From Utilities Say They're Y2K Ready, Though Blackouts Expected:

"We believe Y2K won't be a problem," said Eugene Gorzelnik, a spokesman for the council. "There will be a huge backlash if a utility reports it's Y2K ready, and it turns out that it wasn't."

What sort of "backlash" might he be talking about?

"Oooooooh. We're really mad at you, you Big Fibber Utility Company.... So, we're just going to... going to...."

Going to what?

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), July 01, 1999

Answers

Removal of license by the Public Service Commission or forced merger, Bond derating, drop in stock price, possible foreclosure of loans or forced sales of property, Federal Investigation, removal of Board of Directors for gross incompetence, possible criminal charges, lawsuits out the wazoo - what more do you want?

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), July 01, 1999.

Um, since the comment is about 'Y2K ready' I would assume that this pertains more to the culpability of senior management in not preparing for failures.

If we understand that 'ready' means 'we are prepared to deal with whatever arrises as a problem if case our systems or other people's systems fail to deliver, we will still be able to provide electricity to you..'we can go manual', etc.

If a company claims 'Y2K compliance' and they have done the job but things fail then they could plead (in court) that everything humanly possible to fix the systems was accomplished. They could plead that things were just to complex even though the testing and auditting went OK.

If a company claims 'Y2K readiness' it seems to me that the burden of responsibility falls more heavily on senior management because continguency plans assume failures and if this was not done well then the company could not plead (in court) that they had done as best they could. 'Readiness' has to do with operational planning whereas 'compliance' has to do with technical rigor.

My sense is that these folks, having started late, don't want any more legal exposure than they already have at present so they will use neither term as an assurance toi the public on their status. CYA by our nation's finest.

BTW I ready appreciated your evaluation of the Ziff-Davis Editor's commentary. You are a logical person and went the right route in dealing with that piece. Will it do any good in the long run? IMO no but will certainly help any person who wants to THINK about this 'spin meistering' we have seen so much of over the course of this issue. Thanks!

-- ..- (dit@dot.dash), July 01, 1999.

Paul,

Removal of license by the Public Service Commission or forced merger, Bond derating, drop in stock price, possible foreclosure of loans or forced sales of property, Federal Investigation, removal of Board of Directors for gross incompetence, possible criminal charges, lawsuits out the wazoo - what more do you want?

What? No public hangings!? Darn... just when I thought we might be able to have some fun.

Seriously... thanks. For some reason the word "backlash" hit my funny bone.

dit@dot.dash,

Thanks.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), July 01, 1999.

Paul sad "Removal of license by the Public Service Commission"

Not a chance in a million, Paul. When you're the only game in town, you've pretty much got a blank check.

History offers us a valuable lesson here. Consider the rampant corruption that existed at General Dynamics' Electric Boat submarine division. The DoD was fully aware of the extent of the corruption but could actually do very little since GD was the Navy's only supplier of nuclear submarines.

Likewise, you're not going to shut down or significantly harm a utility if the people being served by that utility have no place else to go. It will never happen. Oh, there might be some public posturing. But little else.

I believe Lane is probably correct. If these companies do have problems, the same argument will be made that is currently being made in support of limits on Y2K litigation - i.e. fines, litigation, etc. will only make a bad situation worse. Though I personally disagree with this position, I think this argument will carry the day and most will never be held accountable for their willful negligence with respect to this issue.

-- Arnie Rimmer (Arnie_Rimmer@usa.net), July 01, 1999.

Hey Paul - and I guess "they" are gonna fine the tobacco companies for addicting millions to a dangerous drug, huh?

LOL

-- a (a@a.a), July 01, 1999.

But in the end... who is the one that really pays?

For all of us, we will. We could be without power for a day or suffer brown/black outs. If fines are put on the companies.... we will still pay the fines, as they will all just up our rates. Sad, but true.

Time has come for us to determine what WE will do when they try to raise our rates due to them not meeting their business responsibilities.

-- (cannot-say@this.time), July 01, 1999.

Lane

I honestly don't understand the question. If the lights go out for more than the few weeks of problems that they admit to, who's going to be in a position to do anything? How would you call a lawyer? (I guess go back to using a pentagram and virgins blood). Who is going to issue what warrents, and how? We would be in the "exciting" part of a 10 in the worst sense. I doubt anyone in authority is going to be doing anything but trying to help the utilites restore service.

Unless, of course, you mean one isolated utility. Then we get back to all the power grid yak-yak that I find so interesting as it sails right over my head.

Good luck and keep your...

-- eyes_open (best@wishes.net), July 01, 1999.

boycott electricity! turn off the a/c on the hot days they rely upon to turn a profit!

-- cl (cl@sky.com), July 01, 1999.

Actually, threat of removal of operating permits is usually used to force a merger and get the current owners out of the control room. Utilities have been idled because of license revocation though - see the files on California's Nuclear Shutdown Initative for details.

And THAT was at a time when the country was short of power!

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), July 01, 1999.

Gosh, and here I thought we could have a big party rolling away their locomotive-sized generators...

-- Mommacares (harringtondesignX@earthlink.net), July 01, 1999.

Remove their permits? Hose their liscense? Wake the F up people. This statement is retarded. What about the people who will die as a result of a prolonged outage? Do ya think they might be a little peeved? Then there's those pipeline guys with that petroleum and nat gas stuff, not to mention the refineries and chem plants.

Helloooooo!!!! Upset, yeah people will be real upset when their world turns to shit.

-- Blue Star (g_gecko_69@hotmail.com), July 01, 1999.

Well, I for one am planning to slash their tires!!!

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), July 01, 1999.