Earlier today, I got a call from a reporter asking for response to the above filing. The PSC Staff has filed a motion asking the PSC to dismiss the PATH application because the Maryland terminus is now in doubt, and we would be asked to evaluate an incomplete proposal. I told the reporter that I think the PSC got it right and I would be consulting our attorneys about supporting the Staff Motion to Dismiss.
Whaddya Tink?
JBK
This is fantastic news. However: 1. They recommended against TRAIL, but the PSC went on to approve it. 2. If MD gets a terminus sorted out, won't PATH be back to WV PSC?
Jim Sconyers jim_scon@yahoo.com 304.698.9628
Remember: Mother Nature bats last.
--- On Wed, 10/28/09, James Kotcon jkotcon@wvu.edu wrote:
From: James Kotcon jkotcon@wvu.edu Subject: [EC] Staff files to ask PSC to reject PATH To: ec@osenergy.org, Elena.Saxonhouse@sierraclub.org Date: Wednesday, October 28, 2009, 5:17 PM
Earlier today, I got a call from a reporter asking for response to the above filing. The PSC Staff has filed a motion asking the PSC to dismiss the PATH application because the Maryland terminus is now in doubt, and we would be asked to evaluate an incomplete proposal. I told the reporter that I think the PSC got it right and I would be consulting our attorneys about supporting the Staff Motion to Dismiss. Whaddya Tink? JBK -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________ EC mailing list EC@osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec
Yes - even if this motion is granted, PATH could eventually go back to the WV PSC. But note that the staff also raises the issue that new economic and load forecast data is forthcoming and should be taken into account. The only downside of this is that our experts have already analyzed the existing application on the existing info - if PATH is given an opportunity to update its info, we will have to come up with the resources to have them dig into a new set of materials.
Elena Saxonhouse Sierra Club Environmental Law Program 85 Second St., 2nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 977-5765 (415) 977-5793 (fax)
Jim Sconyers jim_scon@yahoo.com 10/28/2009 02:26 PM
To ec@osenergy.org, Elena.Saxonhouse@sierraclub.org, James Kotcon jkotcon@wvu.edu cc
Subject Re: [EC] Staff files to ask PSC to reject PATH
This is fantastic news. However: 1. They recommended against TRAIL, but the PSC went on to approve it. 2. If MD gets a terminus sorted out, won't PATH be back to WV PSC?
Jim Sconyers jim_scon@yahoo.com 304.698.9628
Remember: Mother Nature bats last.
--- On Wed, 10/28/09, James Kotcon jkotcon@wvu.edu wrote:
From: James Kotcon jkotcon@wvu.edu Subject: [EC] Staff files to ask PSC to reject PATH To: ec@osenergy.org, Elena.Saxonhouse@sierraclub.org Date: Wednesday, October 28, 2009, 5:17 PM
Earlier today, I got a call from a reporter asking for response to the above filing. The PSC Staff has filed a motion asking the PSC to dismiss the PATH application because the Maryland terminus is now in doubt, and we would be asked to evaluate an incomplete proposal. I told the reporter that I think the PSC got it right and I would be consulting our attorneys about supporting the Staff Motion to Dismiss.
Whaddya Tink?
JBK
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________ EC mailing list EC@osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec
Should we consider asking the PSC to grant intervenors request for financial support from PATH to re-do these analyses? While the Staff request to toll the deadline or dismiss outright is certainly reasonable and logical, it creates a significant hardship for those intervenors who expended substantial resources analyzing the old data. PATH gets all their expenses reimbursed, but neither the taxpayers nor the other intervenors have that luxury.
Jim Kotcon
Elena.Saxonhouse@sierraclub.org 10/28/2009 5:52 PM >>>
Yes - even if this motion is granted, PATH could eventually go back to the WV PSC. But note that the staff also raises the issue that new economic and load forecast data is forthcoming and should be taken into account. The only downside of this is that our experts have already analyzed the existing application on the existing info - if PATH is given an opportunity to update its info, we will have to come up with the resources to have them dig into a new set of materials.
Elena Saxonhouse Sierra Club Environmental Law Program 85 Second St., 2nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 977-5765 (415) 977-5793 (fax)
Jim Sconyers jim_scon@yahoo.com 10/28/2009 02:26 PM To ec@osenergy.org, Elena.Saxonhouse@sierraclub.org, James Kotcon jkotcon@wvu.edu cc Subject Re: [EC] Staff files to ask PSC to reject PATH
This is fantastic news. However: 1. They recommended against TRAIL, but the PSC went on to approve it. 2. If MD gets a terminus sorted out, won't PATH be back to WV PSC?
Jim Sconyers jim_scon@yahoo.com 304.698.9628
Remember: Mother Nature bats last.
--- On Wed, 10/28/09, James Kotcon jkotcon@wvu.edu wrote:
From: James Kotcon jkotcon@wvu.edu Subject: [EC] Staff files to ask PSC to reject PATH To: ec@osenergy.org, Elena.Saxonhouse@sierraclub.org Date: Wednesday, October 28, 2009, 5:17 PM
Earlier today, I got a call from a reporter asking for response to the above filing. The PSC Staff has filed a motion asking the PSC to dismiss the PATH application because the Maryland terminus is now in doubt, and we would be asked to evaluate an incomplete proposal. I told the reporter that I think the PSC got it right and I would be consulting our attorneys about supporting the Staff Motion to Dismiss.
Whaddya Tink?
JBK
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________ EC mailing list EC@osenergy.org ( about:/mc/compose?to=EC@osenergy.org ) http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec
Yes
Kevin Fooce fooce@hotmail.com 304-675-6687
EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOOD Join me
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:42:40 -0400 From: jkotcon@wvu.edu To: Elena.Saxonhouse@sierraclub.org; jim_scon@yahoo.com CC: ec@osenergy.org Subject: Re: [EC] Staff files to ask PSC to reject PATH
Should we consider asking the PSC to grant intervenors request for financial support from PATH to re-do these analyses? While the Staff request to toll the deadline or dismiss outright is certainly reasonable and logical, it creates a significant hardship for those intervenors who expended substantial resources analyzing the old data. PATH gets all their expenses reimbursed, but neither the taxpayers nor the other intervenors have that luxury.
Jim Kotcon
Elena.Saxonhouse@sierraclub.org 10/28/2009 5:52 PM >>>
Yes - even if this motion is granted, PATH could eventually go back to the WV PSC. But note that the staff also raises the issue that new economic and load forecast data is forthcoming and should be taken into account. The only downside of this is that our experts have already analyzed the existing application on the existing info - if PATH is given an opportunity to update its info, we will have to come up with the resources to have them dig into a new set of materials.
Elena Saxonhouse Sierra Club Environmental Law Program 85 Second St., 2nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 977-5765 (415) 977-5793 (fax)
Jim Sconyers jim_scon@yahoo.com 10/28/2009 02:26 PM
To ec@osenergy.org, Elena.Saxonhouse@sierraclub.org, James Kotcon jkotcon@wvu.edu
cc
Subject Re: [EC] Staff files to ask PSC to reject PATH
This is fantastic news. However: 1. They recommended against TRAIL, but the PSC went on to approve it. 2. If MD gets a terminus sorted out, won't PATH be back to WV PSC?
Jim Sconyers jim_scon@yahoo.com 304.698.9628
Remember: Mother Nature bats last.
--- On Wed, 10/28/09, James Kotcon jkotcon@wvu.edu wrote:
From: James Kotcon jkotcon@wvu.edu Subject: [EC] Staff files to ask PSC to reject PATH To: ec@osenergy.org, Elena.Saxonhouse@sierraclub.org Date: Wednesday, October 28, 2009, 5:17 PM
Earlier today, I got a call from a reporter asking for response to the above filing. The PSC Staff has filed a motion asking the PSC to dismiss the PATH application because the Maryland terminus is now in doubt, and we would be asked to evaluate an incomplete proposal. I told the reporter that I think the PSC got it right and I would be consulting our attorneys about supporting the Staff Motion to Dismiss.
Whaddya Tink?
JBK
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________ EC mailing list EC@osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec
Yes - else this and other tactics just bleed us dry till we have to give up.
Jim Sconyers jim_scon@yahoo.com 304.698.9628
Remember: Mother Nature bats last.
--- On Wed, 10/28/09, James Kotcon jkotcon@wvu.edu wrote:
From: James Kotcon jkotcon@wvu.edu Subject: Re: [EC] Staff files to ask PSC to reject PATH To: Elena.Saxonhouse@sierraclub.org, "Jim Sconyers" jim_scon@yahoo.com Cc: ec@osenergy.org, "James Kotcon" jkotcon@wvu.edu Date: Wednesday, October 28, 2009, 8:42 PM
Should we consider asking the PSC to grant intervenors request for financial support from PATH to re-do these analyses? While the Staff request to toll the deadline or dismiss outright is certainly reasonable and logical, it creates a significant hardship for those intervenors who expended substantial resources analyzing the old data. PATH gets all their expenses reimbursed, but neither the taxpayers nor the other intervenors have that luxury. Jim Kotcon
Elena.Saxonhouse@sierraclub.org 10/28/2009 5:52 PM >>>
Yes - even if this motion is granted, PATH could eventually go back to the WV PSC. But note that the staff also raises the issue that new economic and load forecast data is forthcoming and should be taken into account. The only downside of this is that our experts have already analyzed the existing application on the existing info - if PATH is given an opportunity to update its info, we will have to come up with the resources to have them dig into a new set of materials.
Elena Saxonhouse Sierra Club Environmental Law Program 85 Second St., 2nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 977-5765 (415) 977-5793 (fax)
Jim Sconyers jim_scon@yahoo.com 10/28/2009 02:26 PM
To ec@osenergy.org, Elena.Saxonhouse@sierraclub.org, James Kotcon jkotcon@wvu.edu
cc
Subject Re: [EC] Staff files to ask PSC to reject PATH
This is fantastic news. However: 1. They recommended against TRAIL, but the PSC went on to approve it. 2. If MD gets a terminus sorted out, won't PATH be back to WV PSC?
Jim Sconyers jim_scon@yahoo.com 304.698.9628
Remember: Mother Nature bats last.
--- On Wed, 10/28/09, James Kotcon jkotcon@wvu.edu wrote:
From: James Kotcon jkotcon@wvu.edu Subject: [EC] Staff files to ask PSC to reject PATH To: ec@osenergy.org, Elena.Saxonhouse@sierraclub.org Date: Wednesday, October 28, 2009, 5:17 PM
Earlier today, I got a call from a reporter asking for response to the above filing. The PSC Staff has filed a motion asking the PSC to dismiss the PATH application because the Maryland terminus is now in doubt, and we would be asked to evaluate an incomplete proposal. I told the reporter that I think the PSC got it right and I would be consulting our attorneys about supporting the Staff Motion to Dismiss. Whaddya Tink? JBK
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________ EC mailing list EC@osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec
-
Elena.Saxonhouse＠sierraclub.org -
James Kotcon -
Jim Sconyers -
kevin fooce