The Office of People’s Counsel at the MD PSC has filed a number of comments with the PSC requesting a delay in the Maryland case. The OPC cites the fact that PATH has now presented three different versions of their application in Maryland, and needs to consolidate all their information into a single application.
The OPC also wants PJM to provide real and clear analysis of alternatives to PATH, not just the incomplete and misleading “alternatives” they have presented so far. The OPC says:
PJM continues to expressly represent to members of the TEAC [PJM’s Transmission Expansion Advisory Committee] that PJM is developing and will perform the Alternative Studies. When asked in an OPC DR [discovery request] for the date by which the results of the Alternatives Studies would be available, however, the Applicant responded that “[N]o deadline has been set, given the more immediate need to address the studies needed to submit corrected supplemental testimony in light of the identified TrAIL impedance modeling error.” Inasmuch as the evaluation of alternatives are integral to the consideration of any CPCN for a proposed transmission line project, the performance and results of the Alternatives Studies are critical to this proceeding. [emphasis mine]
The OPC concludes:
For all of the foregoing reasons, OPC cannot agree to a procedural schedule at this time. Instead, we recommend that a status conference be set for late October, for the purpose of reviewing the status of the Application and discovery among the parties.
So now there are clear proposals on the table in both Maryland and East Virginia, just a month after AEP/Alleghany’s misrepresentations to the WV PSC, that would create significant delays in both states.
The Maryland PSC does not have the OPC’s comments, dated September 27, on its Web site yet, but here is a link to the comments I received today in an email.