Why PJM Is Wrong About PATH
I have posted a new page called Why PJM Is Wrong About PATH to provide readers with a quick summary of what the independent experts who testified in the East Virginia SCC case said about PJM Interconnection’s case that PATH is needed.
I have tried to make this summary short and relatively free from technical jargon.
If you are interested in the PATH case, it is important that you have an understanding of what the only independent engineers in this case are saying about PATH. All of the testimony provided in support of PATH in various state applications has come from engineers working for PJM, AEP and Allegheny Energy. The independent testimony presented in East Virginia, which will be presented in WV next year shows an entirely different picture than the one presented by power company engineers.
Many people believe that the devastating critique offered in the VA testimony was one of the main reasons AEP/Allegheny wanted a delay in the WV PSC case. Go to the new page. See for yourself.
You can also read the full testimony by engineers Hyde Merrill and George Loehr by clicking on the links under Regulatory Process at the bottom of the right hand column.
Comments are closed.