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
I HAD A SOMEWHAT LENGTHY PHONE CALL WITH CARYN SHORT, THE LEAD PSC STAFF COUNSEL ON THIS CASE. CARYN ADVISED THAT JACKSON KELLY FILED ITS OWN PROPOSED SCHEDULE TODAY
JACKSON KELLY'S SCHEDULE WOULD KEEP THE SAME DEC 7 DATE PSC STAFF PROPOSED FOR THE INITIAL BRIEF, WOULD MOVE THE HEARING TO THE WEEK OF JAN 30 AND WOULD MOVE THE DATES FOR BRIEFING TO MAR 7 AND MAR 18.
CARYN EXPRESSED THE VIEW, WHICH I THINK IS PROBABLY RIGHT, THAT THE BIGGEST BRIEFING EFFORTS ARE GOING TO BE THE DEC 7 INITIAL BRIEF AND THE MAR 7 POST HEARING BRIEF, AND THAT REPLY BRIEFS WOULD NOT BE THE CRITICAL BRIEFS.
THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE SCHEDULE IS TO LEAVE AS BIG A PERIOD OF TIME AS POSSIBLE BETWEEN THE INITIAL BRIEF ON DEC 7 AND THE HEARING -- AT ONE END -- AND BETWEEN THE HRG AND THE POST HRG BRIEF AT THE OTHER. AS PROPOSED BY JACKSON KELLY THOSE TWO TIME FRAMES ARE 7 WEEKS AND 5 WEEKS.
CARYN WAS INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE JK PROPOSAL, AND I AGREE THAT MORE TIME IS BETTER THAN LESS. AFTER ALL WE DONT HAVE AN EXPERT YET.
I SUGGESTED AND CARYN CONCURS THAT WE SHOULD ASK THE COMMISSION TO SCHEDULE INTERIM STATUS REPORTS ON OCT 15 AND NOV 19 TO MONITOR TRAIL'S DISCOVERY RESPONSES. IN OTHER WORDS, IF THEY STONEWALL US TO THE END, WE WON'T BE ABLE TO FILE MEANINGFUL BRIEFS ON DEC 7. SO SCHEDULE NOW WHAT IN EFFECT ARE HEARINGS ON AS YET UNFILED MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY - ALL AS A PRECAUTION TO GUARANTEE THE BRIEFIING SCHEDULE IS IN FACT FEASIBLE.
THERE WILL BE A BUNCH OF OTHER ISSUES ON THE AGENDA TOMORROW. I WILL REPORT BACK FOR THOSE NOT ABLE TO ATTEND.
BILL CELL 304-541-1984
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
-
Grubb, Karen -
William V. DePaulo, Esq.