| Wow!
The staff of the West Virginia Public Service Commission filed a motion today that either (1) the PSC dismiss the PATH application, or (2) the applicants agree to "tolling" (putting it on hold) until two conditions are met:
- that the companies file an application in Maryland (where it already was dismissed because of "a technicality"); and
- that the companies provide new economic and electricity demand forecasts, plus the 2010 Regional Transmission Expansion Plan now being worked on.
Here's the link to the decision; you should read it for yourselves: http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scr...
Here's how we got to this point:
First came a significant change in the Maryland situation. In early September the commission in that state dismissed the application without prejudice - meaning it can be re-filed - because the PATH companies do not meet the Maryland definition of an "electric utility." The original application had been filed by Potomac Edison "on behalf of" the PATH companies. PotEd does meet the definition, but wasn't supposed to be doing any of the work or providing any of the services. When the application was dismissed, the various PATH spokesmen waved it off as a technicality and said it would be re-filed.
But the Maryland PSC gave them a 30-day deadline to re-file, or at least provide a time line for when it would be re-filed. On the 30th day, the companies submitted a letter basically saying, "We're thinking, we're thinking." (I keep hearing Jack Benny's voice in my head...) No specific information was provided.
So then in early October the staff of the Virginia State Corporation Commission filed a motion to dismiss in that state, arguing that as long as there is no application in Maryland, they couldn't evaluate the Virginia application because the line has no terminus.
The companies filed a response to the Virginia motion that said, "No, no, don't do that, and if you do it we'll go nuclear - we'll ask the federal government to step in and take over."
[BTW, that's fine with us - to do that they'll have to appeal to the Supreme Court, since the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Virginia and West Virginia, already rejected the provision in the 2005 energy act that gave the feds jurisdiction. Talk about tying it up in litigation for years!]
Today the staff of our own PSC not only echoed the argument of the Virginia staff in their motion, they actually stepped up the heat on the companies by pointing out that new forecasts for the economy and energy demand may show there's no need for PATH at all!
The staff also pointed out the possible farce that might ensue if the WV application is allowed to stand, with "stale" and "outdated" forecasts, while any new application in Maryland will have to include the new forecasts.
And they even offered a defense of the intervenors in West Virginia, who would be required to spend scarce resources analyzing and arguing the merits of out-of-date information. (Thank you, staff, for looking out for us!)
I've said it before and I'll say it again - PATH is in trouble here ... |
