Very interesting...

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/business/1205y2k1.shtml

The first few graphs:

The former director of Y2K compliance at Public Service Company of Colorado says the state's largest utility might not have gone far enough in preparing for 2000.

Will James, a member of the Governor's Task Force on Year 2000 Readiness, said he is concerned the utility's aging power plants have not been as carefully prepped for the transition to 2000 as they should have been because the utility didn't want to spend extra money to do the work James thought was necessary.

James also blames the state for failing to fund an independent Y2K audit and verification program for Colorado's utilities.

"Without a state-sponsored independent audit and detailed examination of the readiness of these organizations," James wrote in a report to the task force last month, "a guarantee of Y2K readiness in the energy sector cannot be made to the citizens of Colorado at this time."

But Public Service, the governor's task force and the Colorado Utilities Commission have said the utility is well-prepared for Y2K. Public Service said it has spent nearly three years and $25 million on its Y2K compliance program. Recently it hired an independent audit firm to review its Y2K plans and that firm gave the utility high marks.

"I may be all wet on this," said James, who worked for Public Service from 1995 to 1999. He left the utility voluntarily, in part because he thought it wasn't going far enough to address Y2K issues. The utility agrees that James left voluntarily, but disagrees with his assessment of Public Service's Y2K readiness plans.

"Everything may be just fine Dec. 31," James said. "But if things do go wrong, I think people should know what happened. We (the governor's task force) tried to do the right thing for the families and businesses of Colorado. But what started out as an 'all-for-one' type of approach has ended as an every man and industry for himself situation."

James' concerns about Public Service's status center on the company's power plants, which serve 70 percent of Coloradans. Public Service already as set clocks ahead at its largest power plants so they are running as if it were 2000 now. They believe this program will make the Dec. 31 transition a non-event.

But James, who now runs his own Y2K consulting firm, is concerned because not all systems in the plants are capable of running in "future time." Although testing has been done on individual parts of power plants and those parts are now Y2K compliant, James said more system-wide testing is needed.

If problems occur, they could be compounded because Public Service has downsized and doesn't have enough skilled workers to cope with a crisis, James said.

Bob Ray, who now directs Public Service's Y2K program, said the concerns are unwarranted and that the utility has done everything possible to prepare for Y2K.

"What Will is saying is that it would have been nice if we could have done those things," Ray said. "It would be nice if we could run every piece of equipment in the power plants in (future time), but cost-wise it is prohibitive. And from a necessity standpoint, it is not necessary."

Ray said the utility has worked hard to identify all the critical systems and to test them for Y2K readiness. Doing the kind of inventory and testing program James advocated easily could have cost several million dollars more.

"No, we probably haven't found every embedded chip," Ray said. "But that's why we will have 300 extra people in the field that night. If we find something that we missed, we will be able to run it manually. ... We've never set a 100 percent guarantee that everything will be fine. But we're 99.9 percent of the way there."

-- Anonymous, December 06, 1999

Answers

EXCELLENT catch, Mr. Parkhill. This article should go to the top of everyone's required reading list. May I also point out that these articles have a bad habit of disappearing from free news servers after a day or three? So, get it while it's hot.

I'm not sure if this is a belated case of CYA on Mr. James part, or if he truly is motivated by a sense of "duty and honor". But what I find interesting is that he apparently chose to resign (or was he forced out?) rather than play the game.

I know someone who was working utilities Y2K in Colorado, and will be forwarding this to him for comment, as I'm sure he's quite familiar with the situation out there.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 1999

Drew: I agree with Rick...this is an excellent article. I think it epitomizes the whole Y2k debate that has raged for the past 2 years. One person says plenty was done, and yet another says not enough. This same argument can be made for other devices...very few (if any) utilities tested all devices--many large utilities tested each device type. So one could say "how can you know that all your devices are Y2k-ok, unless you test every one of them?". And the other would argue "We have more than 5,000 devices in our system, and cannot reasonably test all of them...besides, with other utility test results and vendor test results and assurances, we think we've more than adequately tested." And they told two friends, and so on, and so on....

I am so glad that all this speculation will be over in a few weeks, regardless of the outcome. It has been one heck of a roller coaster ride...see y'all on the other side...

-- Anonymous, December 06, 1999

dgman notes that:

"One person says plenty was done, and yet another says not enough."

dgman...

this a the crux of the whole polly/doomer debate. when there is so much controversy and dissension in all circles, at all levels regarding the impact of y2k on our society, our economy, and the world at large... how can one not prepare?

as flint said so many months ago... you prepare based on the stakes -- not on the odds.

to assume that all is right in the world and that y2k will have minimal impact is indeed folly.

we prepare, not only for ourselves or to make a point, but because we are responsible for those we love and those who depend on us.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 1999

Rick:

What struct me as illuminating is Mr. Ray's statement that the company will have people "in the field" during the rollover in case things need to be run manually. Now I know you've mentioned that you expect problems in generation and also in T&D, but from your experience, aren't the main areas of concern at the plant site?

We here of tests being conducted at utilities where "plants" have been rolled over with Year 2000 dates for a period of time. But I haven't heard much in the way of transmission and distributiion testing; at laest not in public. I'm sure they occur, but in terms of public relations, if there are issues "in the field" one would think companies would want to highlight that testing as well.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 1999

I'm beginning to get answers... I wanted to know months ago if all the clocks in the plants had been rolled forward.

"It would be nice if we could run every piece of equipment in the power plants in (future time), but cost-wise it is prohibitive. And from a necessity standpoint, it is not necessary."

Someone recently wrote that the current approach seems to be that it's better to be sorry than safe.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 1999

Shameless plug. :-)

Someone recently wrote that the current approach seems to be that it's better to be sorry than safe.

Whispering "Fire" in a Theater Ablaze (mainstream media version)

-- Anonymous, December 07, 1999

Well, FactFinder assures us that there won't be any problems. We should all rest easy.

"Even though I am an outspoken "polyanna" who is confinced (sic) by the facts he has seen that the actual transition to the year 2000 will have no impact on power production and distribution, I do not share the spokespersons (sic) conclusion that the industry has "discounted" Rick." (emphasis mine)

Reference here.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 1999

A.J.

Now don't be too hard on ole FactFinder with that excellent snip and link. If you look at the date, it was written by him on a Friday night. Friday and Saturday nights are not FactFinder's best time for clear headed thinking, or spelling, for that matter. You have make some allowances here for the weather.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 1999

Drew,

I'm going to go out on limb and make a prediction. I think that during the last week of this year, after Christmas, there will be a bunch of CYA statements made by electric utilities to the effect that there could be power outages. "Local" is the word, right? But that means state wide, and that means some people will die. Hospitals, homes for the aged, etc, will be in trouble up North. And there will be law suits, betcha, in the aftermath. So, some utilities will try to issue a last minute warning, too late to do much good, but at least it will cover a few legal loopholes, or attempt to. That's what I think we will see.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 1999

In previous posts I've discussed several y2k problems that I personally found during testing, most minor as is typical, but also a more modeerate problem and even the failure of a DAQ system (not installed in the plant). I've also been one of the very few who have ever provided a list of documented y2k bugs (complete with manufacturer/model numbers), and somehow AJ you can quote me as saying there won't be ANY problems?

Regarding generation, T&D and power outages, the quote above wasn't one of my better as Gordon pointed out, although I have had far worse typos, though..) I typically state that I am confident that there will be no "widespread" or "significant" effects on power generation and distribution in the US, if you want to be fair about this and look at ALL my previous statements.

Actually, I expect no power outages DIRECTLY caused by a y2k bug for commercial systems- there are many factors that would have to go wrong for this to happen, just a loss of a generator alone wouldn't do it.

The potential for a power outage SOMEWHERE in the US is higher for a scenario where large customers, and even utilities, take drastic measures as part of Y2K contingency planning...i.e., large load changes are a slight risk. So this I am not quite as confident about, although I am certain it will not be a widespread problem either.

For IPPs that have their own generators for their plants, I haven't enough information to conclude that NONE of them will not loose their internal plant power, but I am confident that there will not be a significant number of such incidents.

Now, where in the post at the top do you guys see evidence of a major threat to the US power generation or distribution? Based on industry findings, the risks are still small even if a fractional percentage of embedded systems are missed, since most y2k bugs in embedded systems are minor.

I think I will be concerned if I see documented examples of devices in widespread use that at y2k fail in such a way as to shut the plant down, along with evidence that such devices have been missed at a number of plants. Until then, I will sleep quite well.

At Y2k, nationwide and in all areas, I expect to see a number of minor problems reported, a few moderate problems, and likely even a few severe ones. I have stated this a number of times before.

For Power, let me go even further. I expect no widespread or significant power outages, and MOST PROBABLY, NO COMMERICIAL POWER GRID OUTAGES DIRECTLY CAUSED BY Y2K BUGS AT ALL (i.e., a y2k bug in an embedded system or systems causes an outage by iteself. Human error that contributes to such an outage does not count as Directly Caused). Power outages due to y2k related actions, human error, or other contributing factors are possible, but still quite low.

The reality of Y2K in embedded systems arrives in about three weeks, and I eagerly look forward to the truth arriving for all of us to see.

Regards,

-- Anonymous, December 08, 1999

Marianne -

What fascinates me about you is not your brash flirtasciousness (though it is indeed fun) but your keen intellect. In just a few sentences you have said what many of us have been propounding in thousands of hours of discourse.

to quote: this a the crux of the whole polly/doomer debate. when there is so much controversy and dissension in all circles, at all levels regarding the impact of y2k on our society, our economy, and the world at large... how can one not prepare?

as flint said so many months ago... you prepare based on the stakes -- not on the odds.

to assume that all is right in the world and that y2k will have minimal impact is indeed folly.

we prepare, not only for ourselves or to make a point, but because we are responsible for those we love and those who depend on us.

xBob

-- Anonymous, December 09, 1999

Marianne: I acknowledge your comment about "why should we not prepare?", and I don't necessarily disagree with it. I just choose not to discuss whether or how people should prepare...I feel that this is a personal decision. (I'm not saying it shouldn't be discussed). As you know, I am an engineer, so the majority of my discussion centers around the technical aspects of Y2k and power.

I sincerely hope that any contingency plans made by citizens and power companies never even have to be enacted. Have a good Christmas, and hopefully, an uneventful New Year's day. Please keep those of us "in the industry" who must work the rollover in your thoughts...I have to be at work before 5am on 12/31 to check up the rollover in New Zealand, and I'm pretty sure I'll be working until 4am on January 1, perhaps longer if there are many problems....

-- Anonymous, December 10, 1999