical/non-critical issue. I have written about this, FAA's Progress and Mission-Critical Systems.

-- Anonymous, July 22, 1999

I have been investigating UI and NU since last November. Originally I was concerned about safety issues with the nukes and y2k. UI and NU have terrible safety records in normal times with mandatory shutdowns of their nukes enforced by the NRC.

Upon further investigation and increased awareness, I have very little faith in the orchestrated spin they have been producing for the past eight months. I have gone back and forth with email and attended the "Community Conversation on y2k" in Hartford and have never received a reply to my inquiries that I could reasonably be assured of their attempt at compliance and readiness.

It does not bode well.

-- Anonymous, July 22, 1999

Rick,

I think if you look at the press release you will see that the only time 100% compliant is mentioned is in the first sentence. My question is did UI write that sentence or did the people at Business Wire put that sentence in as a headline type deal to get attention? If it is a headline then the rest of the statement is consistent with what the other utilities are saying.

-- Anonymous, July 23, 1999

BizWire does not monkey with the wording of releases. They send out what the customer gives them. This is UI's own stuff.

-- Anonymous, July 23, 1999

Concur w/ Thinman - Business Wire does not add content to press releases - they just act as a conduit for the information.

BTW, I tried to find the press release on UI's website; all I found was a release from mid-June saying they were "80% complete" and one from January saying "50% complete".

-- Anonymous, July 23, 1999

Laura A. and others, I wish you people on this forum and all electric companies would get your/their act together. Of course there is a standard definition of "compliant" and "ready." Programs are "compliant or not," companies are "ready or not." How many times do you have to be told? FactFinder only had to tell me once and I got it.

My electricity has been going off and on for a couple of weeks. Have had to reset clocks (re-setting the coffee pot clock is a major clock for me) over and over. Got a letter from my co-op dated July 15, 1999, that says the outages were caused by "(i.e.trees; lightning; etc.)", but that these outages were "widespread" because "Newly installed equipment that is actually designed to increase our service reliability was calibrated incorrectly causing widespread outages, as opposed to limiting the fault to an isolated area. A solution to the problem has been found, and implemented. Although the new changes will not prevent all outages, our efforts are focused on the desires to provide safe and reliable electric service to your house and/or business." Three weeks ago the new SCADA had to be installed, now at their web site it says SCADA has been installed. This leads me to believe it was the new SCADA that had to be corrected. They are still relying on ready/compliant letters from electric generation companies and vendors/suppliers.

-- Anonymous, July 23, 1999

Marcella:

I think it is only the NRC that has defined 'Compliant', as I recentely read a Y2K article mentioning that compliant didn't mean anything but what the company saying it felt like. But I do recall Factfinder quoting the legal definition as defined by NRC. Just remember that when you are reading it from any other industry, it doesn't necessarily mean anything at all.

-- Anonymous, July 23, 1999

Gee, Marcella, being a newbie here-Ive never been told it at all. Nor am I an electric company insider that would know in the course of my employment. I was answering Ricks question-thinking perhaps that a non electric workers interpretaton of the release might be of interest. My failure to correctly interpret might help him get some idea of how the public would scrutinize the report.I really would like to know the industry standard. Understanding will help me in my information and fact finding, and allow me to better scrutinize the reports and info I come across. I would have thought this forum would appreciate the desire of a consumer to be better educated, but if not and my post offends, please accept my apology for what must have been considered a "stupid question". LauraA P.S. Real sorry about your coffee pot, hope it is remediated/ready/compliant and able to carry out its mission. I know how hard it is to do without my caffeine....

-- Anonymous, July 23, 1999

Laura-A, since you are a newbie you would not know that I was talking "tongue-in-cheek" about "compliant" and "ready." Go to the thread, "Bunkered Utility Engineer." There you will find the definition of "compliant" and "ready" as definied by FactFinder, an engineer who posts here. He was trying to "straighten me out" on the precise definition of the two words. You will also find my reply to him. Since his message to me I am more observant of the two words and must say they are used to mean the same thing, two different things, close to the same thing, totally different things, etc. Reporters use one of the words in one paragraph and the other word in the next paragraph meaning the same thing or different. No one has a clue how to use these words and they actually mean nothing. On Jan.1, 2000 (and perhaps later), each system will work or it won't work. I predict these two new terms, Jan. 1: IT WORKS and IT DOESN'T WORK.

-- Anonymous, July 23, 1999

Ok Rick,

I reckon I am about to learn something about this Y2K deal so PLEASE be patient folks.

I am not seeing what is wrong with this release, in fact it sounds very much like the utility company supplying my electricity.

1. Is it the language of compliant vs. ready?

2. or is it testing that is not complete? " UI representatives will also continue to share information, test processes, equipment and applications with its vendors, suppliers and business partners to help ensure Y2K readiness."

3. Is it the fact that they might have problems with getting fuel ?

4. All of the above

5. None of the above

-- Anonymous, July 24, 1999

6. All of the above plus others. :-)

The United Illuminating Company has completed the necessary upgrades to its critical systems and they are now 100% Year 2000 compliant.

I think Rick is saying that the conclusion of the sentence is a mighty strong assertion. Marianne pointed out that they're only talking about mission-critical systems, so how can they say already that they're 100% compliant? Marcella, tongue in cheek, pointed out that this here utility seems to have scrambled the definitions of "compliant" and "ready" set in stone by Fact Finder. Bad boys at UI. Baaaad boys. :-)

After a year of wading through this kind of stuff, Norm, I am about to conclude that everybody everywhere is just blowing smoke. Upper management has no clue about what's really going on with the engineers, programmers, analysts, researchers, etc. Lower management is caught between the front-line workers and the clue-free executives. PR manages now and then to cobble together some impressive-sounding sentences, never mind that the well-informed can take them all apart and set them against each other in a few moments.

And its almost August 1999.

-- Anonymous, July 24, 1999

And it's almost August, too.

-- Anonymous, July 24, 1999

"For UI, critical Year 2000-related systems are those business processes that could have a significant impact on safety,reliability,revenue or regulatory compliance."

Is electric power generation a business process? I hope so, but are they deliberately being vague?

-- Anonymous, July 25, 1999

I'm probably being too nitpicky; didn't notice the sentence that immediately follows my quote until I posted.

-- Anonymous, July 25, 1999