Dear Mr. Watkins:
I am forwarding this email to you for distribution to the Commission, and in response to the Commission's August 4 procedural order. I am forwarding it in advance of the hearing on August 10, in an attempt to convey some thoughts that might assist the Commission in resolving the issues surrounding the manner and level of participation by the 200+ would-be intervenors in the PATH proceeding. I also convey these thoughts now, in advance of the August 10 hearing, so that the idea of breaking the Jefferson County and Ashton Woods groups down into more effective groups can percolate within the Commission before Monday. I recognize that it is possible that the idea, if it has any merit at all, could be lost in the sea of advocates that will appear Monday.
I acknowledge that this email does not conform with the requirements of a formal pleading before the Commission, and I do not request that it be accorded any formal status. At the same time, I have copied it by email to counsel for PATH and as many of the Allegheny Energy personnel as I can; I have no email addresses for AEP personnel. Additionally, I have copied other intervenors whose email addresses I know, and by this email request that two persons, Patience Wait and Tom Hildebrand, forward the email to the two large groups whom they are associated with, respectively, Jefferson County intervenors and Ashton Woods intervenors. In light of this dissemination, I would submit that it is not an ex parte communication. I have blind-copied the email to a much larger list in the interest of allowing as many people as possible have the benefit, however minimal, of these thoughts in advance of Monday. I will file a hard copy with the Executive Secretary for service on others as soon as the email list is disseminated.
Of the 200+ intervenors, I am advised that fully 140+ are from Jefferson County and 40+/- are from Ashton Woods. Stated otherwise, fully 180 of the 200 intervenors -- no less than 90% -- are by the terms of the August 4 order to be represented by 2 persons. The remaining 20+/- intervenors will be represented, presumably, by 20+/- attorneys or others spokesmen, for a total of 22 representatives.
I do not know if the Commission was aware of this statistical breakdown at the time the August 4 order was entered. However, I believe the statistically disproportionate representation of Jefferson County and Ashton Woods intervenors in the total suggests that the Commission might achieve its legitimate objective of making the PATH proceeding manageable in a more effective fashion.
Specifically, if the Commission did nothing more than allow the 140+ intervenors from Jefferson County break themselves down into 5 groups, the effectiveness of the representation of the intervenors would increase dramatically, while the incremental burden on the Commission in dealing with the PATH proceeding would be minimal. That is, the number of spokesmen would only increase from 22 to 27.
Why would this be more effective for the participants from Jefferson County? Because they are, apparently, themselves geographically diverse. And they will absorb a disproportionate impact in total from the PATH line's passage through their community. For instance, I am advised that there is a geographically segregable group from a neighborhood called "Blue Ridge" which has an interest in the proceeding that is very localized to them, and runs the risk of being lost in the background noise of a pleading, written or verbal, on behalf of 140 people. Similarly, there is another identifiable group interested in the impact not on their residence or business, per se, but on the schools they send their children to.
There are undoubtedly other readily identifiable subgroups in the 140 who could rationally be separated from the 140 aggregation and who, as a result, would have a much more effective representation before the Commission, again with a minimal incremental impact on the efficiency of the PATH proceeding.
I apologize for not getting this to the Commission earlier, but I have only come by the facts I relate here since August 4. I want to emphasize that I do not represent anyone in their capacity as a resident of Jefferson County or Ashton Woods (although I assume there must be some Sierra Club and/or Highlands Conservancy members in one or both communities, whether or not they have intervened individually). I make these suggestions merely as one lawyer among many with an interest in assisting the Commission achieve its stated goals.
I convey these thoughts now only because it strikes me that the disproportionate representation of these two communities in the total intervenor group might be more rationally dealt with in a manner other than aggregation by County, and that the alternative of disaggregating these two large groups can achieve the Commission's stated goal of efficiency while making the intervenors' participation more effective, another goal which the Commission clearly wanted to achieve, within the bounds of practicality, in its August 4 order.
Best regards,
William V. DePaulo, Esq. 179 Summers Street, Suite 232 Charleston, WV 25301-2163 Tel: 304-342-5588 Fax: 304-342-5505 william.depaulo@gmail.com www.passeggiata.com
This electronic mail is intended to be received and read only by certain individuals. It may contain information that is privileged or protected from disclosure by law. If it has been misdirected, or if you suspect you received this in error, please notify me by replying and then delete this message and your reply. These restrictions apply to any attachment to this email.