Everyone, I mean everyone, who is intervenor in the PATH Case needs to file a simple joinder statement to the PSC staff's motion to dismiss.  You can put it in the form of a formal filing, or you can send it as a letter.  I'm not going to worry about serving everyone else by mail on this one.

We just need to overwhelm the Commissioners with a major show of support for the motion to dismiss.

This may be our only shot at killing this thing.  We need to pull out all the stops and get it done by the middle of next week. 

Take a few minutes and bang out a simple statement "I fully support the PSC staff's motion to dismiss."  It can be that simple.  But we have to let the Commissioners know that people across the state want this stopped.

Invite everyone you know who is not an intervenor to send letters. 

This is a great time for everyone else to get their nose into the PSC case.

To help you understand today’s Motion to Dismiss the Path Case I have excerpt key portions of the PSC Staff’s Motion to Dismiss…feel free to use any portion of this or just state your support the Staff’s Motion to dismiss…John Cobb!

This is a (simplified recap) of the PSC’s Staff’s Motion to Dismiss PATH12/10/2010:

The Staff of the West Virginia Public Service Commission respectfully submits Staff’s Motion, requesting that the Commission dismiss Power Companies application for PATH as insufficient, or in the alternative, require the Applicants to request a tolling and implement further case processing procedures.

Staff asserts certain new developments pertaining to the status of the Dominion Power Alternative 1, to PATH to Rebuild the Mt. Storm-Doubs 500kV, transmission line…and to rebuild the Mt Storm – Pruntytown  transmission line at a lower cost than the PATH project means that the Commission does not have all the information it needs to properly evaluate this PATH project and other reasonable alternatives.

Further, the result of these rebuilds will be a more stable line with 65% increased capacity.

Now, the owner of that line needs to rebuild it because of the advanced age of its infrastructure and the inherent danger of a collapse.

The Staff of the PSC asserts that “It is ludicrous to continue to move forward with the PATH project while major changes are being contemplated for critical transmission infrastructures that should be factored into assessment of the need for PATH.”

The Staff further asserts that, “Certain PJM approved upgrades to the transmission system have potentially moved all potential future voltage violations and potential blackouts out beyond 2019.”

It is now possible that the PATH project might not be needed until 2020 or beyond.

Given the lack of information concerning a full and meaningful evaluation of these issues, Staff believes this Application as currently filed is incomplete and should be dismissed.

The estimated cost for the entirety of Dominion  Rebuild Alternative 1,  is $500-600 million as compared to over $2.1 billion for the PATH project.

The Staff further declares “Even more glaring, the “Liberty” project alternative all located in Pennsylvania, which is several hundred million dollars cheaper than PATH and resolves all of the thermal and reactive violations through 2025, has been rejected as a replacement for by PATH by PJM and the Power Companies because it does not provide as much of a megawatt margin as the PATH project.”

Under West Virginia Code 524-2-1 la(d)( l), a proposed transmission line must

66.. .economically, adequately and reliably contribute to meeting the present and anticipated requirements for electric power ...” As PJM has not done so, Staff believes the Applicants need to provide an analysis and testimony as to how PATH economically contributes to meeting the requirements for electric power in light of viable alternatives that are significantly cheaper and provide most of the same benefits.

Once again, the Application as it is currently filed lacks information as to how the PATH

project strikes this balance in light of the alternatives that have been proposed. This omission is especially striking for Dominion Alternative 1. That alternative involves the rebuild of two lines and the addition of voltage compensators, actions which will occur on existing rights-of-way, which will result in the taking of little to no additional public land, and which should have very little environmental impact, especially compared to PATH.

The question that comes to mind given these factors is does PATH represent a reasonable balance between reasonable power needs and reasonable environmental factors when there is an alternative that will have substantially lower environmental impacts that resolves the identified power problems in the near and medium term? Staff believes this Application is further deficient due to the lack of that analysis and should be dismissed.

Obviously, this analysis and the economic analysis should focus on, but not necessarily be limited too, Dominion Alternative 1 as this Commission, the State of West Virginia and its residents all have a large stake in that alternative and a portion of that alternative has already been approved by PJM.

Further, it is reasonable to include in any new testimony a discussion of the need to rebuild the Pruntytown-Mt. Storm line. The rebuild of that line is a major component of Dominion Alternative 1, that line is approximately the same age as the Mt. Storm-Doubs line which needs to be rebuilt due to its age, and is owned by a subsidiary of Allegheny Power, the parent of one of the Applicants in this proceeding.

Therefore,  Staff moves the Commission (1) to dismiss PATH’S Application

without prejudice; (2) permit for re-filing once a new analysis has been completed that

includes all the recent developments; (3) order the Applicants to file updated testimony in

regards to the economic and environmental aspects of this project, including a discussion of the need to rebuild the Pruntytown-Mt. Storm line.

John Cobb 2/11/2010

304-452-9634