West Virginia Blue
The Best Blogging Community in West Virginia
Democratic politics, progressive policies, the good life and free living in Wild, Wonderful West Virginia.
Big Daddy Sen. Robert C. Byrd

More questions about PSC PATH Commission Order

by: Clem Guttata

Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 19:04:10 PM EDT


By Clem Guttata

I had a chance to read through the recent PSC Commission Order on PATH in more detail today and three more things caught my eye.

1. Will the commissioners attend public hearings? Ken Ward, Jr. and Calhouner had a discussion about this in the comments over at Coal Tattoo. From what I gather, typically commissioners do not attend PSC hearings. But, Gov. Manchin has specifically asked that they attend public hearings about PATH.

Does this sentence on pg.7 imply they intend to?

As described in the Commission Order of July 17, 2009, the Commission will hold (i) public comment hearings in various locations along the proposed route of the project so that the Commission can hear public comment regarding the PATH Project.

2. It's clear the PSC and staff are struggling with how to deal with such a large number of intervenors. It is a difficult logistical problem. Most of the adapted procedures look pretty reasonable. One area (also discussion over at Coal Tattoo) ripe for confusion is the role of the PSC-imposed county intervenor groups. The PSC is arbitrarily grouping together intervenors by county. My reading of the order is this will matter the most during the final stages when in-person cross-examination occurs. The PSC wants to limit the number of "spokespeople" who may can cross-examine. (I should double check, but I think they allow for all the individual intervenors to act individually in other steps such as discovery and opening statements.)

If indeed managing the logistical challenges of cross-examination is the primary rationale for creating these intervenor groups, I find the following request (on pg. 21) unreasonable:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within twenty days of the Commission Executive Secretary sending the service list the various County Intervenor Groups shall file with the Commission and serve on other parties (pursuant to Section 1V.d of this Order) the name of the spokesperson for each group.

That sounds arbitrary to me. You get notice on some day in the future--there's no telling when--and then you have less than three weeks to get all the other intervenors in your county together to name a spokesperson. (You have to have a couple days buffer time for the filing with the Commission to get there on time.)

3. Is there anyone in the legislature who will step up to the plate and work on changing this law (pg. 20)?

Several intervenors requested that either the Commission or the Applicants be required to pay for legal representation for those unrepresented by legal counsel. The Commission is limited in its actions by the laws of this state, and those laws do not authorize the Commission to undertake or require that type of arrangement.
Clem Guttata :: More questions about PSC PATH Commission Order
Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Here is a bombshell. (4.00 / 1)
Cave Run Utilities, LLC, an intervenor in the PSC has just filed a petition for the PSC to reconsider its Aug. 4 order.  The petition makes two strong arguments:

1.  PSC regulations only allow the PSC to group intervenors that have common interests.  Grouping by counties is directly contrary to this regulation, as counties may include many intervenors with conflicting legal interests.

2.  The PSC order requires county groups to appoint one "spokesperson" who will speak for the group at hearings.  Cave Run Utilities points out that this puts the spokesperson in the position of practicing law without a license, which is against the law.  The spokesperson will be required to make legal judgments in the course of the hearing that will directly impact the positions of multiple intervenors.  This is clearly illegal.

Here is a link to the Cave Run Utilties petition.  http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scr...

These are almost ironclad arguments against the PSC's attempt to group intervenors as set out in the Aug. 4 order.  Monday's status hearing in Charleston should be a very interesting affair.


Good arguments (0.00 / 0)
I'm surprised the staff and/or PSC didn't think that through ahead of time, those are both good arguments.

They've put themselves in a bit of a pickle now, because I'm not sure they would have approved as many intervenors unless they thought they could "manage" them in some way.

Do you know anything about Cave Run Utilities, LLC... who they are, where they are located, or what their business is?


[ Parent ]
The county groups (4.00 / 1)
I don't know about Cave Run Utilities, except they're in Jefferson County.

Another aspect of the county groups ruling - Jefferson County turned out 141 of the 200 +/- intervenors, and roughly 40 come from Hardy County. So 180 or so of the intervenors will be represented by two "spokespersons" or lawyers, while the remaining 20 will have eight or 10 or 12 lawyers among them.

More later - it's going to be an incredibly busy weekend.


[ Parent ]
Correction (0.00 / 0)
I transcribed the name wrong.  It should be Cave Road Utilities, LLC, not Cave Run.  There are lots of different intervenors in this case with lots of different reasons for participating.  This diversity is a great aspect of any democratic process.

The PSC is not interested in diversity. As Cave Road Utilities points out in their petition, creating county groups creates a legal absurdity.  PSC regulations allow grouping only among intervenors with common legal interests. There are definitely individual intervenors within the same county with diametrically opposed legal interests.

To the Charleston lawyers who usually "manage" these PSC cases, pro se intervenors are just a pain in the neck to be disposed of quickly and put into manageable cages.  The legislature set up the PSC process to allow our democratic system to function on issues that are of vital importance to all the state's citizens.  

The fact that PATH is such a bad idea means that there are now many people asserting their legal interests in the PSC process.  The PSC has gotten lazy about accommodating democracy and due process under the law.  Now they will have to adjust.


[ Parent ]
Premium Advertiser

blog advertising is good for you

Welcome!

( Home )
Menu

Click here to join!

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


About
- About WVaBlue.com
- Send us news at wvablue@gmail.com
-  Subscribe in a reader

Advertisers


Support WVaBlue

Active Users
Currently 0 user(s) logged on.

Search




Advanced Search


Current CO2 level in the atmosphere

Proudly displaying the West Virginia Red, White, Blue, Green and Orange.

Join me at http://www.350.org


WVa Democrats
  • Sen. Jay Rockefeller
  • Sen. Joe Manchin III
  • Joe Manchin for Senate (2010/2012)
  • Rep. Nick Rahall (WV-03)
  • Secretary of State Natalie Tennant
  • Auditor Glen Gainer
  • Treasurer John Perdue
  • Agriculture Commissioner Gus Douglass
  • Attorney General Darrell V. McGraw
  • Senate President Earl Ray Tomblin, acting as Gov.
  • Declared Candidates
  • Jeff Kessler
  • John Perdue
  • Natalie Tennant
  • Earl Ray Tomblin
  • Rick Thompson

  • Copyright 2011 West Virginia Blue
    Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified.
    This site exists thanks to financial support from BlogPAC, dedicated volunteers and participation by members of this community. The views expressed at West Virginia Blue belong solely to their respective authors.
    Powered by: SoapBlox