There's a very interesting segment on today's Y2Knewswire about the upcoming April 9 nationwide grid test, along with some pretty strong evidence that the whole thing will be a sham, no, a fraud. Read this
-- Vic (Roadrunner@compliant.com), March 04, 1999

Answers

...what can I say...

Disgusting.

Vic, thanks for the info. Every time I think I have heard it all, something else comes along to make me even more paranoid. (Yes, it's official, I am truly paranoid now).

-- Sharon (sking@drought-ridden.com), March 04, 1999.

Yeah, just like the stock exchange "test" that only involved a few prepared players.

LM Nothing is verified untill officially denied.

-- LM (latemarch@usa.net), March 04, 1999.

FWIW my sources in the industry indicate that it would be impossible to safely do full remediation checks with any electrical generating facillity that was online (i.e. on the grid) at the time. Best info I have is that the way to tell if a utillity is in the final phases of testing, is when they start to take their power plants off line, one at a time for two week (or longer) test periods.

as for the April 9th test - of course they're lying - they're NERC.

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), March 04, 1999.

Well, there goes what little confidence I did have in NERC. This report should be called "Senate report, Appendix A" <:(=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), March 04, 1999.

What comes to mind is the Emperor with no Clothing.....

This is not very comforting to thinking that this will be a 4 or 5. Perhaps it'll a be a 1 or 2 but we won't know until it's already too late. Emperor Enablers do make me paranoid!

-- Texan (home@ranch.com), March 04, 1999.

Here's a relevant quote from an article in January...

http://www.wired.com/news/print_version/politics/story/17527.html?wnpg =all

[snip]

When an industry-advisory group met for the first time last Thursday, members fretted over how to prevent public overreaction to Y2K. The members of the group include incoming Securities Industry Association chairman Roy Zuckerberg, United Airlines chairman Jerry Greenwald, North American Electric Reliability Council chairman Erle Nye, and Scott Anderson of the American Bankers Association.

[snip]

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), March 04, 1999.

Damn. Any trolls available to argue this one?

I need a quick polyanna check!

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 04, 1999.

What a JOKE! First of all, the "test", as I read it, is not of operational software or embedded systems, but is a communications drill. Can you say "radio"? I knew you could. Congratulations! You pass.

I can see the test now. After several weeks of studying volume, squelch and antenna polarization, the test begins. "Homer, can you hear me!? Over. Yes, I can. Over. Do we need donuts? I repeat, do we need donuts? Over. Yes, we do. Over."

Does anyone remember my thread about punishment for y2k crime against humanity. If people suffer or die because of frauds like this, someone should swing.

People ought to ask to observe and record this test for posterity.

Now for some real suspense, I think I'll go to a Harlem Globetrotters game. Think they'll win? Over.

-- Puddintame (dit@dot.com), March 04, 1999.

OK, OK, the April 9 communications test is being carefully orchestrated for PR purposes. We know this.

Now, does anyone know whether it is possible for any utility to learn anything useful and helpful, either from the 'test' itself or from preparations to make sure all goes smoothly?

Similarly, can we deduce anything from those who participate as opposed to those who do not? Or from what gets tested as opposed to what doesn't, within the scope of the test? How much of the communications systems can be seen to work (under controlled conditions, to be sure) in such a test, and what does it mean?

I've run demonstrations of products not ready for prime time, and so has Bill Gates. But a lot has to be working right even to do such a demo.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 04, 1999.

Arlin, Sysman, Robert P.E. -

I guess I don't have quite as strong a reaction to this as you seem to. Put on your engineer hats (if you ever took 'em off - 8-}]):

Isn't this "unprecedented" (to use the NERC's word) drill simply being managed conservatively? What's the diff between those "success parameters" and "expected results"? They need to define clearly what success looks like, otherwise test results are useless.

I read that "have a successful story" comment to mean: "We don't want to report failure just because we didn't plan and coordinate well." I agree that they're setting it up to be successful, but I'd expect that, since it's intended to be a drill to determine what can be done to maintain bare-bones, minimum critical function. It looks to me like they're encouraging everyone to maintain as much "margin" as possible and play it very safe. They're even reminding participants not to do something stupid like running unnecessary maintenance and such. Reminds me of having to repeatedly remind the UNIX admins NOT to schedule server maintenance for the times when the e-mail group is making their backups. Took two or three screwups and some tense 8AM meetings before everyone was clear that they needed to work and play well together for all of us to enjoy our jobs...

This is an unprecedented grid-wide drill, therefore it's very tough to plan. If I were running it, I'd make darn sure that everyone was playing it safe. The question is: "Can we keep this sucker running bare minimum at Rollover?"

Having said all that, I yield the floor to REAL engineers. I just engineer those silly little computer system thingies that are causing all this grief...

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.com), March 04, 1999.

This makes me furious! They are playing with our lives and laughing about it. I am unable to download the original document which gives "instructions" for the test. Can someone more skilled than I post it for us? If I can get my hands on it I plan to mail it to 13 DWGI who are closely related to me. Two of thoes N. plants are neighbors of mine along the Tennessee river. Keep breathing...keep breathing...cool down...easy now........................Maggie

-- maggie (maggiem@nehp.com), March 04, 1999.

And of course, Y2Kloosewire is a VERY reliable source of info...HAH hahaha...

I hope this forum NEVER closes, even after Ed does his rollover... where would I find my online amusement then?

ta-ta!

-- Mutha Nachu (---@suckersborneveryminute.com), March 04, 1999.

This is old news. The plan to fake the test was released two months ago. Read wrp113 if you want a more realistic veiw of the power grid.

-- Scotty (BLehman202@aol.com), March 04, 1999.

Gee, Mutha Nachu, you might find it from verifying sources before you begin to type. See....that quote from Y2Knewswire comes directly from the NERC. It has been available for a long time.

-- De (dealton@concentric.net), March 04, 1999.

Mutha Nachu,

Read the document for yourself at the NERC's site:

ftp://www.nerc.com/pub/sys/all_updl/docs/y2k/drill-preparation- strategies.pdf

It's in PDF format.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), March 04, 1999.

Oops Nachu... Busted! You can't discount the truthfulness of the document. What now? I bet your teachers used the same testing strategy so you could pass first grade.

-- d (d@usedtobedgi.old), March 04, 1999.

I must say, if I wanted to write a bunch of wild distortion just to watch the knee-jerks react without thinking, I couldn't have done better than Y2Knewswire.

And just read this thread -- it worked perfectly! We're unlikely to find any better demonstration of the fact that you can fool some of the people all of the time.

For anyone who *can* think, what public purpose is served by performing a fraudulent test? I haven't seen anyone ranting about runs on the electric companies. Unlike banking, power doesn't rely on public confidence.

For the rest of you, just assume NERC is lying solely for the fun of it and go back to sleep.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 04, 1999.

Hi Mac, you bring up some good points. I looked at both the link and PDF doc again. It still looks like happy face spin pr stuff to me. I think the opening line says it all: "Do not make the drill too complex. We want to have a successful and meaningful story for publication." Just my $.02 <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), March 04, 1999.

OK, let's look at the statements "NEWSWIRE" has problems with:

"Prior to the drill, test the system(s) that will be exercised during the drill"

The opposite is don't test the systems that will be exercised? Any form of intergrated test assumes the individual systems have already been tested.

"...what will the final report look like. Work backwards from this in the development of the drill procedures."

and

"Identify the 'success parameters' before the test."

This is standard procedure for any testing. Determine what you want to show from the test, and identify what is considered successful. You do this before testing, so you don't just interpret "success" based on the results. You determine beforehand what "success" is.

"Each individual utility should access their capabilities in determining the extent of testing they will perform. Do not bite off more than you can chew."

and

"Do not make the drill too complex. We want to have a successful and meaningful story for publication."

These two statements I do have a problem with. Not so much the first, as most utilities are not fully complete with remediation, but more the second. NERC shouldn't be so concerned with the PR.

Overall, two comments on the story.

First, NERC has never said this is any sort of comprehensive Y2k test. It is a drill to test a specific circumstance, limited use of telecommunications. Most of "NEWSWIRE"'s story makes it appear this is being represented as a full Y2k test. It is not, and never was. Also, why in the world would you do a "surprise" test, for something that will not be a surprise?

Second, if NERC was really trying to pull the wool over anyones eyes, why would they post this document, freely available, on their website, over a month ago?

Hoffmeister

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), March 04, 1999.

Flint said this..

"For anyone who *can* think, what public purpose is served by performing a fraudulent test? I haven't seen anyone ranting about runs on the electric companies. Unlike banking, power doesn't rely on public confidence"

Yeah, generation of electricity doesn't require public confidence - der! - but most every facet of modern civilisation relies on electricity. If people are losing confidence in electrical reliability, (like buying generators and lamps and telling everyone else to do same) then they are losing confidence in the ability of the civilisation to function like normal. This obviously has implications for banking and markets because if people realise y2k is so dire that electricity might be somewhat stuffed, then they're feeding into the general (justified) panic that will see bankruns and market plunges.

A dodgy pre-fab electricity "test", with ensuing smiley-face pr/reporting, would serve the purpose of calming the masses.

"Oh look honey, they've finished fixing the electricity grid, and they've tested it all. It's a shame Johnny's lost his mind and joined that y2k-innernet right-wing survivalist cult."

-- humptydumpty (no.6@thevillage.com), March 04, 1999.

Flint: You are in the same league as Bill Clinton regarding redefining the English language. What is YOUR definition of the word "is"?

-- Rick (A Believer@Peace.com), March 05, 1999.

Good comments above - particularly to Hoffmeister and Flint.

The problem, as noted a bit later, is not that the test itself is too simple - that's okay, start easy and in a simple scenario on systems that are repaired to make sure that the repairs are correct. Fundementally - there are several things a test SEQUENCE must do:

Lookat Wall Street's widely-reported test last summer - it wa a test of the test process only. It did not test "Wall Street" at all. It did not test overseas markets. Overseas transactions. All companies. All results needed in all companies. It was very important, but it was only a test of the test process - and they still found problems in th etest itself, and in the systems that they were testing. (Wall Street will do a more complete test soon on real companies.)

This is just one small stage of each company (supposedly), but it is being billed as the "final everything is fixed" result. That is what you want the final test to do - to verify that every one of your changes to a complex system has been done correctly.

But this is a rigged, small parts example test of disconnected systems on parts and pieces of things not completed yet. They have here deliberately told the companies to do the test on remediated systems - of course! Why test something that is expected to fail? Makes no sense - the thing could really break, and be out of service. BUT - the gadget and process in question MUST be fully and formally and completely tested before 2000 - or it will break tehn as well.

BUT NOBODY is saying that the these real tests are scheduled in a timely and reliabel fashion. If FPL (Florida) claims complete remediation at the end of October - when will they actually TEST (under ideal circumstances) parts and pieces of the remediated systems, when will they test (as an integrated whole process) the entire systems that must properly under very adverse conditions 8 weeks later?

By scheduling completion of the parts in October - what will they do in August when the system is supposed to be test nationwide?

NO - it isn't this specific test that is to blaim - it is the reporting and the propaganda coming from this very simple parts-and-pieces test that will be mis-reported.

And it will be this reporting that will be potentially fatal to people in NYC, Atlanta, Buffalo, Calgary, Chicago, DC, Edmonton, Foxboro, Georgetown, Honolulu, Indianapolis, Kingsville, London, .....

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 05, 1999.

Flint--are you REALLY unable to imagine any reason why they would fake a test? Even Sen. Bennett said last week that there are over a thousand rural electrification systems at risk. Taken purely at face value, an honest government would name those rural systems, wouldn't they? A government that actually is 'of the people, by the people, for the people' would alert those people that their welfare is at risk. But a government 'of the banks, by the banks, for the banks' doesn't care about rural folk, and would fake a test to keep the urban folk asleep, to prevent bank runs. You tell us to go back to sleep? I'm afraid I just can't: 'the prospect of hanging concentrates the mind wonderfully.'

-- Spidey (in@jam.com), March 05, 1999.

No, no Sire Spidey of the Web -

He mentioned "rural" electrical distribution for a couple of reasons - political, practical, and "hint -hint" to warn others listening.

Almost all of the US is physically rural - and the cities either buy their electricity from the EMC's (rural coop's) or they buy it rfom the nearest city or the EMC transmits it from city to city. The effect of electricity is rural eerywhere in that city - city power is "rural".

To major media - rural poor stirs the hearstrings almost as much as the inner ciy poor - hence any liberal bias against the suburb electric dweller - who is typically electrically a rural electric user - is avoided and so the media will get the threast of electric failure out to the public.

Evoking prolonged power loss in inner cities will create panic - he simply can't say it in quite as many words. So he has to imply it.

Most county and state legistlatures are split rural and city/suburb. If he gets the attention of "rural" state legislatures to get their constituants to become Y2K aware, he will have solved the awareness problem who most of the US people who need to prepare.

His population is mostly rural - he's got to be sure they are aware of the danger, and that he is trying to take care of them.

Rural households can't be FEMA'ed into federeal camps and shelters. Well, nobody else can either, but rural households sertainly can't.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 05, 1999.

Link to the NERC drill advisory ftp://www.nerc.com/pub/sys/all_updl/docs/y2k/drill-prep aration-strategies.pdf

Link to previous thread discussing this http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000WMz

The NERC link is a pdf file, but the previous thread has a text cut/pasted relevant part from it.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), March 05, 1999.

Would one you nice folk post a copy of the NERC report, or e-mail me one, as the links don't work anymore. Maybe the NERC removed it finally?

-- Bill (billclo@hotmail.com), March 05, 1999.

Although this is, at face value, pretty scary stuff in its own right, I think the reality is this: Highly complex interconnected systems that have evolved over all these years are simply beyond everyone in their comprehension! The most favored Y2K quotable quote "Nobody knows..." (with "planes falling from the sky" ranking #2, of course) is as applicable here as it is to anywhere. My own sense is that this plan to obviously contrive tests is to simply say that "testing" has been "done" -- I honestly don't think that they know how to truly test these systems for Y2K, its just beyond all of us.

And so it goes, we will be heading into 2000, "riding on a smile and a shoeshine"....

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), March 05, 1999.

Laird Robert of the Kennesaw: Are you saying that Sen. Bennett is telegraphing us in code? I've thought this myself...he SEEMS like a decent feller (although many would argue that any Sen. from You-tah is by definition a pawn of the extractive industries). It always seems to be Bennett who ups the ante, makes for the good copy--the other talking eds are just dispensing the same old verbal prozac. But if this is really Bennett's intent: isn't he being a little coy? He's long in the tooth, what the heck, why not just come out and say the grids at risk? (answering my own question I'd guess that he'd get slammed, lose any credibility he had, and lose the opportunity to sound the tocsin, or whatever it is that they sound). Oh--I personally don't think they care much about rural folk. The infomanagers have spent half a century making sure that 'rural' means 'stupid, inbred troglodyte.' I mean, look at how the family farmers have been practically eradicated from what used to be a nation of family farmers. The baddies know 'rural' often means 'self-sufficient,' and they don't cotton to that.

-- Spidey (in@jam.com), March 05, 1999.

OK, we have two theories as to why this is a fake test (which it isn't, but who cares?) Either they're faking it to influence the generator and lamp oil markets, or to keep urban people from taking cash from the bank (apparently because we can purchase more non- working power with cash?).

Come on, people. The Lubbock drill was the same sort of thing: how well can we operate with degraded systems? Did anyone here ever go through a school fire drill (those who went to school, anyway)? The fires were fake, the drills were not. The whole purpose was so we'd all know what to do in case of a real fire.

Those who continue to insist that the authorities are interested only in misleading the public, for the sole reason that authorities do this as a hobby or can't help themselves, need a sanity check. Ironic that those who most need to question their assumptions are least able to do so.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 05, 1999.

Received this via another newsgroup I participate in: ______________________________________________________________________

As you may know, the North American Electric Reliability Council is coordinating an electric utility "Drill" on April 9, 1999. There are some misconceptions circulating about the nature of the Y2k drill that NERC in conjunction with bulk electric system entities in North America will hold on April 9, 1999 . These misconceptions are addressed in message below.

Please share this press release with others in your organization.

This press release also is available on the NERC web site at http://www.nerc.com/pressrelease/.

- Jon

Jon C. Arnold Chief Technology Officer Edison Electric Institute Phone: (202) 508-5432 FAX: (202) 508-5032 E-Mail: JArnold@EEI.ORG Web: www.EEI.ORG

Press Release: NORTH AMERICAN ELECTRIC RELIABILITY COUNCIL Princeton Forrestal Village, 116-390 Village Boulevard, Princeton, New Jersey 08540-5731 Contact: Eugene F. Gorzelnik efg@nerc.com March 2, 1999 April 9, 1999 Drill Misconceptions Dispelled The North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC), in conjunction with bulk electric system entities such as transmission providers, control areas, and independent system operators, is planning a year 2000 (Y2k) drill on April 9, 1999. The drill, which will involve all Regional Reliability Councils, will focus on sustaining reliable electric system operations during a simulated partial loss of voice and data communications. This drill does not involve customer electrical facilities. Unfortunately, some descriptions of the drill and some presentations at Y2k-related meetings have incorrectly characterized the drill as:

* tests involving customer electrical facilities,

* causing or possibly causing an interruption of electric service to customers, or

* involving a test of joint electric utility-telecommunications facilities that could or would cause an interruption of electric or telephone service to customers.

None of these characterizations are correct. It is a drill, and in no way will affect electric service to customers. Shortly after the conclusion of the drill on April 9, a brief summary of the drill results will be posted on the NERC Y2k web site. A more detailed summary of the drill will be posted on the web site about two weeks later.

The April 9, 1999 NERC Y2k Drill Development Guide, which is being used by bulk electric system entities to design, develop, implement, and evaluate this drill, is available from the NERC web site at: http://www.nerc.com/~y2k/drills.html. ********************* NERC is a not-for-profit industry group that works with all segments of the electric industry as well as customers "to keep the lights on" throughout North America. It does this by setting reliability standards for interconnected electric transmission system operations. Phone 609-452-8060 + Fax 609-452-9550 + URL www.nerc.com

END

-- Buddy (buddy@bellatlantic.net), March 05, 1999.

No, Flint, as I posted above, another explanation is this:

1) There is pressure from all over to completely test the power grid to see if or how Y2K will affect it.

2) Nobody knows how in the world to possibly perform such a test.

3) The "plan" on how to do "testing" -- which speaks for itself insofar as what its real goals are -- is nothing more than being able to say, "Yep, we tested for Y2K."

This whole would-be Y2K testing fiasco brings to mind something that Cory Hamasaki pointed out in one of his "D.C. Weather reports" that came out after the GAO pounced on all the faked testing they found that was going on in one of the Government agencies. Cory pointed out that if, instead of outright fakery, those who were doing the testing had simply come up with some innocuous test -- I can't remember exactly, but Cory suggested something like waving a piece of paper with the inscription "Y2K" written on it in front of a monitor and then seeing if the screen changed -- they probably would not have gotten caught by the GAO (which tends not to be able to evaluate the technical validity of testing per se).

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), March 05, 1999.

Flint (pseudonym?): yes, the psychiatrists call it 'possessing insight into the nature of one's problem.' The only insight I have is the result of a lifetime of reading, and you waving your hands and saying "all is well" isn't going to make me think it is. Jack, in his prior post, raises the salient issue: we ALREADY have documentation of government prevarication on Y2K issues, such as the readiness of nuclear command and control software. Why should I ignore this evidence? It sounds as though the test only involves communications, which, while being important, doesn't challenge the network of transformers and voltage relays that keep the grid functional. We'll have to wait and see what the 'spin' on the test result is: I predict it will be along the lines of "we checked the power grid, and everything's fine." Of course, then it'll be April, and we'll be another month closer to discovering the truth. Personally, I hope you and all the pollys are right. But pollys have been wrong before (Neville Chamberlain leaps to mind), and this is not a President or a government that can any longer be taken at face value. And that is sad.

-- Spidey (in@jam.com), March 05, 1999.

Spidey: (love your posts)

This one thing De Bugger says confounds me no end:

'On one hand, we have dozens of power stations already working in the Year 2000 by advancing their clocks. On the other hand, we have statements offering little assurance e.g. from the Canadian Electrical Association "Most entities report nothing which would have opened a circuit (cut off power)." Implying obliquely, I think, that "Some entities reported problems which did cut off power?????" '

'Which is it? Are there problems or aren't there? The answer may be hidden in some of the off-the-record conversations which go something like this "Peter, we didn't find ANYTHING which would have cut off power but the lawyers won't let us say that since it comes across as a guarantee that we'll have power that day! So we have to suggest we did find problems!"'

"So we have to suggest we DID find problems?" ?????

I suppose if I'm going to be lied to, I'd rather it be a false negative than a false positive?

But it's OK if Bill Richardson, DOE cheese, says

``I am confident that there will be no power failures with small power companies (or) big power companies,'' Richardson said in a speech at the National Press Club.

``Our electricity grid is in good shape to meet this (computer) challenge,'' he said.

I do not, cannot, will never understand why we can't just get God's truth on power. Or even God's SWAGs. Thank God for Rick Cowles.......

-- Lisa (lisa@crossroads.on_power), March 05, 1999.

WHOA!

I think we've gotten caught up in a large misunderstanding. The title of this thread (Grid check a fraud?) is not appropriate and seems to have led to a false starting point. Starting from such a place can not lead to anywhere meaningful.

NERC called it a DRILL. As Flint pointed out, a drill is a rehearsal, practice for what to do in the event a problem occurs.

They called it a communications drill. It makes perfect sense to test and check out in any way possible the systems and equipment that you would use in such a drill. If your evacuation drill involved moving people by bus from one location to another, wouldn't you make sure the bus ran before you tried to practice the evacuation?

All the words, phrasing, concepts, etc. that have been decried here are indeed deceitful and inappropriate if the subject exercise is to be a test of the system. If it is indeed to be a drill, a practice of what the people will do if things go awry, they are all right on the money and exactly what they should be in order to plan and execute a successful drill.

Now if they, after the fact, try to "spin" it as a "test of the grid", that's another kettle of fish.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), March 05, 1999.

For the PDF challenged:
A copy of the Drill Preparations Instructions from the NERC website ...
(This posting includes slight cosmetic alterations to the original document .. however the text is exactly as it appears on the NERC site, including all typographical errors.)
 
Link: ftp://www.nerc.com/pub/sys/all_updl/docs/y2k/drill-prep aration-strategies.pdf
 
Session 2-C (10: 30  12: 00) Y2k Drill Preparations
 
Assignment:
Discuss the following questions. Prepare a summary of major conclusions to present to other workshop participants at the general session in the afternoon. You will have about 10 minutes to summarize the conclusions (5-8 PowerPoint slides maximum).
 
Background:
The electric industry in North America is preparing to conduct a Y2k drill on April 9, 1999. The purpose of the drill is to prepare for operation with limited voice and data communications. A drill guide has been prepared defining the objectives and steps to prepare for and conduct the drill.
 
Discussion Questions:

1. The April 9 drill is intended to instill public confidence through success and at the same time be a real test of our ability to operate with limited communications capabilities. How can these two goals be balanced to provide the greatest value from the exercise?
   
   • Start planning for it now.
     
   • Prior to drill, test the system( s) that will be exercised during the drill.
     
   • Document drill procedures.
   • Identify system( s) to be drilled.
   • Identify people involved and responsibilities (operators, data gathers and observers)
     
   • Establish success parameters.
   • Verify that there are no real security issues during the time of the drill.
   • Do not schedule unnecessary maintenance during the date of the drill.
   • Individual companies who choose to should develop their own plans to notify and coordinate with their local media.
   • Have a plan for proactive customers who may come forward with questions about their participation.
     
   • What will the final report look like. Work backwards from this in the development of the drill procedures.
     
    
   
2. With slightly more than two months to prepare for an event that has never happened before  an industry wide drill  what steps are appropriate (by whom) to facilitate these preparations and enhance success?
   
   • Statement from each region to their member systems their regional drill requirements and external drill issues.
   • Control Area's are responsible for reporting their drill plans to other Control Area's in region before March 5th.
   • Companies should move forward on drill preparaton regardless of Region requirements to be determined.
   • The Regions could slow us down because they do not currently have the guide. We should not wait on the regions.
   • Drill coordinators are in charge. Companies should identify their drill coordinators now.
   • Do not make the drill to complex. We want to have a successful and meaningful story for publication.
   • Identify the "success parameters" before the test. What are the weaknesses we are looking for.
    
   
3. Describe specific types of scenarios or scripts that would be effective considering the goals of the drill.
   
   • Identify the critical communication loops to be drilled.
   • Drill the people involved as well as the process.
   • The drill should not interfere with normal operations.
   • The drill should test partial loss of voice and data communications and partial loss of EMS functionality.
     
    
   
4. How can we ensure that conduct of the drill does not adversely impact normal operations on April 9? What types of controls are appropriate during a drill of this type?
   
   • Consider separate staff assigned to work the drill rather than normal operations staff.
   • Develop parameters and procedures to identify drill conditions so that they are not confused with actual real-time conditions.
   • Always say "this is a drill" before and after every drill communication. Identify documentation used in the drill as "drill documentation".
   • Identify the drill controllers at each company now. The drill controllers can stop the drill at any time if necessary.
   • Maximize the use of power system simulators.
   • Do not overload communication channels with drill communications. Identify specific phone numbers that will be used during the drill.
   • Should use the "normal staff" to conduct the drill. It is difficult but necessary. Use of the training shift is one possibility.
   • Each individual utility should access their capabilities in determining the extent of testing they will perform. Do not bite off more than you can chew.
    
   
5. Are there any comments of the drill guide or the post-drill evaluation form?
   
   • Companies should have a clear definition of what success is and how to measure it.
   • NERC should distribute the final ASAP.
   • Will NERC [SCS] specify the time frame of the drill? There is a concern that some utilities may be responding to drill requests all day long. This information is needed as soon as possible as some are beginning training soon.
    
   

• Was NERC aware that April 9 th is a real Y2K sensitive date?
  Answer:
  Yes, April 9^th is the 99^th day of 1999.
   
  
• Page one identifies a paper by Joe Wilson. Where can the paper be obtained?
  Answer:
  Gene Gorzelnik is attempting to post the paper on the nerc web site.
  

---- End of Document ---
 
Dan

-- Dan (DanTCC@Yahoo.com), March 05, 1999.