Re: Causes of the Gran Apagón (Spain), first oficial report

On 7/10/2025 5:27 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2025-07-11 01:20, Don Y wrote:

On 7/10/2025 3:14 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2025-07-10 23:39, Don Y wrote:

On 7/10/2025 12:00 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2025-07-10 15:55, Don Y wrote:

Again, which plants?  Was there policy in place that caused this (if so,
why hadn't ALL plants?)
>
"...because ‘some operators’ were not complying with the regulations"
>
Which?
>
"The report, due to a ‘confidentiality obligation’ has “anonymised”
information, ‘on most occasions’ at the request of the actors involved..."
>
Do you see the pattern, here?
>
I.e., "Someone was killed.  We've spoken to the killer -- who shall remain
anonymous and promise not to do it again..."

>
>
Because if not, they would not have talked and the cause would not be known and corrective action not taken fast.

>
"Something horrific happened.  We've spoken to the parties responsible.
We *think* they won't do it again but don't want anyone to know who
was actually responsible (as THEY aren't part of the problem??)"

>
Finding a culprit to sue will take decades (it is another investigation), and we want solutions now.

>
So, let's just keep the "bad actor" in the same position of responsibility
WHILE we are deciding who to sue?

>
I prefer to have electricity than a culprit.

 But you have no assurance that you will *still* have electricity!
If the same "actors" are in place, what guarantee that they won't
similarly screw up next week/month/year?  What incentive do THEY
have to "perform correctly" -- if the NEXT lawsuit will be years
after the *first* lawsuit?
 If you hide their identities *now*, that doesn't prevent all the
same "anonymized data" from being subpoenaed and introduced as
evidence in their later *trial*.  They're still on-the-hook
for their responsibility.
 (Ah, but stockholders can continue to profit UNTIL the trial...)