Com Ed says 100% y2k ready, including embedded systems

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Electric Utilities and Y2K : One Thread

Is this really possible? Com Ed sent out this announcement with its latest billing to Chicagoland customers: "On June 30 Unicom Chairman and CEO, John W. Rowe, announced ComEd is 100% y2k ready, six months before the December 31, 1999 deadline...Every aspect of our business was involved - from customer information, purchasing and supply systems to metering, transmission and generation. In addition, all embedded critical systems, control systems and instrumentation in our facilities and plants are prepared for the transition to the new century." The announcement continues: "Com Ed's y2k team will continue to prepare for the rollover. We're proceeding with our contingency efforts, quality reviews and rigorous testing activities to further ensure the y2k bug does not affect the electrical system."

If Com Ed is 100% ready - even with embedded systems (is that possible???), why are they continuing their y2k efforts? Sounds like double talk to my ears. Does it sound that way to anyone else?

I'm also surprised about this announcement since something is very wrong this summer not only with the infrastructure for the distribution of energy, but also with their meter reading and billing systems. Last month I was billed 214 dollars for an "ACTUAL" reading, only to find myself this month being credited for that same 214 dollars for an "actual" reading because one month later, I apparently haven't used any electricity according to their billing computers.

In a nutshell, there's a lot of strange things happening with Com Ed's distribution and billing systems this summer. Could it be that they are not admitting that their y2k tests are fouling up the system?

-- Anonymous, September 25, 1999

Answers

Mae,

It is quite possible to be Y2K ready, but not have all systems remediated. In fact I would expect that this would be a typical situation.

At our group of power stations we are ready for the roll over, but we ceratinly haven't fixed all systems that are not compliant. We have one control system that we recently discovered was not compliant, and we have rolled its date back by 10 years. It will still function perfectly well, but it will just report on the wrong date. Our new SCADA system is still giving problems, and forcing us to use the old non compliant system, but we have proved that we can run manually without SCADA if neccessary. So we would be in the same situation as Com Ed in that we are Y2K ready, but we are still working on the issues.

Another point that may assist to some degree is that we have found the embedded systems to be the least of all of our worries. It is the main computer systems that had the greatest potential for errors.

Computer systems, (including embedded systems) used purely for technical purposes had very few Y2K issues compared to administration and financial systems.

Malcolm

-- Anonymous, September 25, 1999


      "contingency efforts, quality reviews and rigorous testing"

This is not double talk. These are the things we want them to keep working on, no matter how fixed they are. We WANT them to keep looking for things they might not have found, to keep developing contingency plans, to continue looking under every stone, just in case there is some small thing they might have overlooked.

-- Anonymous, September 27, 1999


... just in case there is some small thing they might have overlooked.

I agree, Walt. Except I don't care if they have overlooked some small thing. What would matter is that they have overlooked some big thing.

Setting up unrealistically high and largely irrelevant standards about "small things" just gives the Pollyannas something to complain about, allowing them to divert the discussion away from Y2K and towards what critics are saying. I prefer not to make it easy for them to engage in diversionary tactics. :-)

-- Anonymous, September 28, 1999


Moderation questions? read the FAQ