http://www.y2knewswire.com/19991104.asp

Nukes Say No! Publicly, most utility companies act like they're already Y2K-compliant. But behind the scenes, they're fighting the public release of Y2K compliance documents. Today, the PUC approved protective orders that restrict the public from accessing third party audit documentation. Full details on the cover-up inside...

November 4, 1999

(snip)

"Why are Pennsylvania's nuclear utilities keeping their Y2K files secret? What are they hiding?" -- From the U.S. Senate's report, "Investigating the Year 2000 Problem: the 100 Day Report"

"The security and economic harm that may occur substantially outweighs the public interest." -- The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission's explanation on why they won't release Y2K documentation to the public

While utility companies, banks, government agencies and Fortune 1000 firms claim to be Y2K-compliant, none of them, to our knowledge, are willing to publicly document how they got there. Every single time a private citizen has asked for public documentation proving Y2K compliance, that request has been denied or turned down.

Today, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PA PUC) added their name to the list of hybrid government / industry associations who refuse to release any documentation about Y2K compliance.

In April of this year, nuclear safety activist Mike Ewall filed a petition asking to see, "...filings related to Y2K by PECO Energy, Met. Ed., PP&L, Duquesne Light, and PJM." (Pennsylvania electric utility companies.)

This request would have forced the Pennsylvania utilities to disclose this Y2K-related information unless they took pre-emptive action by filing "Protective Orders."

On June 9, 1999, PJM Interconnections (and shortly thereafter, all the other utility companies named in the petition), filed Protective Orders with the PA PUC. These orders, if approved, would effectively "seal up" any Y2K-related documentation from the Pennsylvania utility companies.

In explaining these actions, PJM said, among other things, "...it would be detrimental to have this detailed information that was shared with the Commission released to every individual or entity who simply requests [it]." The company even refused to release the name of their Year 2000 Project Manager, claiming it would "cause havoc."

On June 29, 1999, Mike Ewall challenged the protective orders, requesting they be denied. In this challenge, Ewall says, "It is PJM's responsibility to assure transmission of electricity to the customers of the aforereferenced utilities. Therefore any information concerning Y2K problems that PJM, in its Attachment C, submitted to the PA PUC are likewise matters of public interest and should be made available to members of the public upon request."

Today, the PA PUC held a brief meeting and voted to accept the Protective Orders for all public utilities named in the petition request. Discussions were reportedly held for, "approximately ten seconds," and a vote was issued. It was unanimous: all four PA PUC Commissioners agreed that the public should be restricted from witnessing the Y2K-related information in question.

Present at the decision was Scott Portzline, a nuclear safety activist. He told Y2K Newswire, "This is a slap in the face to the citizens of this Commonwealth, the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Y2K and the GAO, who are all recommending a full disclosure."

Portzline adds, "There hasn't been independent verification of how they came to the conclusion they were Y2K compliant or ready. [These petitions] would give us the ability to double check what they're saying and challenge what they're saying in court."

For this reason, Portzline explains, utilities don't want to disclose anything. "If they had to disclose how they arrived at these conclusions," he says, "we would find they were negligent. That makes them especially vulnerable to lawsuits."

POSTPONE, THEN DENY The PA PUC has a working tactic: postpone, then deny. (end of snip)

-- Uncle Bob (UNCLB0B@Tminus57&counting.down), November 04, 1999

Answers

Senator Bennett recommended "stockpiling information". I guess the PA PUC doesn't agree.

I guess they think we are all just mushrooms.

-- snooze button (alarmclock_2000@yahoo.com), November 04, 1999.

That documentation will be required in the disclosure processes that will accompany future litigation. Interested parties should get a court order at least to have all the documentation preserved under a court-appointed trustee, until needed. Just in case, you know.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), November 04, 1999.

This is the kind of stuff the just "burns by hide". It is also what keeps me keepin on with my preps

-- MIS (KarlaCALIF@aol.com), November 04, 1999.

I think twas Margaret who first said it: this travesty thats Y2K. Amen.

10 miles from Beaver Valley Units I and II, Faith

-- Faith Weaver (suzsolutions@yahoo.com), November 04, 1999.