Thanks so much Bill,
I had seen the opinion --- and Bill Howley 'blogged' about it on the
Power Line the other day --- but i always appreciate reminders and repetition is
usually most helpful --- for me at least.
I've been meaning to email you with the Loehr testimony to Congress that i
mentioned to you on the steps of the Culture Center after the PSC status hearing
last week..... Tim Higgins picked up on the Loehr
document and we circulated it to the folks on our Upshur PATH email
list.
http://conserveland.org/pp/Transmission/loehr_testimony.pdf
I haven't gone back to read Mr. Loehr's testimony in the TrAIL case, so i
apologize if much of this statement before Senator Bingaman's Senate
Energy Committee last summer is similar to what you've already heard from
him. But i found it very informative.
--- Good to meet you the other day and thanks for including me on this
email today. As i said last week Frank forwards the PATH case
information. However, if you don't mind including me on your emails
it might save Frank a few extra steps.
Cindy
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 3:41
PM
Subject: 7th Circuit opinion overturning
FERC rule that was basis for pass thru of transmission line costs to WVa in
FERC cases involving TRAIL and PATH
Some of you may have already seen the attached opinion by Judge
Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which is
based in Chicago and is the intermediate appellate court between US District
Courts and the Supreme Court. In essence, Posner struck down the FERC
rule that allowed PJM to recoup the costs of construction of a new high
voltage electric transmission line -- even in part -- from utilities that
derived no discernible benefit from the line. Importantly, the court
deemed the value associated with "reliability" -- the chief benefit
cited as justification for the TRAIL and PATH lines in W. Va. -- to be
negligible and, in any event, insufficient to justify the pass thru of costs
to utilities who received no other tangible economic benefit.
Although
the decision repeats, in a very different context (one relating to recoverable
transmission rates, not authority to construct transmission lines) many of the
arguments we made last year in TRAIL and will make this year in PATH, it will
be some time before we will use the decision in our own case.
Additionally, there was a powerful dissent, quoting the conflicting opinion of
then Judge John Roberts in a DC Circuit case which reached the opposite
outcome, obviously for the purpose of highlighting the fact that there is now
a "conflict of decisions among circuits" (one of the grounds SCOTUS uses to
decide whether to hear an appeal) and attempting to draw the attention of now
Chief Justice John Roberts.
Stand by....
--
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.