As Ken Ward notes in his Coal Tattoo post on the recent WV PSC order, there are some strange omissions in the AP story and the PSC’s own press release about Wednesday’s order. The PSC’s original press release is now posted on the PSC Web site here.
The AP story only described AEP/Allegheny’s route changes and missed entirely the historic requirement that land owners be notified individually by certified mail.
The PSC press release notes that newly affected land owners will be contacted individually, but fails to note that this is the first time in PSC history that such notice is required, as a result of the passage of Senate Bill 614 in the last legislative session. The AP writer entirely missed this historic change in PSC policy.
Neither the PSC press release nor the AP story mentioned the really significant story in Wednesday’s order. In the order, the PSC specifically refused to grant AEP/Allegheny another delay in the case and ordered the power companies to explain in fourteen days how such a delay would help the coordination of WV, MD and East Virginia PSC cases. Remember that while the MD PSC has accepted the PATH application, they have not set a procedural schedule for that case. In East Virginia, PATH hasn’t even filed an application yet. Even if AEP/Allegheny filed an application with the East Virginia SCC today, a procedural schedule there wouldn’t be decided on for 60 or 90 days.
So how could AEP/Allegheny be able to present the MD and East Virginia procedural schedules to the WV PSC by September 8? Isn’t that the real story in the Wednesday PSC order? The PSC press release didn’t even mention it. The AP, because it apparently has no reporter who actually reads PSC orders, missed the story entirely.