I've been tracking the Utility Industry - looking for a Y2K complaint Utility - have yet to find one. Here is an EXCELLENT study being done on this issue (If there is no power - how compliant will your corp be)

http://www.euy2k.com/guest2.htm

Do read this - it's important I think! :)

-- Whitney (Y2K Whit@aol.com), December 22, 1998

Answers

Thanks Whitney - sobering reading. This really does hilight the problem of lack of central coordination - each utility attacking the problem in a piecemeal fashion and hoping for the best. The high percentage of utilities refusing to divulge project status information should raise our collective red flags alone. If these utilities are refusing this type of information at this stage in the game, how can we trust them to cooperate effectively with other utilities during the workaround/triage stage? And then factor in the nuclear plants which supply 20-25%? of US power (40% on the East Coast) - will they be shut down in mid '99 (July 1st) as required by law (the NRC) if they are not compliant by then?

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), December 22, 1998.

Please read these sites:

www.alapower.com - Alabama Power

and-

www.bellsouth.com - South Central Bell

I live in Alabama, and think I'm in a PRIME location, for January 1st, 2000. The winters aren't that cold(ya can make it without power), & the reports are *sobering*(compared to the doomsday sayers). My new nick on here is now -DebunkTheMyth-

-- -DeBunkTheMyth- (flembob@usa.net), December 22, 1998.

>>I live in Alabama, and think I'm in a PRIME location, for January 1st, 2000. The winters aren't that cold(ya can make it without power), & the reports are *sobering*(compared to the doomsday sayers). My new nick on here is now -DebunkTheMyth- <<

What Myth are you referring to? According to Alabama Power there target date to complete Remediation and Testing is 6/99. (less then 150 business days from Y2k)

I am sure you are aware of how accurate a projectted completion date for any major software project /upgrade / modification is.

Are you aware of any electric companies who are currently Y2k Complaint? If so please let me know. :)

Whitney

-- Whitney (Y2kWhit@aol.com), December 22, 1998.

Whitney,

Thanks for that heads up! I e-mailed Bonnie, the author, and asked her about PG&E, Silicon Valleys juice supplier. Her response is below.

I immediately forwarded it on to an investigative reporter than I chatted with yesterday (hes interviewing John Koskinen, Chair, President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion sometime today). Please posters, get your local investigative reporters focused on digging up the truth on your local electrical utility. Its in their interest to do so, as much as yours!!

Diane

Bonnies Response:

The information on PG&E which I found *interesting* is that they admit they will not be completely remediated by Jan.1, 2000:

"Further, we expect to incur costs in the year 2000 and beyond to remediate and replace less critical software and embedded systems." That statement is from their 10Q.

That PG&E is addressing only critical systems and even that is a * very* tight race is apparent from their Year 2000 statement at the their online site:

"PG&E has recently completed an enterprise-wide inventory of all embedded systems to assess the degree of Year 2000 compliance. We expect to complete assessment of all critical embedded systems and to repair or replace those systems found to be non-compliant by the fourth quarter of 1999."

This info on the home page was dated 11/30/1998. They had just finished their inventory (what systems/software they have) and in 13 months time predict they will both assess (find out what has date problems and what doesn't) and repair or replace non-compliant systems (not to mention testing them afterward). From an information technology standpoint, this is a superhuman schedule.

According to their recent 10Q, they have spent one-third of their total estimated expense - NOT counting those costs "in the year 2000 and beyond" mentioned above. There is another statement in their 10Q which is very telling: "We plan to develop contingency plans for our critical software or embedded systems for which we determine (my note - future tense used here) Year 2000 replacement or repair is substantially at risk." This pains me, Diane, but I have to tell you, that of all the 10Q's I've read, this one comes closer to saying outright, "We're not going to make it." than any other.

I'd say it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out from these public statements that this is a company which is behind the curve and running out of time. Whether they'll get enough critical systems fixed to keep the power on, is a guess - but if it were me, I'd be making preparations, and not betting on PG&E to come through without major problems.

Thanks for the kind words, and I feel badly that I didn't have better news to give you. It seems rather pathetic to now wish you a joyful holiday season. Nevertheless, I do send those wishes!

All the best to you and yours,

Bonnie

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), December 23, 1998.

My bet for the place most likely to be able keep power going "no matter what".

There is a little town at the extreme north border of Arkansas with a massive spring spring fed from the southern Missouri Ozarks. Indian legend holds that is has never run dry - at a rate of hundreds of thousands of gpm!.

So this spring was dammed in the 1800's, then had an electric power plant at the dam in the first of this century. All the electric generating equipment and regulators are still present - though damaged with some cables "cut" when the station was decommissioned in the late seventies. (Didn't put out enough power.)

If those guys were smart - they'd do a basic overhaul of that generator and test it, then mothball it until they needed it. The diagrams, controllers, and running gear - built in the twenties - couldn't be difficult to jury-rig or fully repair, and the power depends on nothing else but the spring.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), December 23, 1998.

I've seen stories here and there that various power plants had been rolled over beyond 2000 and left there. Sounds (internally)complaint to me. I found these two after a quick search:

From http://www.y2kreview.com/981116.htm Area Utilities Vow Power will Stay On (AP/Oregonian) "Washington Water Power Co. and the Bonneville Power Administration [BPA] say they have taken steps to avoid massive computer malfunctions" in 2000. BPA controls most of the power grid that links utilities in the Northwest; the story says "there is a remote chance" that failures outside the local grid (e.g., Indiana; see next story) might ripple to the BPA-controlled grid. On the other hand, "'We might be more reliable than a normal day,' said Brian Furumasu, one of Bonneville's Y2K project managers." Furumasu says that everything should be ready by next March, having gone through a five-step compliance plan. "The unique challenge of Y2K, Furumasu said, is reinforcing a system that routinely handles random breakdowns to withstand the potential failure of several components imultaneously." -- And in much better news than that: Jeff Brune,Y2K manager of the Spokane-based Washington Water Power Co., said nine of 12 plants were pushed past Jan. 1, 2000, for testing, and left there; "we saw no reason to bring them back." Brune outlined some of WWP's contingency plans and pointed out two advantages of the West: the power grid there is "almost isolated" from those in the rest of the country, and operators can watch what happens in the East in order to get an idea of what will happen locally.

And:

http://www.tva.gov/news/today/da111998.htm#2 comes this good news.

It's Y2K at Gallatin & Chickamauga - and the Lights Are Still On TVA's Gallatin Fossil Plant and Chickamauga Dam rang in New Year 2000 several months early to get an idea how things will go when the new millennium rolls around for real. Both sites completed Year 2000 unit-startup tests last month, and both continue to run using 21st-century dates.

The goal of the tests was to ensure that all equipment with date-related functions will operate properly when the date 01/01/00 arrives. Startup conditions were chosen as the best test of plant equipment. The reason is that changes occur in all plant systems at startup, offering a good look at how equipment will operate during those changes. At Gallatin, the coal-handling system also was included in the test. Before startup, all clocks at each site were set to let them naturally progress to Jan. 1, 2000. The leap-year date of Feb. 29, 2000, also was tested. The consensus of many in the utility industry, including the Electric Power Research Institute, is that testing these two dates yields an accurate indication of equipment's Y2K compliance.

All four power-generating units at Chickamauga and units 1-3 at Gallatin were successfully tested. (Due to a planned outage, Gallatin's unit 4 will be tested at a later date.) The clocks at both sites will be left to run in the year 2000 until early January 1999. The Y2K team that conducted the test included representatives from Fossil & Hydro Engineering, F&H Operations, Information Services, Telecommunications and Transmission/Power Supply.

-- Lewis (aslanshow@yahoo.com), December 23, 1998.

>>And in much better news than that: Jeff Brune,Y2K manager of the Spokane-based Washington Water Power Co., said nine of 12 plants were pushed past Jan. 1, 2000, for testing, and left there; "we saw no reason to bring them back." Brune outlined some of WWP's contingency plans and pointed out two advantages of the West: the power grid there is "almost isolated" from those in the rest of the country, and operators can watch what happens in the East in order to get an idea of what will happen locally.<<

This is the third time now I've seen my local power company - as an example of a y2k complaint co ... and it is totally incorrect - Washington Water Power (now known as Avista) is not Y2k Compliant. They have a goal of being compliant - by 6/99. They have however spent millions on a state of the art lobby - which looks like a futuristic art gallery, so they ARE ready for the next century appearance wise.

Here is their 10Q ...

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/104918/0000891020-98-001580.txt

To date I know of no Electric Company that is y2k complaint. I know WWP (Avista) sure isnt... I live here so have been keeping close tabs on them for some time :)

Whitney

-- Whitney (Y2KWhit@aol.com), December 23, 1998.

Whitney, Avista's 10Q does make interesting reading:

"Business Systems Many of the Company's critical business systems would not have operated correctly in the year 2000 and beyond, and thus have been or are in the process of being re-programmed, upgraded or replaced. Key business systems have been inventoried and assessed.........A failure of these systems would not jeopardize the Company's ability to deliver energy services to customers, but might affect its ability to perform selected accounting and business-related functions.

Embedded Systems The Embedded System team is responsible for locating, assessing, testing, fixing or replacing microprocessor-controlled devices. Inventory and assessment is 90 percent complete, and to date very few embedded systems have been found that require remediation. None of these requiring remediation would have caused a disruption in service to our customers. Remediation and testing is complete at nine of the Company's twelve generation sites and these sites are Year 2000 ready...

The process for testing a generation facility for Year 2000 consists of identification and testing of all facility systems and system components; renovations of systems and components that fail the tests; and a full facility test where system clocks are manually moved forward and the entire plant is put into operation as if it were already the year 2000. Remediation and testing at the remaining sites is scheduled to occur before the middle of 1999.

The Company's Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system, which monitors and controls the majority of the Company's generating and substation equipment and the transmission system, was run "in the Year 2000" for three days without incident. All testing of electric metering has been completed. Testing of devices in the Company's transmission and distribution substations systems is expected to be complete by mid-1999. Initial assessment indicates that most of the embedded systems in these areas are either already Year 2000 compliant or are not within an essential business system."

Am I missing something, or isn't this a very encouraging report?

Whitney, no large organization (mine included) is going to be '100%Y2K compliant. There will always be some spreadsheet or database thats whacked somehow. But personally, all I want for a electrical utility is for the juice to stay on.

From what I've read so far, they deserve better than being abused in a public forum. I wish most utilities had their ducks aligned as well as this outfit seems to.

As usual, my opinion is worth every cent you paid for it...

-- Lewis (aslanshow@yahoo.com), December 23, 1998.

" In order to address Year 2000 issues, several project activity teams were created and a comprehensive readiness plan was developed to bring the Company into Year 2000 readiness by the middle of 1999."

"... As a result, more than 350 of the Company's 1,100 desktop computers require hardware remediation, which is expected to be completed by mid-1999."

"...In addition, all critical business desktop applications are expected to be converted, tested and made Year 2000 ready by the middle of 1999.""

"...Testing of the Company's Billing, Customer Service and Work Management systems began in October 1998 and is expected to be completed before the middle of 1999"

"...All testing of electric metering has been completed. Testing of devices in the Company's transmission and distribution substations systems is expected to be complete by mid-1999.""

You might find this reassuring ... "mid 1999" .... but I dont. I live here the tempature Jan 1 2000 will be between -10 and 30 degrees. The average person in this city does not have an alternative source of heat. WWP has been aware of this problem for many years, there is no reason they could not have scheduled completion by "Mid 1998" There is no good reason, with lives depending on them, that they are waiting less then 150 business days before Y2k to finish all their y2k projects. And I see no reason why they put millions of dollars, and man hours in planning a state of the art lobby - when the Y2k issue is much more critical. The lobby is complete, how wonderful. Its too bad their Y2k plan isnt complete, and their lobby isnt scheduled for completion "mid 99"

You are right, our electric company does have a postitive 10Q (compared to most the others I have read) but it isnnt enough. They should be *DONE* now. Period.

-- Whitney (Y2kWhit@aol.com), December 23, 1998.

"Remediation and testing is complete at nine of the Company's twelve generation sites and these sites are Year 2000 ready..."

Sheesh, Whitney, relax a little and be grateful you live there. As long as the machines that make the juice work, why should you care if their spreadsheets are screwed up? (If they're using MSOffice desktop stuff, upgrading to Office97 will largely work fine. Unless they are entering dates prior to 1929 using only two digits.)Upgrading desktop hardware means a BIOS upgrade or a new PC.

Business systems don't heat houses.

I agree distribution is an open question, but if their SCADA's already ran for three days in 2000, it sounds promising. Should they have been done a year ago? Of course! but nobody was. I'll be impressed a year from now if the majority of US generating facilities are as far along as these guys say they are right now.

Peace.

-- Lewis (aslanshow@yahoo.com), December 23, 1998.

Someone please explain how a utility can real-time test as in change the date to 2000 on-line and leave it there without jeopardizing current power generation during the test? What if the test caused glitches, and cessation of generation and transmission?

-- ?! (question@answer.com), December 23, 1998.

Remediation and testing is complete at nine of the Company's twelve generation sites and these sites are Year 2000 ready..."

Sheesh, Whitney, relax a little and be grateful you live there. As long as the machines that make the juice work, why should you care if their spreadsheets are screwed up? (If they're using MSOffice desktop stuff, upgrading to Office97 will largely work fine. Unless they are entering dates prior to 1929 using only two digits.)Upgrading desktop hardware means a BIOS upgrade or a new PC.

Business systems don't heat houses.

I agree distribution is an open question, but if their SCADA's already ran for three days in 2000, it sounds promising. Should they have been done a year ago? Of course! but nobody was. I'll be impressed a year from now if the majority of US generating facilities are as far along as these guys say they are right now.

Peace.

-- Lewis (aslanshow@yahoo.com), December 23, 1998.

<<

Lewis, I live here, i was in southern california two years ago when the lights / power and heat went out in Spokane for a week (10 days in some cases) This city was a chaos, fedral disaster area - and the cleanup is *STILL* going on - It dont matter one iota if the "power plants" are working or not if WWP cant get their internal systems to work we wont have power. It is reassuring to know that my utility co is one of the two that keep getting referred to as being "y2k compliant" The only thing that IS reassuring to me - is I iknow that in Spokane they cant legally shut our power off - even if they cant bill us - even if we dont pay the bill - in January. So if the only problem they have come Jan 2000 is in their billing , and accounts recievable etc - we will still have power.

Whitney

-- Whitney (Y2kWhit@aol.com), December 24, 1998.

Sorry this is long.....I've it a bit to make it shorter.....VERY INTERESTING READING AT ANY RATE.....

Subject: Electric Utilities: Strong statement from Pennsylvania PUC

>Although lengthy, this statement is important reading for everyone concerned about the Y2k readiness of electric utilities. As Martin notes, this is a stronger statement than any other PUCs have issued including the New York Public Serice Commission. >Norman K >------------ >Received: 12/23 9:01 AM >From: Roleigh Martin, Roleigh.Martin-1@tc.umn.edu > >http://puc.paonline.com/agenda_items/1998/COM/pm0709/c-8.zip >(file inside zipfile: Y2k_ord.doc) > >The contents of the above referenced file is fully reprinted >below in ASCII form -- it is a very interesting document and I >wish that other Public Utility Commissions throughout America >were as forceful as Pennsylvania is. This has the most meat of >any PUC document dealing with Y2K that I've seen. > >My kudos to Pennsylvania > >--Roleigh Martin > >------------------------------------------------------------- > >PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION >Harrisburg, PA 17105-3265 > > Public Meeting held July 9, 1998 > >Commissioners Present: > > John M. Quain, Chairman > Robert K. Bloom, Vice-Chairman > David W. Rolka > Nora Mead Brownell > Aaron Wilson, Jr. > >Investigation Into Year 2000 Compliance I-00980076 >By Public Utilities > > >O R D E R > >BY THE COMMISSION: > >Introduction and Summary > > At 12:01 a.m. on New Year's morning of the year 2000, many > computer systems worldwide could malfunction or produce > incorrect or conflicting information simply because the > date has changed which, in turn, could lead to the failure > of the ability of utilities dependent upon computer > technology to provide safe, reasonable and adequate > service. Unless corrected, the impact of these failures > could be widespread and costly. > > For the past two years, the Commission has been aware of > the seriousness of this issue and has taken several steps > to address it. As we approach the millenium, the actions > which we are taking today represent the next step in our > efforts to insure that all jurisdictional fixed utilities > are in the best possible position to avoid the foregoing > potential problems. > > >History > > In the late spring and early summer of 1997, the Commission > conducted an informal survey of a broad sampling of > jurisdictional utilities in an effort to ascertain whether > those public utilities were aware of the Year 2000 > computer issue that, if not resolved, could result in the > shut down of critical information systems, curtailment of > on-line transactions, and cascading impacts from integrated > systems. In our survey, we also asked the utilities what > steps were being taken to meet this challenge and whether > their mission-critical computer systems, both mainframe and > desktop, would be Y2K compliant by the year 2000. > > The responses to this informal survey were reassuring but, > as it has become apparent, somewhat inaccurate. Several > utilities reported that they would have no problem because > they had already converted to hardware or software that is > Y2K compliant. Most of the remaining utilities indicated > that they were in the process of addressing the problem > with the year 1998 as the most commonly cited > implementation time frame for Y2K compliance. > > On March 18, 1998, based on the foregoing inquiry, a > follow-up letter was sent to all jurisdictional fixed > utilities requesting that each utility submit, by April 17, > 1998, an updated report indicating its status and regarding > its efforts to address the Y2K issue. We further indicated > our need to know whether the Y2K issue would affect their > utility operations and, if so, how they intend to address > the matter. We also indicated that the update should > include any concerns that the utilities may have with > regard to interfaces with outside systems that may not be > adequately prepared to meet the Y2K transition. > > By the April 17, 1998, response date, the majority of the > jurisdictional fixed utilities had not provided the > requested information. Follow-up contact with the > utilities did not yield sufficient responses and, as of > July 9, 1998, only 21 % of jurisdictional electric > utilities, 6 % of jurisdictional telecommunications > utilities, and 21 % of jurisdictional water utilities had > responded. Jurisdictional natural gas utilities were > generally more forthcoming with their replies but, > nevertheless, the broad-based lack of response to our > inquiry with respect to this issue is unacceptable. > > Of even greater concern than the partial response to our > informal inquiry are the very different responses from > those utilities that did respond in 1997 and again in 1998. > In our 1997 inquiry, we were generally assured that the Y2K > issue would be addressed and resolved by the end of 1998. > However, the responses to our March 18, 1998, follow-up, > indicated that while many of the responding utilities > asserted that they would be Y2K compliant by the year 2000, > they declined to provide a date-certain for compliance > while other utilities projected estimated dates up to the > last quarter of 1999. The assurance of projected > resolution of the Y2K issue in the latter half of 1999, > without any details as to how the issue is being > approached, without any details as to current levels of > compliance, without accurate projected levels of > compliance, and without any indication of contingency plans > should vital systems not be compliant by the year 2000, is > unacceptable and inconsistent with that which was reported > in 1997. > > It is apparent that too many utilities are ill prepared to > face the upcoming millennium. It should be noted that > utilities with outside vendors appear to have a false sense > of security that their computer systems will have no > problem after December 31, 1999. Without proper testing, > these utilities may discover their business operations > coming to a halt on January 1, 2000. Other utilities that > have not completed the changeover for their computer > systems will find themselves in the same position. It is > imperative that these utilities expedite their efforts in > achieving compliance with the Year 2000 problem. > > Additionally, we are concerned that utilities whose > operations depend upon outside services and/or vendors, > have not adequately investigated whether or not the outside > services and/or vendors are or will be Y2K compliant before > January 1, 2000. If the outside services and/or vendors > are not now or will not be Y2K compliant before January 1, > 2000, and, if the services and/or vendors are necessary to > the utilities' ability to provide safe and adequate > service, it is imperative that the utilities either demand > Y2K compliance or develop and have in place an adequate and > tested contingency plan prior to January 1, 2000. > > Furthermore, and possibly most importantly, we are > concerned that utilities may not have adequately analyzed > the effect, if any, of embedded logic on the utility's > ability to facilitate the Y2K transition. Embedded logic > primarily takes the form of computer chips that have been > pre-programmed to perform a certain function, sometimes on > a predetermined time schedule. > > For example, within a typical electric utility, embedded > logic is prevalent in every facet of operation from load > dispatch and remote breaker control to nuclear power plant > safety systems and fossil plant boiler control systems. > Whole generating units (generally, gas turbines) may be > remotely controlled to adjust system loads in response to > system demand. Embedded logic is the wildcard in the Y2K > scheme of things for any industry where process control is > utilized. No one knows or can even guess how much embedded > control has the potential for failure on January 1, 2000, > without extensive analysis and testing. > > Further, even if all non-compliant embedded logic and > controls were identified in every utility process that used > them, there is absolutely no assurance that the control > industry or chip manufacturers would be able to meet the > demand for upgrades or replacements. Even obtaining > support from the vendor that installed the system could be > problematic. If jurisdictional utilities are not able to > thoroughly test and correct all mission-critical embedded > logic so as to ensure Y2K compliance, it is imperative that > a contingency plan be established so that utility service > will be maintained through the Y2K transition. > > It is not the Commission's function to impose a technical > solution to the Y2K issue upon jurisdictional utilities. > The decision as to the most appropriate managerial > solutions to this anticipated problem lies with the > individual utility. The Commission is, however, fully > authorized under the Public Utility Code, to examine such > solutions and evaluate their adequacy and reasonableness. > The subject matter that the Commission may examine and act > on under the Code is very broad and includes any issue, > such as the Y2K issue, which, if left unaddressed, could > pose a serious threat to the utilities' responsibility to > provide safe and reliable utility service. > >Conclusion > > In light of the foregoing concerns regarding the incomplete > responses and conflicting data that we have received to > date with respect to the Y2K issue, we will institute a > formal, on the record investigation in order to accurately > assess any and all steps taken and proposed to be taken to > resolve the Y2K compliance issue by all jurisdictional > fixed utilities and mission-critical service providers such > as the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland (PJM) > Interconnection. All jurisdictional fixed utilities must > be Y2K compliant on or before March 31, 1999. > > Y2K compliance has been defined by the Federal Government > to mean that, "with respect to information technology, that > the information technology accurately processes date/time > data (including, but not limited to, calculating, > comparing, and sequencing) from, into, and between the > twentieth and twenty-first centuries, and the years 1999 > and 2000 and leap year calculations, to the extent that > other information technology, used in combination with the > information technology being acquired, properly exchanges > date/time data with it." (48 CFR Part 39.002). > > We adopt the Federal Government definition and further > define Y2K compliance as a jurisdictional utility having > all mission-critical Y2K hardware and software updates > and/or replacements installed and tested on or before March > 31, 1999. Simply having updates in place without proper > testing is not considered to meet Y2K compliance. > Furthermore, for those mission-critical processes for which > a jurisdictional utility cannot ensure Y2K compliance, the > utility will be required to develop and test an adequate > contingency plan for responding to the loss of a system due > to the Y2K problem. In general, this plan shall describe > the steps the utility will take - including the activation > of manual or contract processes - to ensure the continuity > of its utility service in the event of a Y2K-induced system > failure. > > We find that this issue presents questions that are of > fundamental importance to the public health, safety and > convenience of Pennsylvanians, and that each of our > jurisdictional fixed utilities must be prepared to > demonstrate that it is adequately addressing the Y2K > problem so as to enable it to furnish and maintain > adequate, efficient, safe and reasonable service. (66 > Pa.C.S. '1501). Each of our jurisdictional fixed utilities > is herewith placed on notice that we intend to investigate > how their resolution of Y2K issues affects, and will affect > in the future, the ability to provide service and > facilities to the public. > > This Commission has full power and authority to carry out > and enforce the purposes of the Public Utility Code in the > public interest. (66 Pa.C.S. '501). The Commission has full power to > depose, examine witnesses under oath or compel the > production of documents necessary to investigate this > matter in aid of its general power and authority under the > Code, (66 Pa.C.S. ''309, 310, 331) and may investigate the > interstate rates, facilities or services of any public > utility within this Commonwealth for compliance with > Federal law. > > We would further note that discrimination or retaliation > against any public utility employee for furnishing a good > faith report to their employer, the Commission, the Office > of Consumer Advocate, the Office of Small Business Advocate > or the Office of Attorney General is forbidden by law. (66 > Pa.C.S. '3316). > > Failure to promptly and fully cooperate with this > investigation, or to furnish all information and data > requested will be subject to the provisions of 66 Pa.C.S. > '3301 (Civil Penalties for Violation), or 66 Pa.C.S. '3302 > (Criminal Penalties for Violation), in the case of knowing > failure, omission, neglect or refusal. > > In order to permit the Office of Administrative Law Judge > to determine the current and anticipated level of Y2K > compliance of jurisdictional fixed utilities, we have > attached to this Order a series of questions that each > jurisdictional fixed utility will be required to complete > and return to the Secretary of the Commission, with a sworn > affidavit no later than twenty (20) days from the date of > entry of this Order. Failure to timely file sworn > responses to this questionnaire may result in the > imposition of fines of up to $1,000.00 per day until the > questionnaire is completed and returned. > > Furthermore, the jurisdictional fixed utilities are hereby > put on notice that inaccurate and/or false or misleading > answers to the attached questions, including all > anticipated dates of Y2K compliance, may make the utility > subject to further Commission action. > > In addition, given the interconnected nature of utility > service, we believe this issue to be of regional and > national concern. As a result, we will provide a copy of > the entered Order to the Public Utility Commissions of all > states bordering Pennsylvania or which are members of the > PJM Interconnection, to the Chairs of the Federal Energy > Regulatory Commission (FERC) and to the operator of the PJM > Interconnection with a request for coordinated efforts to > address this common problem. > > As a result of the foregoing and, upon full consideration > of all matters before us at this time, we determine that an > investigation should be instituted on the motion of this > Commission to determine the current and anticipated Y2K > compliance of all jurisdictional fixed utilities; > THEREFORE, > >IT IS ORDERED: > > 1. That an investigation be, and is hereby, instituted for > the purpose of determining all matters concerning the Year > 2000 compliance of all jurisdictional fixed utilities. > > 2. That all jurisdictional fixed utilities, including those > utilities that responded to our 1997 informal survey and > the 1998 follow-up letter, be and hereby are required to > file with the Secretary of the Commission within twenty > (20) days of the date of entry of this Order, an original > and ten (10) copies of written responses to the > questionnaire appended to this Order as Attachment A, with > a sworn affidavit. > > 3. That failure to timely file sworn responses to the > questionnaire appended to this Order as Attachment A may > result in the imposition of fines of up to $1,000.00 per > day until the questionnaire is completed and returned. > > 4. That all jurisdictional fixed utilities be and hereby > are given notice that inaccurate, false or misleading > answers to the attached questions, including all > anticipated dates of Y2K compliance, may make the utility > subject to further Commission action. > > 5. That this investigation be assigned to the Office of > Administrative Law Judge in order to consider the responses > of the jurisdictional fixed utilities and determine > whether all jurisdictional fixed utilities are Year 2000 > compatible, to identify those which are not, and to > recommend those steps necessary to secure Y2K compliance as > defined herein by no later than March 31, 1999. > > 6. That, if a utility cannot affirmatively demonstrate to > the satisfaction of the Office of Administrative Law Judge > that its mission-critical systems are Year 2000 compliant, > then the utility be and hereby is required to explain the > steps that it is taking in order to be Year 2000 compliant > on or before March 31, 1999. > > 7. That, if a jurisdictional fixed utility determines that > mission-critical systems cannot be Year 2000 compliant on > or before March 31, 1999, then the utility be, and is > hereby, required to file with the Office of Administrative > Law Judge, before the close of hearings, a detailed > contingency plan as discussed herein so as to ensure the > uninterrupted continuation of utility service throughout > the transition from the twentieth to the twenty-first > century including the leap year. > > 8. That the Office of Administrative Law Judge commence its > investigation within ten (10) days of the date on entry of > this Order, with the submission of a report and any > recommendations to the Commission on or before, but in no > case later than, October 31, 1998. > > 9. That this matter be assigned to the Office of Executive > Director to coordinate additional support as may be > necessary to ensure timely compliance with any Commission > Orders or directives at this docket, including those > contained herein. > > 10. That a copy of this Order be served on each > Commission jurisdictional fixed utility, the Office of > Consumer Advocate, the Office of Small Business Advocate, > the Commonwealth Technology Center, the Office of the > Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the > Office of the Chairman of the Federal Communications > Commission, the Office of the Chairman of the Nuclear > Regulatory Commission, the Office of the Chairman of the > following state regulatory Commission: the New Jersey Board > of Public Utilities, the Ohio Public Utilities Commission, > the New York Public Service Commission, the Maryland Public > Service Commission, the Delaware Public Service Commission, > the West Virginia Public Service Commission, the District > of Columbia Public Service Commission, the Virginia > Corporation Commission; the Board of Directors and Chief > Administrative Office of the Pennsylvania-New > Jersey-Maryland Interconnection. > > 11. That the PJM Office of Interconnection be requested > to participate in this proceeding. > > BY THE COMMISSION, > > James J. McNulty > Secretary >(Seal) >ORDER ADOPTED: July 9, 1998 >ORDER ENTERED: >

-- Sheila (sross@bconnex.net), December 24, 1998.