Yes - even if this motion is granted, PATH could eventually go back to the WV PSC. But note that the staff also raises the issue that new economic and load forecast data is forthcoming and should be taken into account. The only downside of this is that our experts have already analyzed the existing application on the existing info - if PATH is given an opportunity to update its info, we will have to come up with the resources to have them dig into a new set of materials.

Elena Saxonhouse
Sierra Club Environmental Law Program
85 Second St., 2nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 977-5765
(415) 977-5793 (fax)

Jim Sconyers <jim_scon@yahoo.com>

10/28/2009 02:26 PM

To	ec@osenergy.org, Elena.Saxonhouse@sierraclub.org, James Kotcon <jkotcon@wvu.edu>
cc
Subject	Re: [EC] Staff files to ask PSC to reject PATH

This is fantastic news.
However: 1. They recommended against TRAIL, but the PSC went on to approve it. 2. If MD gets a terminus sorted out, won't PATH be back to WV PSC?

Jim Sconyers
jim_scon@yahoo.com
304.698.9628

Remember: Mother Nature bats last.

--- On Wed, 10/28/09, James Kotcon <jkotcon@wvu.edu> wrote:

From: James Kotcon <jkotcon@wvu.edu>
Subject: [EC] Staff files to ask PSC to reject PATH
To: ec@osenergy.org, Elena.Saxonhouse@sierraclub.org
Date: Wednesday, October 28, 2009, 5:17 PM

Earlier today, I got a call from a reporter asking for response to the above filing. The PSC Staff has filed a motion asking the PSC to dismiss the PATH application because the Maryland terminus is now in doubt, and we would be asked to evaluate an incomplete proposal. I told the reporter that I think the PSC got it right and I would be consulting our attorneys about supporting the Staff Motion to Dismiss.

Whaddya Tink?

JBK

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
EC mailing list
EC@osenergy.org
http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec