I agree with you. Many people may not immediately know what grid greed is.
-----Original Message----- From: ec-bounces@osenergy.org [mailto:ec-bounces@osenergy.org] On Behalf Of James Kotcon Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 8:28 AM To: Duane330@aol.com; ec@osenergy.org Subject: Re: [EC] Status Hearing on Friday, Sept 14
I second Duane's motion. The initial impetus for this delay in scheduling was the letter from people in the Halleck Road group, and it appears to be independently supported by others. The extension for reply briefs is also warranted, as it takes time to read through the arguments from each side.
I also offer a new "sound bite" for our message. We had originally agreed upon the slogan "Stop Grid Greed. WV is Ours, No New Towers"
I propose to make the opening line more blunt. "Grid Greed" is cute, but it is not as clear as it could be, and it sounds like name calling, and therefore is easy to dismiss. I think our message should emphasize the phrase "Gouging the Ratepayers". The Dominion Post editorialized on this yesterday, and it is clear that the rules established by Congress in the 2005 Energy Policy Act were a blatant handout to the electric companies by locking in guaranteed profits at the expense of the ratepayers. It is an argument for which Allegheny has no defense, and it squarely confronts the issue to be faced by the PSC. Protecting the ratepayers may be the only argument that can successfully challenge the "reliability" issue. I want the Commissioners, Legislators, and the Governor to think "Gouging the Ratepayers" every time they hear Allegheny speak Hence I propose to modify the slogan to read:
"Stop Allegheny from Gouging the Ratepayers. WV is Ours, No New Towers"
Whaddya Tink?
JBK
duane330@aol.com 9/12/2007 2:55 PM >>>
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