That's a good question. I think the story is actually a very positive one in terms of what has been accomplished. To begin with, the entire incident was taken apart in great detail and lessons were learned from it.
Ironically, some very simple things were found--things like tree trimming. Everybody thought people would take care of rights-of-way, but what they found was that notwithstanding the requirements of a voluntary reliability organization to maintain lines, the first thing that generally was cut when there was financial pressure were discretionary things such as tree trimming. It was not done well enough, and all it took was one branch at the wrong time to contact a line and take it out.
They're much more aggressive about that. The voluntary system of compliance with reliability requirements has been replaced by a mandatory one. It's in the process of transition, but it is being implemented. In Ontario, for instance, it is mandatory to conform with these international reliability requirements.
The coordinating, on a regional basis, so that U.S. and Canadian practices are on a par--and quite frankly, the investigation showed that our practices were superior to those of a number of entities in the United States--is becoming much more homogenous in terms of performance.
I think the root causes were determined, and a massive plan was developed to address them. That plan is rolling out. There is an international reliability organization empowered by legislation in the United States and by regulation in certain jurisdictions in Canada. Hopefully, one day, all will make them mandatory.
Those are the steps that have been taken, together with audits that look at performance in advance of incidents rather than after-the-fact analysis, to try to ensure there will not be a recurrence of it. A great deal of effort has gone into it.
There is a binational report--Canada and the United States--that addresses the recommendations. Those recommendations are now being deployed by regulatory fiat.