A Closer Look at Power Company Misrepresentations in MD Zoning Case

Keryn has taken a close look at the power companies’ pleadings in their attempt to appeal the ruling of the Frederick County Zoning Board of Appeals.  She has posted the outrageous claims of the power companies on StopPATH WV’s blog.  Here is the link.  Keryn is a much better reporter of this situation than I am, because she personally attended the zoning hearings that AEP/FE are whining about.

Here are some of the howlers that Keryn found in the power company pleadings.

The Substation is permitted as a special exception in an A zoning district and is part of a larger project to be constructed in Maryland, West Virginia and Virginia that will ultimately improve the reliability of the electric transmission grid in Maryland and the mid-Atlantic region.

Oh yeah?  How can PATH be a project “to be constructed” when it has no current regulatory cases in any of the states where it was to be built?  How can PATH “be constructed” if it no longer appears in PJM’s RTEP?  And, of course, the biggest misrepresentation here is that PATH will “ultimately improve the reliability of the transmission grid” when it will do just the opposite.

…opponents, including nearby residents, environmental groups, and activists from  Maryland and out of state, offered subjective, emotional, and anecdotal arguments against the Substation and the motives of the Petitioner, and generally in support of a NIMBY position.

In fact (and Keryn is an eyewitness, so she knows better than I), witnesses at these zoning hearings presented coherent arguments referring directly to PJM’s planning process, demand reduction on PJM’s system, the unreliability of expanding the transmission grid, and other fundamental technical issues.  To characterize the testimony as NIMBYism is a blatant falsehood.

When authorized by the Maryland Public Service Commission, Petitioner will construct, operate, and maintain PATH in Maryland.

Here is a more accurate statement “IF authorized by the Maryland Public Service Commission, Petitioner WOULD BE ABLE TO construct, operate, and maintain PATH in Maryland BUT THERE IS NO APPLICATION CURRENTLY BEFORE THE PSC FOR THIS PROJECT.”

Keryn has lots more detail and outrageous claims by AEP/FE on the StopPATH WV blog.

One thought on “A Closer Look at Power Company Misrepresentations in MD Zoning Case

  1. “IF” vs. “When” — yeah, that was a good one. I guess they’re trying to be slick with words to set a ruling in their favor in motion or just intimidate the citizens. Of course, it could just be good old fashioned ARROGANCE.

    It jumped right out at me due to my recent experience with “When the protective order is issued….”

    Dream on! 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s