A NOT SO PARANOID REPORT ON Y2K

[Guest guest]

No 9-9-99 glitches

 

Energy Secretary Bill Richardson supervises nationwide utility tests with

Bonneville Power Administrator Judie Johansen

 

VANCOUVER, Washington (CNN) -- If the first big dress rehearsal is any

indication, the Y2K bug may be no big deal.

 

Utilities and banks around the world report no problems as the clock struck

midnight and the date rolled over to September 9, 1999, or "9-9-99" -- a

day some computer programmers feared would bring trouble.

 

Experts were afraid computers would confuse the date with an "end-program"

command.

 

But that didn't happen -- anywhere, according to John Koskinen, who heads

the White House Council on Year 2000 Conversion.

 

"We've been in contact with Australia, New Zealand and countries in

Southeast Asia who've already gone into 9-9-99 -- and through it -- and

they had no problems to report, so we expect we'll get through this day all

right," he told CNN on Thursday morning.

 

99% Y2K compliant

Overnight, about 500 utilities throughout the United States and Canada used

the occasion for a computer drill, coordinated by the North American

Electric Reliability Council, to test preparedness plans and backup systems

for January 1, 2000.

 

That's when the so-called Y2K bug -- or millennium bug -- might cause

computers to malfunction if they misread the year 2000 as 1900.

 

The utility tests, personally supervised by U.S. Energy Secretary Bill

Richardson, were designed to simulate electric outages in different parts

of the nation, test communications under those circumstances and determine

how utilities and agencies would respond.

 

The results of this latest national Y2K readiness test of the power grid

came up with another pair of "9s" -- as in 99 percent ready for the

millennium, Richardson said.

 

"But there's still that 1 percent," Richardson said from the Bonneville

Power Administration, a federal agency that transmits power throughout the

Northwest. "And that 1 percent covers a lot of consumers."

 

'Close is not good enough'

Richardson said he was concerned that eight major utilities and 16 smaller

municipal utilities or power cooperatives were not fully Y2K ready. There

are about 3,000 utilities in North America.

 

"They are close, but close is not good enough," Richardson said at a

Bonneville power station in Vancouver, Washington. "I won't rest until all

consumers can be assured that utilities have adequately prepared for a

smooth rollover."

 

Richardson said he has directed the Energy Department to conduct an

additional 20 reviews of randomly selected electric utilities over the next

two months.

 

"It is critically important that by October or November that we be 100

percent compliant," he said. "We can't just wait until three days before

millennium starts to be compliant."

 

Koskinen said Americans needn't worry about major disruptions when computer

clocks reach the year 2000.

 

Even so, he cautioned, people shouldn't become too complacent, because some

local communities are lagging behind in ensuring their utility and

communications systems are ready.

 

"Some communities and some companies still are deciding that they're going

to wait and see (what happens when January 1, 2000 arrives) and we think

that's a high risk roll of the dice," Koskinen said.

 

 

Nearly 500 utilities throughout the United States and Canada used the

September 9 date to test preparedness for Y2K

 

'That's a good poker hand'

As for September 9, the fear has been that any problems that day would be a

precursor of the Y2K bug.

 

Early computer programmers often used the numerical notation for September

9, 1999, as the date representing infinity. They were sure the databases or

programs would be replaced long before the actual day rolled around.

 

Meanwhile, some Americans seemed unconcerned -- or even unaware -- of the

high powered tests and fearful computer watching.

 

Phoenix police Sgt. Michael Sheahan said Thursday's date didn't concern him

at all. "Four nines?," he asked. "That's a good poker hand in five-card

stud."