The NPS advises that they are, "in the process of reviewing the applicant’s request and that a decision is pending soon on the abeyance."
Let's take a look at PATH's request for abeyance. They aren't telling the NPS the whole truth, but a sanitized version of "facts" that suit their agenda.
They perform the same song & dance about PJM's "suspension" and the unknown nature of need for PATH, and they make the following statement:
"PJM informed the PATH Companies that it plans to complete its further analysis of the PATH Project
by late 2011."
PATH didn't tell the NPS about the PJM analysis that they presented to the Virginia SCC on the same day this letter was written (see attachments to Sierra Club's letter). That analysis showed that PATH will not be needed within the next 15 years (2026 or later).
They also don't tell the NPS the truth about what's going on at FERC. They mention that they have advised FERC of the suspension and pretend everything is hunkey dorey. NPS may not be aware that the issue of PATH's "suspension" at FERC is being contested by numerous citizens, The Sierra Club, and a U.S. Congressman.
PATH also reveals the new EIS contractor, PBSJ. Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan has recently merged with a company named Atkins Global. PBSJ also has a glaring conflict of interest because they have previously worked for AEP on their Morgan Creek-Comanche 345kV transmission project in Texas. (Ooops, looks like Atkins Global has taken incriminating evidence offline, but don't worry, I already have it). :-)
In addition, the VA-SCC Hearing Examiner's report in the matter of PATH's withdrawal in that state recommended that another application contain a completed 2012 RTEP. That cannot happen until at least first quarter of 2013. PATH's letter to the NPS claims the route of PATH will not change. Therefore, PATH's NPS "abeyance" will have to continue until then, creating a 3 year delay in the EIS process. A lot of new information will be available in 3 years. The EIS should rightfully start from the beginning, with a new round of public scoping meetings so the affected public will not be disenfranchised by corporate delays.
Since the NPS is still reviewing PATH's request, feel free to submit your own comments to Morgan Elmer at the NPS. Please keep your comments respectful, helpful and informative, as they will become part of the public record in this case. The NPS needs to consider all the information that PATH is withholding from them when they make their decision.