Reminder: an up-to-date copy of this appendix, the original paper, and other utility related items can be found at this web site: http://geocities.datacellar.net/TheTropics/9090/y2k.html

Summary

April 9 Utility test

April 30 NERC report

FPL progress

What we have learned in the past 6 months

We are still six months away from 01-01-00, and there will be a lot to learn in those final six months. However, there has been a lot learned so far in 1999. The doomsday predictions have been shown to be in error. The power system tests have been successful. The NERC schedules for remedy have been kept or exceeded. There has been a sea change in the outlook for the New Year.

The original premise of the paper still holds. There is no reason to believe that there will be any significant power outage caused by the Y2K bug. Please remember not to change your power consumption during the year rollover. This will make the management of the grid easier for the power companies.

The fact that the lights will be on after the millennium rollover does not mean that there will be no Y2K problems. The discussion of impact on the economy and overseas suppliers is beyond the scope of this document. Here, we will focus only on the question of electricity.

Like most Y2K topics, the test conducted on April 9, 1999 had been a source of much controversy. I have found a lot of misinterpretation of what really happened, so I am including a section on the topic in this update. In summary, this was only a test of a contingency plan, the test was valid, the test was intended to instill public confidence, and the test was not rigged. The test might be better called a drill.

The utility companies rely heavily on telecommunications to control the power grid. A large portion of this communication equipment does not belong to the power companies and is beyond their direct control. The communications companies (such as phone companies) have committed to provide uninterrupted communication into the year 2000. However, the utility companies have adopted a "defense in depth" strategy for dealing with Y2K. In other words, they are not putting all their eggs in one basket. They want to have a contingency plan in place just in case the phone company has a Y2K failure. The April 9 test was a test of that contingency plan.

The test involved thousands of employees and a portion of the power generating hardware in the grid. Instead of using phone lines and other external communications systems, the power companies attempted to control the grid using backup communications systems. These systems included radios, satellite phone systems, and the like. There was no test of any Y2K remedy or any advance of system dates. This was not a test of how the power grid will react to the millennium rollover.

NERC had two plans for the test. First, to be a valid contingency plan test, which they rightly called a drill, and secondly, to install much-needed public confidence. These two purposes are described in a memo titled "Session 2-C" found at this web site:

ftp://www.nerc.com/pub.sys/all_updl/docs/y2k/planning-a-drill-4-9-99-final.pdf

The Y2k doomsday group has heavily criticized NERC for trying to instill public confidence in the electric utility system. It is ironic that the deep need for public confidence has largely been created by this same group. There is nothing wrong with public confidence as long as it is based on truth and grounded in accurate information. If the doomsday group had not constantly blasted the NERC and the utility companies, then there would not be such a huge need to instill public confidence. I can hardly blame the NERC for making this one of the goals of the test.

One of the criticisms of the April 9 test is that the participating companies were instructed, prior to the drill, to test the systems that would be exercised during the drill. This was a reasonable request, since the purpose of the test was for the process of alternative communication, not for the individual components. I will try to illustrate this with the following imaginary scenario:

Supposed that you are a contractor building a neighborhood of homes. You are scheduled to have the homes completed by July 1. However, the future owners of the homes consider telephone service to be critical. The Phone Company is using a new switch for the neighborhood that you are building. You decide that you want to test the switch before the completion date of July 1, so you schedule a test on April 9. In this test, only the phone systems are under test. To ensure that the test can be performed, you instruct all of the subcontractors to make sure that a working telephone is installed in every home. You ask them to make sure that the telephone is wired properly. You don’t want to have any trouble from the home phones when you are testing the new phone switch. You then conduct the test and the new switch works fine. However, when you report this to the future homeowners, they accuse you of rigging the test because you asked the subcontractors to make sure the individual phones where in working order prior to the test. You can see that this is an unfounded and twisted accusation.

In this analogy, the contractor is NERC, the neighborhood is the power grid, the phone switch is the contingency plan, the phones are the communication equipment used by the plan, the subcontractors are the power companies, and the irate future homeowners are the critics of the April 9 test. I hope the analogy illustrates how the accusations of a rigged test don’t make sense when you understand what was really tested.

The April 9 test was published as a success. This is a reasonable conclusion, since the grid could be controlled without the use of normal communications systems. However, the test was not without incident. The test did reveal some minor problems in the contingency plan, such as wrong phone numbers, improper training on equipment, etc. These problems will, of course, be corrected. A follow-up test will be performed on September 8. The important thing to understand is that even these problems did not lead to power interruptions.

The NERC continues to issue quarterly progress reports on the Y2K problem. The April 30 report lists some key results:

1. Substantial progress has been made since the last report. Remediation and testing progress jumped from 44% in November to 75% in March.
2. Minimal operational impact of the Y2K problem has been discovered. With about 75% of the testing* completed in March, the finding is that less than 3% of items tested have any difficulty at all with Y2K. Furthermore, most of that 3% are only "nuisance" problems, such as incorrect dates printed on reports and logs. (* note that remediation and testing is the final of the three phases. In March, 99% of the Inventory phase was completed, and 95% of the Assessment phase was completed.)
3. The Y2K problem is real. Despite the good news found so far, NERC and the power companies will not let up in the drive to complete remediation by July 1. They are taking the problem seriously.
4. The utility companies are taking a "defense in depth" strategy. Even though it looks like Y2K problems will not cause power interruptions, there are still contingency plans in place so there is no one critical link in the chain.

The essence of the April 30 report is that tests indicate that power production will not be a problem in the year 2000. However, the utility companies are not taking any chances and are being very thorough with their testing and their contingency planning. For example, there will be plenty of extra power capacity available come 2000. Quoting from page 9 of the report: "A conservative estimate is that the generation that will be available and Y2K ready will exceed the highest electrical demand during the transition to the Year 2000 by at least 55%."

One of the common criticisms of NERC is that it is self-regulating. However, most of the power companies in North America are using an independent, external audit contractor for their Y2K programs.

90% of the utility companies are on target to be completely Y2K ready by June 30, 1999. Of the remaining 25 companies, none of them report exceptions beyond October 31, 1999.

The Y2K doomsayer’s commonly claim that NERC will not be able to meet its schedule. We now have over 6 months of history we can check. I decided to compare their September 1998 schedule with what they have actually accomplished:

In summary, the people that are actually fixing and testing the problem have been able to meet and exceed their objectives so far. There is no reason to doubt that our electrical systems will by Y2K ready by July 1999.

FPL is ahead of the average power company in preparation.

The NRC audited the Turkey point nuclear power plant and five other nuclear plants. The NRC stated these were the most in-depth assessments they have seen. The NRC review identified no issues or weaknesses.

There are two non-nuclear generating plants here in Broward County. The most technologically advanced, and thus the most vulnerable to the Y2K bug, is "Unit 4" located near 441 south of I-595. In April, this power plant was shut down and restarted with all the clocks set ahead to December 1999. On May 1, 1999, the computers at Unit 4 rolled over to January 1, 2000, with the plant running at full power. There was no interruption in power generation. The press release for this event can be found on the FPL web site, www.fpl.com.

I asked an FPL employee, Joe Nestor, for the inside story. It turns out that the Unit 4 test results are consistent with the NERC findings. There were a few problems, but they were only "nuisance" problems, such as incorrect dates in logs and reports. There was no effect on the generation of electricity.

Proverbs 18:17 reads: "The first one to plead his cause seems right until his neighbor comes and examines him."

We have heard from many sources predicting power problems caused by Y2K. We have examined their premises and claims, and found them to be false or unfounded. We have examined the claims of the people who understand the problem and are fixing it. Their story is consistent and validated. (Refer to the NERC report section above.)

Let’s take a look at what the doomsayers have told us and compare that to what we have learned in recent months:

We’ve been told that "know one can know for certain what will happen." While that may be true on a global scale, it isn’t true for contained subsystems. For example, we know exactly what will happen when the year rolls over at Unit 4 because we have done it and observed it. Computers are very predictable – given the same input, the will always produce the same output.

We’ve been told that the rail system will fail and won’t be able to deliver coal, because the switches can no longer be manually controlled. I personally checked this out first hand. I visited a rail switch on the FEC rail system, and there was a giant lever for manual override. I also visited a CSX rail switch, and it also had the manual override. You can see the rail switches for yourself on my Y2K web site:

http://geocities.datacellar.net/TheTropics/9090/y2k.html

We’ve been told that the NERC has unrealistic schedules, but when examined, we have found that they are right on schedule, if not a little ahead.

We’ve been told that the NERC April 9 test was rigged, but when the test is understood, we can see that it is valid.

There are other non-power related quotes that are not legitimate. Let’s look at a few:

We’ve been told that the CEO of General Motors said that if January 1, 2000 were tomorrow that GM could not build a car for a year. The CEO of GM never said that. This originated from a misquote of the CIO, where he said that if nothing were done about the Y2K problem, then it could turn into a catastrophe. The quote is hardly relevant since a great deal has been done about the Y2K problem. The complete explanation of the misquote is widely available in papers such as "Y2K: Who’s In Charge Here?" by Pastor John Michaels. This paper can be found on the Internet at:

I would recommend reading this 23-page sermon transcript, because it gives an interesting picture of the Y2K doomsayers.

We’ve been told that Y2K problems would begin to surface on April 1 (fiscal year 2000 for New York and many companies) and on April 9 (the 99^th day of the 99^th year). Those dates have come and gone and no disasters happened. We were also told that July 1, 1999 would bring a wave of Y2K problems. It has come and gone and was nothing more than just a speed bump.

We’ve been told that no utility company will come out and state that they are ready for Y2K. But now FPL has come out and solidly stated that they are ready. In the Business section of the Sun Sentinel on Friday July 2, Sol Stamm, FPL’s Year 2000 project manager said: "When you go to turn on your light switch at Jan. 1, 2000, the lights are going to come on."

In my original paper, I called for a test of claims against first-hand, reliable knowledge. The claims of widespread power problems caused by Y2K have failed the test.

The claims and the progress reports of the people who understand the problem have tested out. They have accomplished what they said that they would accomplish and their numbers have been shown to be accurate.

In the final conclusion, it is more likely that we will have a widespread power outage tomorrow than on January 1, 2000. While we cannot guarantee that either of these is impossible, we should not waste excessive time and money preparing for it. Having said that, let me add that there is nothing wrong with being prepared for disaster in general. I just don’t recommend any special preparation for a Y2K power outage.