This Is What Happens When a Power Company Lawyer Is NOT the Chairman of Your PSC

In MD, citizens actually have a chance to put forward helpful ideas about how to save taxpayers money the next time power companies apply for a high voltage transmission line.  And you know what, they are some pretty darn good ideas too —

From the MD Office of People’s Counsel:

The Office of People’s Counsel does not oppose Applicant’s Motion but requests that it be granted on the condition that Applicant be required to produce to the parties on the Service List in this proceeding (i.e. Case No. 9223) all results of the modeling runs and analyses recently undertaken by PJM which the PATH entities were ordered to produce by March 15, 2011, in Case No. PUE‐2010‐00115 before the Commonwealth of Virginia State Corporation Commission (“VSCC”), as ordered in the VSCC Hearing Examinerʹs Ruling of January 19, 2011, a copy of which has already been entered in the record of these proceedings.

From The Sugarloaf Conservancy:

In light of the foregoing, and also for the reasons advanced in Sugarloaf’s Motion to Dismiss, Sugarloaf asks that the Commission impose the following conditions upon the Applicant for any future application for a CPCN for the subject project:
a. A third-party independent analysis of the subject project and alternatives,
including the costs associated with each;
b. A projection of peak power demand forecast of energy needs for 15 years;
c. A third-party independent analysis ofPJM’s energy forecast;
d. For any substation associated with the project, proof that the Applicant has
obtained all applicable local zoning and land-use approvals necessary for the
substation to be located and constructed in the defined location;
e. Description of all additional future plans (whether or not a component of the
PATH project) for any substation associated with the project.

5. Finally, Sugarloaf requests that, as a condition to, and regardless of, the Applicant’s withdrawal in the present matter, the Applicant be required to produce all results of the modeling runs that it was ordered to produce by March 15, 2011, in Case No. PUE-2010-00115 before the Commonwealth of Virginia State Corporation commission, as ordered in the Hearing Examiner’s Ruling of January 19, 2011 (attached hereto as Exhibit 1).

Too bad the WV PSC threw this kind of prudence aside and rushed to dismiss the PATH application in WV before any intervenors could suggest these kinds of good ideas.