Sounds, good to me as well.   I second Duane's motion assuming that wasn't what Karen implied.  There is little time for discussion, so I vote yes.

Jonathan

Grubb, Karen wrote:

I vote yes.

 


From: ec-bounces@osenergy.org [mailto:ec-bounces@osenergy.org] On Behalf Of duane330@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 2:55 PM
To: ec@osenergy.org
Cc: Duane330@aol.com
Subject: [EC] Status Hearing on Friday, Sept 14

 

To:  Energy Committee.

I have just reviewed the proposed Schedule of the Staff of the PSC, dated
September 11th.  This is to be reviewed and acted upon this Friday.

Two major comments, that I put into a motion for our Energy Committee,
to be acted upon by Bill DePaulo:

1.  We support the addition of 35 days to the original proposed schedule,
to provide that the Evidentiary Hearings in Charleston take place after
the holiday months of November and December of 2008, the new dates
becoming January 9th thru January 18th.

2.  We take exception to the proposal that Reply Briefs be due on February 26, 2008, just 11 days after the due date of February 15th for the Initial Briefs.  We believe that an additional 6 days is appropriate for the due date of the Reply Briefs, as this is an extremely complex and extensive case, and because for the most part the intervenors are relying upon volunteer or part-time assistance in their legal preparations.  This would still leave 60 days for the PSC to render their decision.

Respectfully submitted,   Duane Nichols



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