This just in...  PATH's Memorandum in Support of the Potomac Edison Company's Petition for Judicial Review of the December 20, 2010 Findings and Decision of the Board of Appeals for Frederick County.  Before reading though, click here to set the proper tone and mood for your perusal because it's a sad, sad story.  I just couldn't hold back the tears... of laughter!

It's another PATHetic pity party starring poor, persecuted PATH, and winds up with a rather long-winded legal argument citing a bunch of precedent.  I'm not going to get into that aspect of it.  I'm not a lawyer and I refuse to waste my time looking up all those cases.  The Maryland opposition groups have lawyers for just that purpose.  You should consider slipping them a donation to help with their legal costs.  Visit CAKES or Sugarloaf Conservancy to show your support!

Regarding the pity party though, I simply can't resist having some fun at PATH's expense.  Here are a few quotes starring MISINFORMATION that I know you'll enjoy:

• 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.

Nowhere in this document does PATH mention that the substation, as well as the entire PATH project, is now a moot point because PJM has determined that it is not needed.  They also fail to mention that they have withdrawn their application to construct the project and the substation in the State of Maryland.  PATH will NOT "improve the reliability of the electric transmission grid."  PATH has provided misinformation to the Circuit Court for Frederick County.

• ...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.  "NIMBY" refers to "Not In My Back Yard," a common position taken by certain opponents whereby the opponents do not necessarily protest the specific proposal but, rather, protest the location of the specific proposal as being too close to their own property.

PATH provides no proof that all arguments against its substation were subjective or any of those other things.  This is simply PATH's sweeping characterization of the citizens and provides MISINFORMATION.  (See, we're embarking upon a theme here, you'll see why.)  PATH is motivated by $$$ and they have not proven otherwise.  PATH even stoops to name-calling, something I can't remember the citizens ever stooping to during the hearings.  Congratulations, PATH, I'm sure your mommies are very proud of you!  Regarding PATH's definition of "NIMBY," is that their "expert" opinion or merely their subjective, emotional and anecdotal argument?  I'm thrilled that they have finally given definition to the NIMBY word they love so much in a legal document though.  I promise to make good use of that quote from here on out!

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

When pigs fly, PATH!  PATH does not even have an application on file, much less any guarantee that if they file an application in the future that the PSC will authorize it.  Awfully presumptuous, aren't we, PATH?  More MISINFORMATION through omission of crucial fact.

• Petitioner is pursuing this judicial review because PATH cannot be built without the Substation.

PATH also cannot be built without an application to the PSC, the inclusion of the project in PJM's RTEP, and at least some semblance of "need" for the project, but don't let that stop you, PATH.  Enjoy your little MISINFORMATION fantasy!

• Petitioner agreed to proceed in good faith with the County's special exception process under a reservation of its rights to assert the pre-emption argument at any time.

Well, what's stopping you... go right ahead, PATH, and assert your "pre-emption argument."  What?  PATH's gun is loaded with blanks because there is no argument, pre-emptive or otherwise, because PATH does not have an application for its project before the MD PSC.  I guess that fact makes this statement MISINFORMATION.

• Prior to the first night of the special exception hearing, well-organized and extremely
  vocal opposition to, and misinformation about, PATH, including the Substation, spread in the
  news media, on the internet, and at political town hall meetings and debates. Also prior to the first night's testimony, the Board visited the Property and walked the Site. In the wake of
  resident outrage fueled by misinformation, and in light of at least one Board member's history of actively opposing projects (see the letter in the Record dated December 8, 2010 from Mr.
  Cannon to the Board), this visit appears to have been a premature death knell for Petitioner's application.

MISINFORMATION, you say?  Well, I disagree.  What fueled the opposition and outrage were THE FACTS that were revealed, not that sugar-coated bucket of MISINFORMATION you tried to spoon-feed to the public.  So, PATH, are you now admitting that we kicked your butt on the PR front?  I'm so happy that you finally agree with me that Charles Ryan Associates failed to perform.  I just knew we'd find common ground eventually!  "Premature death knell?"  It's positively EERIE that the Board's visit to your substation property foretold the eventual removal of the PATH project from PJM's RTEP because there is no need for PATH!  Do you also suppose that the Board called Miss Cleo for advice before their visit?  And all this time I thought Miss Cleo was just pulling my leg in order to swindle me...

• Mr. Reed also testified that the Substation will not have any material adverse impact on
  area roadways. (TR 16-17, Oct. 14, 2010). The Substation will be unmanned, and will require
  four to five regular maintenance visits each month.  Mr. Reed testified that these visits would not generate high volumes of either local or regional motor vehicle traffic along the existing roadway infrastructure.

Oh, that's right, Truescape's MISINFORMATION said the substation is going to float down from the sky and magically appear at the site thereby not generating any adverse impacts on roadways during construction.

• Petitioner also offered the expert testimony of a highly respected and well-credentialed
  real estate appraiser and consultant, Mr. Jay Goldman. Mr. Goldman was very familiar with the Property and the surrounding areas and testified he had driven through the communities, flown over them in a helicopter, studied land records and historical sales, and visited the County's land records office. (TR 438-39, Nov. 13, 2010). With this personal knowledge of the Property and proposed Substation, Mr. Goldman compared the Site to the Quarry Creek development in Charlestown, West Virginia. (TR 440-43, Nov. 13, 2010). Mr. Goldman stated that the Quarry
  Creek development is the most expensive in the area, with the value of most of the 60 to 65 houses exceeding $1 million, and three houses exceeding $5 million. Mr. Goldman testified
  that a large rock quarry and an electrical substation are located at the development's entrance. Moreover, the development is adjacent to the main line of CSX Railroad, (which transports high volumes of coal and chemicals), is intersected by power lines, and backs up to the Charleston landfill. Mr. Goldman also indicated that the development contains a water tower, a cemetery, and at least one gas well.  Mr. Goldman testified that despite these perceived negative influences, the property values for the homes in the  development remained quite high.

Jay Goldman was an embarrassment to the PATH project and the residents of West Virginia who were present.  He presented MISINFORMATION because he's from Charleston, West Virginia, which is at least 6 hours (and many worlds!) away from Frederick County, Maryland.  He turned the citizens of West Virginia into cartoon characters who jump at the chance to live near public housing and city dumps and pay a premium for an unobstructed view of AEP's John Amos coal-fired generating plant.  He also doesn't appear to know the geography of his state, unless the "error" of Charlestown vs. Charleston was made by PATH's counsel.  Apparently Geography wasn't someone's favorite subject.  Charles Town (notice it's two words) is located in Jefferson County in West Virginia's eastern panhandle.  It is an easy 30 minute (or less) drive from Frederick County and it is a place that many from Frederick have previously visited and with which they are familiar.  Charles Town doesn't have any homes overlooking the city dump that sell for more than a million dollars.  Charles Town residents oppose PATH and do not consider it a selling point.  Charleston (notice the different spelling, pronunciation and the fact that it's one word) is located in Kanawha County, WV, in the south central part of the state where out of state corporate interests have laid waste to the environment and where politicians' pockets are stuffed with "donations" from the same corporate interests.  Charles Town often finds itself at odds with Charleston because the populations are so completely opposite in thought and lifestyle.  Or was that whole Charlestown/Charleston thing just a miserably engineered attempt at legal chicanery?

• Of the countless protestants, including representatives of three groups, testifying in
  opposition to the Substation, not a single one was: a civil engineer who had conducted a wetland study; an environmental engineer who had conducted an environmental impact review; an historical expert who had conducted a historical impact analysis; an EMF specialist; or an epidemiologist who had examined  available health impact studies.

That's right, the "countless protestants" weren't paid to spin a specific rendition of "the facts" while PATH's "experts" performed poorly, and even resorted to perjury in some instances.  Being an "expert" does not mean they are incapable of spreading MISINFORMATION, only that they are being paid to do so.

• While the heated emotions and fears of the protestants were palpable and readily appreciated, the opposition's testimony was anecdotal and based on blogs, random  anti-substation websites, and highly  questionable "reports."

PATH provides no proof of this accusation, not even one example is given.  This statement is opinion, based on MISINFORMATION.  Amusingly, in West Virginia, one of PATH's motions to the PSC actually relied on a blog as a source to prove some point that only seemed to fully form in the minds of Randy Palmer and Phil Melick.  Quick, someone call the WAHHHHHmbulance!

• Petitioner refers to the opposition as "protestants" or "opponents" and not "residents" given that a number of those
  testifying in opposition to the Substation do not live in the neighborhood closest to the Property, much less Frederick County or even the State of Maryland (e.g., Patience Wait of West Virginia).

Hahahahah!  It really bothered PATH that much that we attended the Frederick hearings?  Guess what, out of state corporate PATH players?  We're actually WELCOME in Frederick, you're not.  Therefore, in future weak attempts to spread MISINFORMATION, remember that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Very entertaining, PATH!  Now quit spreading MISINFORMATION to the Circuit Court for Frederick County and go away.  It's over, you lost.