|
PATH has recently submitted an update to FERC |
 |
 |
 |
|
Monday, 14 March 2011 13:48 |
|
As you know PATH has been "suspended" , However, PATH has recently submitted an update to FERC essentially saying they will remain on the ratepayer gravy train untill they can think of another reason to build it. Our friends at Stop Path West Virginia have sorted through the FERC process and have identified the forms for submitting comments to FERC to cut off their incentive rate and derail the train.
We need your help! Please go to http://www.stoppathwv.com/1/post/2011/03/who-wants-to-help-nail-the-coffin-shut.html for a more in depth explanation and instructions. |
|
Last Updated ( Monday, 14 March 2011 13:55 )
|
|
|
Wednesday, 09 March 2011 14:09 |
|
The SCC has scheduled a hearing on AEP/FE's motion to dismiss their application for March 17. That's two days after AEP/FE have been ordered by Hearing Examiner Alexander Skirpan to present their comparisons among PATH, Dominion's Alternative One and the Liberty Project. Oral argument on the Motion to dismiss is scheduled on March 17, 2011 at 1:00 p.m. in the Commission's courtroom; and Counsel and pro-se Respondents may participate in the oral argument telephonically. The dial-in number for the oral argument is 866-842-5779, and the pass-code is 8043719406. General public can listen in -- you just won't be able to comment. In ADDITION, AEP/FE have filed to suspend indefinitely the results previously ordered by Hearing Examiner Alexander Skirpan in regards to their comparisons among PATH, Dominion's Alternative One and the Liberty Project claiming that PJM Board's decision to suspend efforts on the PATH project and as a result of PJM's order they stopped work on additional analysis and other test. I guess PJM's board needs to read Hearing Examiner Alexander Skirpan's order and adhere to it! Too bad for AEP/FE. Instead of running for the exit, like the WV PSC, it seems that the East Virginia SCC wants to know the truth about PJM's claims about PATH. |
|
Last Updated ( Wednesday, 09 March 2011 14:27 )
|
|
|
Wednesday, 02 March 2011 15:35 |
|
Don't play poker with Judge Skirpan! PATH in Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia have filed to withdraw their applications in all three states for its 765 kV transmission line. This comes from a direct memo from PJM where the PJM Board's conclusion 'to hold the PATH project in abeyance in its 2011 RTEP'."
In addition, "The [PJM] Board further direct[ed] the sponsoring Transmission Owners to suspend current development efforts on the PATH project, subject to those activities necessary to maintain the project in its current state, while PJM conducts more rigorous analysis of the potential need for PATH as part of its continuing RTEP process."
In the filings in Maryland, J. Joseph Curran, PATH counsel, acknowledged that PATH had been asked to suspend work and were withdrawing their application in Maryland, just as they would in Virginia and West Virginia. The "Official filing of Withdrawal" was filed in Virginia on February 28th. As part of its 2011 RTEP, and in response to a request by a Virginia Hearing Examiner, PJM is conducting
a series of analyses using the most current economic forecasts and Demand Response commitments, as
well as potential new generation resources. Preliminary analysis reveals the expected reliability violations
that necessitated PATH have moved several years into the future. Based on these latest results, the Board has decided to hold the PATH project in abeyance in its 2011
RTEP. The Board further directs the sponsoring Transmission Owners to suspend current development
efforts on the PATH project, subject to those activities necessary to maintain the project in its current state,
while PJM conducts more rigorous analysis of the potential need for PATH as part of its continuing RTEP
process. This action, however, does not, at this time, constitute a directive by PJM to the sponsoring
Transmission Owners to cancel or abandon the PATH project. PJM will complete this more rigorous analysis of the PATH project and other transmission requirements
and then report the results to stakeholders when it is available. The Board will review this comprehensive
analysis as part of its consideration of the 2011 Regional Transmission Expansion Plan.
It is quite likely, however, that holding PATH "in abeyance" means that PJM is not going to specify a new required in service date for PATH in the 2011 RTEP. The old in service date will go from June 2015 to "well, maybe sometime, but then again maybe never". |
|
Last Updated ( Wednesday, 02 March 2011 16:29 )
|
|
|