AEP/Allegheny Go Fact Free in Response to WV PSC

Last week, the WV PSC ordered AEP/Allegheny as follows:

…that within fourteen days of the date of this Order the Applicants file a description of the current state of the PATH project in Maryland and Virginia…

Two days ago, in response to this order, here is what the power companies responded:

Based on the applicable regulations and prior actions by the MD PSC, Potomac Edison expects that the Hearing Examiner will establish a procedural schedule that will result in the issuance of an order on the merits of the application within a year from the filing of revised supplemental testimony. Assuming the filing of such testimony on September 14, 2010, Potomac Edison expects the MD PSC will issue an order on the merits of the application by September 14, 2011. [emphasis mine]

And, about East Virginia:

PATH Allegheny Virginia Transmission Corporation (“PATH-VA”) intends to file a new application with the Virginia State Corporation Commission (“VA SCC”) for authorization to construct the PATH Project in Virginia during September 2010. Based on prior actions by the VA SCC, PATH-VA expects that the assigned Hearing Examiner will establish a procedural schedule that will result in the issuance of an order on the merits of the application within a year from the filing of the new application. Assuming the filing of the new application by September 30, 2010, PATH-VA expects the VA SCC will issue an order on the merits of the application by September 30, 2011. [emphasis mine]

That’s it?  Where are the facts?  All we see is lots of “expects” and “assuming” and “intends” and “will issue.”  Again, where are the facts about “the current state” of PATH cases in East Virginia and MD that the WV PSC asked for?  There are lots of references to what AEP/Allegheny thinks “will” happen in the future, but nothing about “the current state” that the PSC ordered them to provide.

Here are the facts:

  1. AEP/Allegheny’s front company, PATH-Allegheny, withdrew its application in East Virginia last winter before the SCC hearing examiner could make any ruling or findings on the company’s application.  AEP/Allegheny had filed supplemental studies by PJM saying their PATH projections were wrong, but the power companies pulled their application to cut off critical analysis by VA SCC staff, intervenors or the hearing examiner.  So, there is no indication of whether the VA SCC would accept a PATH application on the same terms as they did last year.
  2. Even if the VA SCC accepted a new PATH application, it will likely be months from the time the application is filed until the SCC orders a new procedural schedule.
  3. As AEP/Allegheny notes in their response, they currently have no application for the PATH line in East Virginia.  When they withdrew their last application there, they claimed they would re-file in the third quarter of 2010.  Now they say they will re-file by September 30, 2010.  That is the end of the third quarter.  What are they waiting for?
  4. While the MD PSC has accepted a new PATH application based on Allegheny’s goofy structure involving Potomac Edison, PATH-Allegheny and a new shell company called PATH-Maryland, the MD PSC has not issued a procedural schedule in the new case.
  5. The Kemptown substation at the eastern end of the PATH line is the subject of a major jurisdictional controversy between the Frederick County Planning Commission and the MD PSC.  Even if the MD PSC case proceeded on schedule, there will likely be a big court fight over zoning for the substation.  What would that do to the “alignment” of cases in the three states?

Join the fun.  Play hunt the facts in the power companies’ recent PSC filing at this link.

Click on this link to see how many “facts” they have been able to find over in Jefferson County.