Voting members, it's important that we hear about Jim's conversation with Hale Powell, obviously Saturday will not work with Jim, and Sunday will not work for me; Duane should be present, too. These are our voting members, and there should be a reasonable sized quorum present if any vote if made. (Correct me if you observe any mistakes.):

Bill DePaulo Barbara Fallon Karen Grubb Jim Kotcon Beth Little Duane Nichols Jonathan Rosenbaum Allan Tweedle Sally Wilts

I'd prefer if we have a good showing at this conference call because we will be making a decision on a very important issue concerning our budget. Therefore, I move that we set a date for a conference call only when the majority of EC voting members can confirm that they can be present, furthermore, a majority of the EC voting members must be present at the conference call.

-Jonathan p.s. Monday at 7:00 p.m.?

James Kotcon wrote:

I am tabling Saturday 11-1 PM. I propose Sunday at 12:15 PM. (I have a class field trip to lead Sunday at 1:15, and phone banking for the hearings Sunday at 4 PM.) Alternatively, we could talk Saturday late afternoon or on Monday, bt I think we need to get this done.

JBK

...

...

...

"Grubb, Karen" kgrubb@fairmontstate.edu 10/19/2007 6:05 PM >>>

Saturday or Sunday mid-day works for me. I hope it is okay if I send this out to the Energy Committee to decide on a time.

Energy Committee, please respond as to your availability Saturday or Sunday for a call sometime between 12 and 2.

Karen

---

From: William V. DePaulo, Esq. [mailto:william.depaulo@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 5:23 PM To: Grubb, Karen Cc: Barbara Fallon; James Kotcon; AutumnB Subject: Re: energy committee conference call

I WILL BE HAPPY TO PARTICIPATE IN A CONF CALL, BUT HOPEFULLY NOT LATE ON A FRIDAY NIGHT. WHAT ABOUT THE MIDDLE OF THE DAY -- FOR 45 MINS OR SO -- ON SAT OR SUNDAY.

IF YOU GET A CHANCE PLEASE TAKE A LOOK AT THE SECOND DISCOVERY REQUEST I FORWARDED TO THE EC COMMITTEE EMAIL ADDRESS.

BILL DEPAULO 304-541-1984

On 10/19/07, Grubb, Karen kgrubb@fairmontstate.edu wrote:

Jim, Autumn, and I think we should get committee approval to budget the funds needed to hire Hale Powell and Rich Klein. And that we should discuss if we want to hire both and how they will complement each other's testimonies.

I think we should talk as a committee concerning funds raised from the letter and if we will have the amount needed to hire both consultants, etc. It is important that Bill DePaulo be on this call.

Bill and Jim, do you agree with this assessment? I don't want to burden you, Barbara, but I would feel better if the committee decides rather than just a couple of us. You are doing a great job with fund raising and the postcard.

Karen

---

From: Barbara Fallon [mailto:brbr_fallon@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 4:13 PM To: Grubb, Karen Subject: Re: Allegheny Power transmission lines - issues for today's call

I am not sure that we need a conference call on this. Do we all have to approve this selection? I am up for a conference call if you think we need one in general or specifically about this.

I am staying focused on fund raising. I have to write thank you notes and send IRS info out asap.

Also SES report

and other grant leads..

Barbara

----- Original Message ---- From: "Grubb, Karen" kgrubb@fairmontstate.edu To: Barbara Fallon brbr_fallon@yahoo.com Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 12:28:36 PM Subject: FW: Allegheny Power transmission lines - issues for today's call

I talked to Jim and Autumn last night at the phone banking about this. He says he will talk to Bill DePaulo and if he says yes, the Energy Committee should have a conference call SOON to approve hiring this consultant.

---

From: HPEnergy@aol.com [mailto:HPEnergy@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 11:17 AM To: jkotcon@wvu.edu; Grubb, Karen Cc: HPEnergy@aol.com Subject: Re: Allegheny Power transmission lines - issues for today's call

Here are some thoughts for our call:

can you call me at 978 392-8442 at noon?

regards, Hale

Allegheny Line - Issues for 10/17/07 Call

1- Which are most effective arguments against the project??

a. Alternative strategies to reduce transmission constraints, enhance reliability

                                                          i.

Enhancing existing transmission corridor

                                                        ii.

Localized demand reduction via "targeted DSM" strategies

                                                      iii.      DSM

program enhancement by out of state ratepayers (could this somehow be negotiated as an element of the transmission agreement? Funded by a transmission surcharge?)

b. Uncertain economic viability of project (ie potential investment stranding)

                                                          i.

Carbon tax/regulation scenarios and impact on coal generation

                                                        ii.

Coal fuel price volatility

                                                      iii.

Transportation costs and constraints?

c. Are forecasts of demand growth by 2011 that underlie this project legitimate? (assumption of power plant location, demand forecasts etc).

d. Environmental impacts from increased plant utilization.

e. Benefits from possible four new 600 MW plants - are these legitimate?

f. FERC defined alternatives have not be adequately addressed

2- Which venue is most appropriate?

a. WVPSC

b. FERC

3- What type of supporting witness best serves this argument?

a. Transmission specialist with FERC experience

b. DSM specialist

c. Resource planning specialist

4- Funding for expert witness

Hale Powell , MS , CEM HPowell Energy Associates Westford , Massachusetts (978) 337-4284 hpenergy@aol.com mailto:hpenergy@aol.com