PG7E AND Y2K

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Sonoma County : One Thread

Subject: Bob Burnett on PG&E Y2K Problem

The following is of special interest to SF Bay Area Y2K activists. But it is of broader interest to all those working on Y2K, as a good review of the problem with delays in utility Y2K compliance reporting. Bob Burnett is a technical consultant with the City of Berkeley for Y2K matters. PG&E is Pacific Gas and Electric, the largest energy utility in Northern California. -- Tom tlee

PG&E Y2K Problem

Bob Burnett: Y2K/PG&E February 2, 1999

The Problem: PG&E is unable or unwilling to give municipalities the information they need to do comprehensive emergency planning relative to the Y2K problem.

Background: the city of Berkeley and most Bay-Area municipalities are advising their residents to take standard emergency precautions for YK. These precautions assume that Y2K will involve the sorts of power outages associated with an earthquake or a severe fire; viz., at the most 72 hours without power. (Most disaster plans assume that after 72 hours relief from outside the community will be available; e.g., Red Cross relief.) In terms of community preparation 72 hours represents a crucial dividing point. Most residents can survive 72 hours without power with minor discomfort. Most businesses can endure 72 hours without power with only minor financial impact.

However, if power is unavailable for longer than 72 hours, communities experience considerably more discomfort. Residents begin to experience symptoms of stress, hunger, and exhaustion. Businesses begin to shut down (those that have remained open with the use of gasoline-powered generators begin to close as they run out of fuel). Refrigerators thaw. Critical municipal services begin to shut down (e.g., the sewage treatment facilities will stop functioning and raw sewage will be dumped into San Francisco Bay).

For these reasons, it is vital to effective municipal Y2K planning that PG&E give us a clear statement of whether or not they will have fixed their power systems by 1-1-2000. It is also critical that if they do not expect to have all the systems repaired, they tell us what to expect in terms of power availability.

Unfortunately, PG&E is unwilling to make precise statements about whether or not they will have fixed their power systems by 1-1-2000. In their Year 2000 web-site they say, "Based on our current schedule, we expect all mission- critical systems to be Year 2000 ready at the end of the third quarter of 1999". Regarding their level of confidence ("Is Pacific Gas and Electric Company willing to provide Year 2000 compliance guarantees?"), they report that PG&E "is making every effort to be ready to operate and provide service to customers in a safe and reliable manner into and through the Year 2000. However, because of the complex interaction of today's computing and communication systems, we are not able to make any blanket warranties or representations regarding Year 2000 compliance. " [Emphasis added.]

If PG&E were to wait until the end of the third quarter of 1999 to announce that they would not have all systems fixed by 1-1-2000, municipalities would not have sufficient time to take alternative actions. If PG&E were to announce on 10-1-99 that Northern California should plan for power outages of greater than 72 hours, municipalities would not have enough lead time to take additional precautions. For example, there would not be time to procure generators.

How likely is it that PG&E will be late? No one can say for sure. However the history of large programming projects like this one are not encouraging. More often than not, projects of this size are late. (This is a multi-year, multi-million dollar effort of considerable complexity. For example, PG&E admits that this involves 305,770 mission-critical embedded systems.)

What keeps PG&E from being totally candid now? There appear to be a variety of issues that keep PG&E from a position of total openness. There are legal liability issues (whether the actual results are good or bad PG&E might be sued if their early predictions prove inaccurate). There are issues of public confidence (an early negative statement might cause public anxiety). There are also market issues (information might have adverse affects on PG&E securities).

What can be done? Ultimately this is an issue of public safety. Unless PG&E is totally candid now there could be an adverse impact on the public safety beginning on 1-1-2000. We believe that legislative steps should be taken to ensure that PPG&E is candid with public officials. This could take several forms: PG&E might be exempted from legal liability (the "Good Samaritan" laws might be strengthened). PG&E might be forced to total disclosure before the Public Utilities Commission.

When should this increased disclosure take place? Preferably as soon as possible. PG&E will participate in two tests of the National Power control Grid on April 9th and September 9th. By their own admission they will not be ready for the first test. The results of the second test will be known too late for effective municipal contingency planning. Therefore it would be best to have this disclosure before the end of the 2nd quarter.

Summary: Legislative assistance is needed in order to ensure that PG&E is totally candid with California Municipal authorities.

Tom Atlee * The Co-Intelligence Institute * Oakland, CA http://www.co-intelligence.org * http://www.co-intelligence.org/Y2K.html



-- Jean Wasp (jean@sonic.net), March 16, 1999


Moderation questions? read the FAQ