Menu:

 
Pam Kasey did a great article about the PATH Formal Challenge in today's State Journal.  Easily one of the brightest and most knowledgeable reporters I have been interviewed by regarding the Challenge, Pam also asked the most pointed questions.  She spent a little time reading some of the background documents and investigating before calling.  She's a shining example of true investigative journalism.

I love the way she ended with my favorite quote from PATH's Answer.  Yeah, Randy, we'll see just who "fails to grasp the distinction between efforts to influence decision makers during the process of obtaining approval to construct a transmission project, and broad-based activities and distribution of information intended to educate government officials, business and community leaders, and the public at large...," won't we?
 


Comments

bh link
02/07/2012 4:23am

Don't you love that condescending crap. I had a very similar exchange with FirstEnergy's Phil Melick during WV PSC discovery in the PATH case.

I asked for evidence that an actual contract existed between AEP/Allegheny and PJM concerning the sale of transmission services into the PJM system. The power companies tried to pawn off all kinds of paper on me, but could not provide an actual agreement.

Finally, after three tries, I filed a motion in limini, which would have prevented them from making any claim in the case that they had any agreement to transmit power on PJM.

That got their attention, and the provided a properly executed agreement. This agreement said that before the agreement went into effect, it had to be approved by FERC. So I asked for a copy of any documentation of FERC approval.

The PATH/PJM agreement also contained the standard contract language that the written agreement contained all of the elements of agreement, and any changes had to be made in writing between the parties.

AEP/Allegheny responded by saying that they and PJM had verbally agreed that FERC approval was not needed, but they had never committed this to writing.

So PJM and PATH had violated their own agreement by failing to get FERC approval, and then violated the agreement again when they claimed to have modified the agreement verbally. Would the WV PSC really have approved a multi-billion dollar project based on an agreement that was just a series of winks and nods?

Melick commented in his response that he "could see how Mr. Howley would be confused" by this situation. In fact, I was not confused at all. I knew exactly what was going on.

Reply
Keryn
02/07/2012 5:11am

Phil the Psychic strikes again! :-)

I guess you "failed to grasp the distinction" of the PSC's winks & nods statute. After all, it only takes 4 phone calls to approve a transmission line in WV...

Reply
bh link
02/07/2012 6:47pm

Or was it three?

Reply
Keryn
02/07/2012 7:26pm

Only Joe knows for sure... what a comedian!

And a crowd of dignitaries laughed as silly old Joe's CRS disease struck again...

Reply



Leave a Reply