Al and Irene Ghiorzi filed their response to AEP/FE’s motion to dismiss the East Virginia PATH application on March 4. Here is the link to their filing. As they have so often in the past, the Ghiorzis lay out, in detail, how and why the SCC should continue to pursue the comparison between PATH and the two major alternatives, each of which can do a better job of meeting even PJM’s rigged criteria.
Here is a sample:
The Commission’s Decision on January 19, 2011 directed PATH-VA to file, on or before March 15, 201 1, the results of PJM’s load deliverability and generator test for several scenarios, including (1) the PATH Case, (2) the Mt. Storm-Doubs Rebuild Case, (3) Dominion Alternative 1 Case, and (4) the Liberty Case. It is important to bear in mind that PATH-VA agreed to perform these scenarios . Neither PATH-VA nor PJM objected to any of the scenarios . Now, PATH-VA and PJIVI are reneging on this agreement. By requiring PATH-VA/PJM to comply with the January 19, 2011 Decision. The Commission is doing nothing more than enforcing an agreement between the respondents and the Applicant. Under these circumstances, PATHVA/PJM cannot unilaterally abrogate the agreement.
PATH-VA’s Motion and the attached PJM news release make no mention of these scenarios despite the fact that PJM’s news release claims that PJM will do a more rigorous analysis. How can PJM claim that it will perform a “more rigorous analysis” later when it refuses to do a more rigorous analysis now? PATH-VA and PJM’s refusal to perform the required scenarios puts a lie to PJM’s calm that it will do “more rigorous analysis.” The “rigorous analysis”, whatever that entails, is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.
This Commission stands alone among the state regulatory agencies considering the PATH applications in holding PJM’s feet to the fire. For this the Commission and its staff are to be commended for doing the peoples’ work. However, this is not the time to permit PATH-VA and PJM to “cut and run .” It is very likely that PJM has run some or all of the scenarios required by the Commission’s January 19, 2011 Decision, and they do not like what they have seen. PJM’s news release states that the need for PATH may be in future years. What is the factual basis for this statement? This Commission should not take any action which would relieve PATH-VA and PJM of its obligations pursuant to the January 19, 2011 Decision.
Great stuff. The whole document is well worth your time.
The Ghiorzis arguments are even more important now that AEP/FE and PJM are attempting to squirm out of Hearing Examiner Skirpan’s January order.