http://currents.net/newstoday/99/09/30/news1.html

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), October 01, 1999

Answers

[Fair Use: For Educational/Research Purposes Only]

Non-Compliant Power Plants

By David McGuire, Newsbytes.

September 30, 1999

As the nation enters the eleventh hour before the Y2K date roll-over, the Senate's top Y2K watchdog wants electric power authorities to name names of power plants that have yet to complete Y2K remediation efforts.

"Seventy-five percent of all electric utilities do not routinely share Y2K readiness reports directly with the public," said Sen. Robert Bennett, R- Utah, in written testimony before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee today. "The industry should be more forthright in its disclosure."

Bennett, who is chairman of the Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem specifically called on the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) and the US Department of Energy to provide the public with the names of non-compliant power plants.

While NERC has been almost universally praised for its efforts in encouraging and coordinating the electric power industry's Y2K compliance efforts, the organization has repeatedly declined to disclose information about its non-compliant members.

"We're taking the positive approach by disclosing the names of (plants) that are ready," NERC spokesperson Gene Gorzelnik said today. NERC "would be reluctant to release a list of non-compliant (plants)" he added.

"If a somebody wants to know whether the utility that serves them is Y2K ready, they should (contact) that utility," Gorzelnik added.

But as Jan. 1, 2000 draws nigh, the pressure on NERC to release a list of non-compliant plants may intensify.

With fewer than 100 days remaining till the date roll-over, Bennett and the Y2K Committee have been aggressively rattling the cages of industries, companies and government organizations that have failed to cough up Y2K information.

It should be noted that the electric power industry is considered by Y2K observers to be among the sectors best prepared to face the date roll-over.

Bennett's comments were "in no way meant to impugn NERC," Senate Y2K Committee staffer Don Meyer told Newsbytes today. "Their (Y2K) assessments are trusted."

NERC has been involved with the Y2K coordination activities of more than 3,000 electric power utilities.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), October 01, 1999.

This .gov says one thing, and that .gov says another. What a mess is right. A repost from a few days ago... <:)=

PUC grants utilities secrecy on Y2K plans

The Maine Public Utilities Commission has passed an unusual blanket order that allows utilities to file their Year 2000 contingency plans  the documents that outline how companies will respond to potential problems  as confidential.

The PUC feared that portions of these contingency plans, if revealed publicly, might create security risks or competitive problems for the companies involved, said Tom Welch, chairman of the commission. Commissioners declined to edit out sensitive portions of the plans and make public the rest, as they generally do with documents in public proceedings.

"We issued a blanket protective order so that if companies wanted to file things on a confidential basis, they could do so," Welch said. "We wanted to be sure we got the information, and there is information in there that should not be in the public domain."

This information includes the mechanisms for disabling utility networks, in case of emergency, and home phone numbers for key workers, Welch said.

Besides, the commission has been active in providing other Y2K-related information, he said. It has held public forums on Y2K, published information about utility preparedness on its Web site and otherwise provided the public with information about the troublesome date change.

Still, PUC officials acknowledged that this public information does not have the level of detail contained in contingency plans.

"I'm sure there's information in those plans that didn't need confidential treatment," Welch said. "Frankly, as a matter of internal convenience, we wanted the filings to come in without a lot of debate between lawyers about what we can hold confidential."

Maine law grants broad authority to the PUC, which is a quasi-judicial body, to keep secret information in its proceedings. This includes data that could hurt the competitive position of utility companies, or any information that could do unnecessary harm, as judged by the commission.

Still, the PUC does not generally exercise that authority with sweeping orders.

The commission often challenges utilities' requests for confidentiality. In April, it denied a request from phone companies to keep secret other, more general, Y2K information.

It has twice before issued this kind of blanket confidentiality order, in cases unrelated to Y2K, according to Phil Lindley, a PUC spokesman.

"I can't remember, from my dealings with this, that they've done this before," said Rep. Thomas Davidson, D-Brunswick, who co-chairs the Legislature's Utilities and Energy Committee. "Obviously, this is a once-in-a-millennium phenomenon. I think all of the normal rules have been thrown out the window."

He said he believes that many institutions and agencies are resorting to unusual secretiveness in a desire to manage the public's perceptions of Y2K. Many people worry that a public panic could lead to a run on bank counters, panic buying and other disruptions.

"One of the things we've tried to do is limit some of the hysteria surrounding this," Davidson said.

Still, secrecy in public proceedings is not the way to go about accomplishing that mission, he said.

"Consumers have a right to know the soup to nuts of all these issues. I think people have a right to know what will happen if their utility crashes," Davidson said.

"It will inherently feed some of the sentiment that they're trying to keep this information private," he said.

On Tuesday, the PUC mailed a letter to all Maine's public utilities asking them to voluntarily provide as much Y2K information to the public as possible, including non-sensitive portions of their contingency plans.

"The public needs information that will enable it to make informed judgments about Y2K and preparations for it if necessary," Welch wrote.

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), October 01, 1999.

We're taking the positive approach by disclosing the names of (plants) that are ready," NERC spokesperson Gene Gorzelnik said today. NERC "would be reluctant to release a list of non-compliant (plants)" he added.

So...where is the list?

-- Taz (Taz@aol.com), October 01, 1999.

Just 27 workdays 'till Turkeyday. That is it, folks...a little late for the Tony Blair "name and shame" tactic with respect to power plants...BTW, did you notice "power plants", not "grid", not "billing systems?" EMBEDDED SYSTEMS ARE THE REAL PROBLEM.

It really IS *ALL* going away in January.

-- K. Stevens (kstevens@ It's ALL going away in January.com), October 01, 1999.