Power companies seek long delay in PATH hearings
Big news out over at the West Virginia Public Service Commission, where the folks promoting the PATH power line have just asked for a 217-day delay in the proceedings.
The new filing by American Electric Power and Allegheny Power is available here. It comes on the heels of last week’s motion by the WVPSC staff that the commission either throw out of delay consideration of the PATH application.
If approved by the WVPSC, the PATH proposal would push back formal hearings on the $1.8 billion project from February 2010 to late September 2010. The legal deadline for a ruling would be pushed back from June 2010 until January 2011.
We’ll have more details in the Gazette tomorrow.
4 comments
It appears PJM is asking for additional time ONLY for its own participation in the case before the Public Service Commission.
However, PJM is NOT suggesting any extension to the filing of testimony and presentation of experts by the 200+ intervenors.
It is totally unfair to expect individual and intervenor groups to continue compiling their arguments, and lining up (and paying for) experts to meet the original November 17th deadline while PJM gets a free pass until later next year.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Intervenors should also be granted the same extension of time for reviewing new information, submitting testimony, offering experts, etc.
Cindy,
First, I think you mean AEP/Allegheny, not PJM …
And I’m not sure that you’re entirely right about that.
PATH does ask to retain the original filing schedule for intervenors, staff, etc., for rebuttal testimony on all issues OTHER THAN electrical need.
But, intervenor and other filings concerning electrical need would be pushed back until July 2010 under the schedule proposed by PATH.
I could be wrong, but it appears that on the issues for which PATH gets more time, the intervenors also get more time.
Ken.
Ken,
While I agree with you that AEP & Allegheny Energy are the companies behind the PATH front companies in the PSC case, PJM stands behind AEP & Allegheny. Cindy is right, ultimately, to refer to PJM, or at least PJM’s current management, as the real power behind the PATH case. The whole PATH situation is designed to confuse and distort. Cindy’s reference to PATH as PJM’s project cuts through the smokescreen quite nicely.
The power companies’ arguments in their motion to delay the PSC case are dishonest and sophistic. If the PSC is going to freeze (toll, in legalize) the case then it should stop the case before any testimony is presented. Splitting the case into issues about the need for PATH and all other issues is needlessly complicated and unenforceable by the PSC.
The power companies only want to talk, both inside and outside the case, about the benefits of PATH. They don’t want to talk about the costs that the project will impose on West Virginia. Most intervenors in the case, however, see their evidence as being a balanced presentation of both the costs and benefits of PATH. Our view of the need for PATH is thus an essential part of our case concerning all other issues (namely costs).
It makes no sense for any party in the PATH case to be prevented from talking about the issue of need as they present their case about other issues. The PSC needs to simply freeze the case at a date before Nov. 17 and resume all the relevant deadlines 217 days later.
Bill,
While I see your point about PJM — certainly they are a force behind this project, and the PATH companies cite them as did the TrAIL promoters before them … Cindy is wrong to say PJM is asking the PSC to do anything — because PJM isn’t doing that. They’re not a party to the case.
While you may think it cuts through the smokescreen, it’s not accurate. I am all in favor of cutting through smokescreens on complicated issues … but this one goes a little too far.
But, as I said, I do see your point …
Folks following this thread may also be interested in this story:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g-4rxFIq0EgzuOd9Q7kmVvw44qrAD9BPGLC02
It’s about a Virginia Supreme Court decision on the TrAIL project. The ruling itself is available here:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g-4rxFIq0EgzuOd9Q7kmVvw44qrAD9BPGLC02
Leave a Comment