Why was September 9, 1999, chosen as the date for NERC's second industry-wide drill? I have read, and I believe that I comprehend, the following discussions at this forum (I hope the HTML works okay): Is September 9, 1999, or 9/9/99 really a problem?
NERC has scheduled two industry wide tests for 1999?
Why would they choose these dates for drills?
Two Posts In One
Considering Alternative Energy Generation? So far, the only explanation that makes sense to me is the PR explanation: basically, NERC and the local utilities want to be able to say, "See, this was supposedly a problem date, and we breezed right through it. We're saved!" At least one engineer objected mightily to that kind of explanation when it was first raised, but it's the only one that makes sense to me. All opinions welcome. But perhaps an "insider" could tell us why 9/9/1999 was chosen? I'd like a better explanation than the following, if you please. :-) "The Friday drill is the first of two. The second is scheduled for Sept. 9, because that date is often written 9-9-99. The April and September dates were selected because old computer programs often used '9999' as a signal to stop. 'It's not a high-risk day,' Mr. [Sam] Jones [of Electric Reliability Council of Texas] said. 'It's just a low-risk day, but they decided: "What the heck? Let's do it on that day."'" (Dallas Morning News, April 9, 1999, "Utilities set to run test on year 2000 bug: Drill to involve backup communication systems", by Diane Jennings) Thanks.

-- Anonymous, August 04, 1999

Answers

Why was September 9, 1999, chosen as the date for NERC's second industry-wide drill?

I have read, and I believe that I comprehend, the following discussions at this forum:

Is September 9, 1999, or 9/9/99 really a problem?
NERC has scheduled two industry wide tests for 1999?
Why would they choose these dates for drills?
Two Posts In One
Considering Alternative Energy Generation?

So far, the only explanation that makes sense to me is the PR explanation: basically, NERC and the local utilities want to be able to say, "See, this was supposedly a problem date, and we breezed through it. We're saved!" At least one engineer objected mightily to that kind of explanation when it was first raised, but it's the only one that makes sense to me.

All opinions welcome. But perhaps an "insider" could tell us why 9/9/1999 was chosen? I'd like a better explanation than the following, if you please. :-)

"The Friday drill is the first of two. The second is scheduled for Sept. 9, because that date is often written 9-9-99. The April and September dates were selected because old computer programs often used '9999' as a signal to stop. 'It's not a high-risk day,' Mr. [Sam] Jones [of Electric Reliability Council of Texas] said. 'It's just a low-risk day, but they decided: "What the heck? Let's do it on that day."'" (Dallas Morning News, April 9, 1999, "Utilities set to run test on year 2000 bug: Drill to involve backup communication systems", by Diane Jennings)

Thanks.

-- Anonymous, August 04, 1999

because 6/6/66 has already passed? and EUs have no mainframes that might (just MIGHT) have any problems with that abominable date?

we now return you to the scheduled flickering light at the end of the tunnel.

spiff

-- Anonymous, August 04, 1999

Lane, Maybe this date gives them a clean "out" regardless of the outcome. If nothing (much) happens, they can frown on the doomers. If something significant happens, they might be able to put some spin on it in an attempt to calm some observers. "Why, look at that! Our "test" apparently triggered a bit of a problem. The outage was caused by our test, and not by the 9/9/99 date on all those chips and mainframes." Just an uneducated guess. At this point, with all of the world apparently not watching, they could just about do what they want, say what they want about it, and walk away smiling. Today's postings are not reassuring me. I'm frustrated, sick of Y2K, and more than a little nervous about all of this. It's one thing to listen to people who know nothing spout off about what they think will happen. It's another to listen to you industry-knowledgeable folks who are able to pinpoint the subtle nuances of reports. Beans and drywall buckets. I've got six kids, and you all are helping me to prepare for this.Thanks, and regards,

-- Anonymous, August 04, 1999

At this point, with all of the world apparently not watching, they could just about do what they want, say what they want about it, and walk away smiling.

One reason for that, I think, is explained very well in What Role the Media?

-- Anonymous, August 04, 1999

lane, don't you think that koskinen effectively 'muzzled' the media by holding them accountable for the 'responsible reporting' of y2k?

this, ostensibly,to avoid the potential collapse of the infrastructure and based specifically on the way they choose to report y2k? i.e., fomenting public panic and causing a 'run' on the banks and a possible 'crash' of the markets would be their responsibility if they were not 'cautious' in handling the y2k issue.

-- Anonymous, August 06, 1999

Well, Marianne, I look at it this way: the media never covered Y2K responsibly, they don't do so now, and there is no reason to believe that they will ever do so.

IOW, come December, they are going to jump all over Y2K, get 100 million households thinking (maybe even -- dare I say it? -- panicking) about preparing for "2 or 3 days" and thus cause all the problems that they and the government have supposedly been trying to prevent.

-- Anonymous, August 06, 1999

but lane... look at how much time they bought the powers that be.

after all, they are going to have to let 'the cat out of the bag' eventually... it will be to hard to ignore.

-- Anonymous, August 06, 1999