Here's a copy of a letter PATH's counsel sent to the Frederick County, Maryland, Planning Commission regarding the Planning Commission meeting they failed to show up for in October, and which the Planning Commission graciously offered to reschedule for Jan. 19. When faced with the prospect of getting what they asked for, PATH decided they really didn't want to proceed right now after all. The letter reveals that PATH wants to put this opportunity for a future "re-do" of the Planning Commission process in their pocket until later. They seem to think that PJM's new numbers will garner them a different result. Really? I don't see that happening. I suspect the delay is to buy them time to do some more lobbying to attempt to influence the processes of the Maryland PSC and local government in Frederick County.
Last week, the MD-PSC staff came out with a motion claiming that PATH will "save money" for the electric customers in Maryland. What a crock! The motion talks about "congestion costs" that will be saved once PATH is built. It completely fails to mention the costs of building the PATH project that are sitting on the other side of the scale. Do these "congestion costs" cost Maryland electric customers more than building PATH will? No. Congestion costs are currently rebated to customers through the PJM Financial Transmission Rights system. "Congestion costs" cost the power companies money, not the ratepayers. However, the cost of building PATH will be borne by the ratepayers. What PATH will do is shift these costs from the power companies onto the backs of ratepayers.
So, where did this PSC staff attorney get this crazy idea to try to push this flim-flam? Could it have anything to do with PATH's lobbying in Maryland on the issue of Certificate of Need? (see page 38) Yeah, PATH, we get it ;-)
Last week, the MD-PSC staff came out with a motion claiming that PATH will "save money" for the electric customers in Maryland. What a crock! The motion talks about "congestion costs" that will be saved once PATH is built. It completely fails to mention the costs of building the PATH project that are sitting on the other side of the scale. Do these "congestion costs" cost Maryland electric customers more than building PATH will? No. Congestion costs are currently rebated to customers through the PJM Financial Transmission Rights system. "Congestion costs" cost the power companies money, not the ratepayers. However, the cost of building PATH will be borne by the ratepayers. What PATH will do is shift these costs from the power companies onto the backs of ratepayers.
So, where did this PSC staff attorney get this crazy idea to try to push this flim-flam? Could it have anything to do with PATH's lobbying in Maryland on the issue of Certificate of Need? (see page 38) Yeah, PATH, we get it ;-)
RSS Feed