To summarize, on Sept. 9, the Maryland PSC dismissed the PATH application in Maryland, ruling that PATH was not an electric company under Maryland state law.  They gave Allegheny's subsidiary in Maryland, Potomac Edison, 30 days to re-file with an appropriate application.  On Oct. 9, Potomac Edison responded by saying they were still reviewing their options with regard to a new plan for an eastern terminus to PATH, essentially declining to respond to the Maryland PSC.  On Oct. 19, the Staff from the Virginia State Corporations Commission filed the attached motion asking the Virginia SCCC to dismiss the application, because there was no eastern terminus and no clear way to analyze a route without knowing where it would end.  The WV PSC Staff attorney has said that the WV proceedings are "still right on track".

Would it make sense to file a motion asking the WV-PSC to "toll" the proceedings until an eastern terminus is identified?  We are entering a very expensive portion of the proceedings, and it seems unfair to ask intervenors to hire experts to analyze a route, then have PATH switch routes at the last second.  Alternatively, would this be an argument for PATH to pay the expert witness fees for intervenors?  PATH will have unlimited resources from ratepayers, plus 14 % on everything they spend, while intervenors are now being bled dry before we even know where the line will go.

Whaddya Tink?

Jim Kotcon

----- Original Message -----

Maybe the PATH companies figure that the way to break up the opposition is to have them spend their resources on a case that might be withdrawn, or thrown out by the WV PSC, then re-file later after the spirit (and the bank accounts) of the opposition are broken.

And either way PATH still gets that 14 percent profit on their costs- win or lose. “Heads we win; tails you lose.”