Menu:

 
Yesterday was the deadline for PATH to try to defend itself and answer the Formal Challenge of $2.5M of their claimed $24.6M 2010 revenue requirement at FERC.
Here's what PATH filed.  (Note:  3.9MB file -- give it time to load.  It's the best I could do to clean up the 10MB file PATH submitted, but that's another story.)

If you've read and understand the Formal Challenge that was filed on December 23, get ready to laugh.  PATH counsel insults the Commission's intelligence by pretending:  1) the Commission didn't read the Challenge; 2) the Commission didn't understand the legal basis of the Challenge; and 3) the Commission didn't see or understand any of the evidence submitted as exhibits to the Challenge.  PATH's attempt at performing a Vulcan mind meld on FERC's Commissioners fails miserably.  This is PATH.

It's almost like PATH is embarrassed by their "Answer" and doesn't want anyone to see it.  Why else would they have turned a 20 page word document and a two page spreadsheet exhibit into a 10MB pdf image file that chokes FERC's e-library and takes forever to download?  PATH printed paper copies of the files and then ran them through a copy machine to result in a humongous, unweildy 10MB file that was uploaded to FERC.  At least they didn't go so far as to "serve" it on the 80+ parties on the docket's service list and choke up everyone's email, but one could question whether "service" was actually effected ("I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document by electronic service a copy of this filing...") by "serving" parties with a link to FERC's e-library that didn't work.

I'm not going to get into an analysis of just how bad PATH's "answer" is, but I will point out the funniest line in the whole document:

"In the wake of highly orchestrated and vocal opposition to the Project, PATH had a responsibility as the Project's developer to educate government officials, civic, community and business leaders, and the public at large, about the reliability benefits of improved transmission infrastructure in general, and the PATH Project in particular."

To fully appreciate the humor here, you've got to consider how PATH uses the term "highly orchestrated."
Orchestrate:  arrange or direct the elements of (a situation) to produce a desired effect, esp. surreptitiously.  Now isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?

And with that, we'll leave it in FERC's capable hands...
 
 


Comments

Da hillbilly

Fri, 13 Jan 2012 6:11:58 am

SIMPLY AMAZING! The ignorance and arrogance never ceases to amaze me. PATH has tried to call the state PSC's stupid and uncapable, They have continually considered the citizens to be uninformed and under educated, they have attempted to brainwash the business communities, and now they consider FERC to be inept at comprehending this farce they continue to portray. The strings PATH continues to grasp are continually getting shorter and shorter. If I were in Whaaaandy and company's shoes, I would make sure to have those resumes polished to a "t". I'm sure those folks can pad their resumes with some real whoppers, we've ALL seen how well the lies flow from their mouths. I love the continuing comedy of how one lie in the beggining has become many many MAJOR lies to cover their butts. The simple truth in the begining would have made this whole process easy, however, as we all know, all these lies have resulted in major bilking of the citizens bills.
GO AWAY PATH AND STOP WAISTING MY TIME AND MONEY!

 

Secret Shame

Fri, 13 Jan 2012 6:55:57 am

Oh PATH, you're only fooling yourselves!

 

PowerMAD

Fri, 13 Jan 2012 8:00:32 am

"Highly orchestrated" - WTF???!!!?!?!?!?!

The dog-and-pony shows PATH arranged, the "open houses" - now THEY were highly orchestrated! The union guys shipped in from Maryland to speak at the West Virginia PSC field hearings - THEY were highly orchestrated! PEAT spokespeople, former state commissioners - THEY were highly orchestrated (and very well compensated at our expense, to boot)!

I could easily continue the list, but you get the picture.

PATH's "arguments" (I hesitate to call them that because they are so internally incoherent) are falling apart. But that's what happens when you build a case on a foundation of lies, deception, cheating, and stealing.

 

Keryn

Fri, 13 Jan 2012 8:08:46 am

Awww, PM, don't get angry when laughing feels so much better!

Last year we were "limited but fierce opposition," but now we have morphed into "highly orchestrated and vocal opposition." -- and there's another line in there somewhere about how significant their opposition was and how it wrecked their silly little project.

This is PATH's admission that we conquered them in the PR biz.... haven't you been waiting to hear that? And we did it at practically no cost... :-) Brain power and creative strategic thinking is free (but not cheap!).

 

Keryn

Fri, 13 Jan 2012 8:22:56 am

"Due in large part to its scope and size, the PATH Project has encountered substantial opposition, and PATH has indeed faced significant challenges in obtaining the necessary regulatory and siting approvals and permits."

This is almost as good as the one I quoted in the post, but I could only choose one and I knew the "highly orchestrated" word use wouldn't be lost on you because it made me laugh so hard.

Break out the Raging Bitch Ale ;-)

 

J

Fri, 13 Jan 2012 5:51:27 pm

 

JustMe

Fri, 13 Jan 2012 6:16:19 pm


As usual, horrifically poor quality. They had better not submit writing samples with their resumes. The old addage is that the brightest lawyers teach, the average lawyers practice and if they get good, they can become judges. The lousy ones work for corporations. I'll take that pne furthet. The bottom of the barrel work for slomy companies.

 

JustMe

Fri, 13 Jan 2012 6:19:35 pm

Sorry, cell phone issues. I meant slimey...slithery, scummy.

 

Alice

Fri, 13 Jan 2012 7:50:36 pm

"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes -- and ships -- and sealing-wax --
Of cabbages -- and kings --
And why the sea is boiling hot --
And whether pigs have wings."

 

Slow Mo

Fri, 13 Jan 2012 9:21:41 pm

SOP!!! Here is some of what Paul Evanson and Pam Kasey said about the TrAIL opposition in October 2007. I also believe that somewhere along the line he said that the opposition was well organized, not orchestrated.

Although an electric utility always expects opposition to a new power line, opposition to this line has been strong, Evanson said. "It has been a little stronger than normal, and perhaps we haven't explained it as fully as we needed to." he said. ....
Evanson attributed the opposition in part to the fact that the line is proposed to cross some AFFLUENT COMMUNITIES "that make a strong effort in opposing it." Yet, he said, he feels confident that West Virginia's PSC will approve the line next spring. THE "FIX" WAS ALREADY IN PLACE AND HE KNEW IT!!!

 

Smithers

Fri, 13 Jan 2012 9:30:26 pm

Shall I release the hounds, sir?

 

Mr. Burns

Fri, 13 Jan 2012 9:53:48 pm

Hounds? Do I hear barking? Smithers, what is that noise?

Has my 130 million dollar TRAIL payoff arrived yet? I need to make a down payment on my own private tropical island. I hear the one next door to my good friend Mike Morris's island rest home is for sale.


 

Keryn

Sat, 14 Jan 2012 6:38:28 am

Wow, Mo! Evanson just doesn't get it, does he? And they continue to underestimate the mettle of West Virginians. So Evanson thinks that if they "explain it fully" that everyone is going to jump on board the transmission line express? Kind of gives away their "education" lie, doesn't it? It's not about "education," it's about schmoozing and propaganda. What Evanson was saying is that he hadn't twisted enough of the right arms yet, but he didn't expect any opposition when he did. Remember, it only took 4 phone calls for Gov. Joe Manchin to sell out the people of West Virginia... and in that deal, the electric consumers of WV ended up paying for Manchin's ill-gotten booty for the State of WV, and Evanson ended up making a 12.7% profit on the consumer's money he used to bribe Manchin.

We won't get fooled again.

 



Leave a Reply