The small bit of news came from the Commissioners' attempts to do a little housekeeping on PATH's open FERC dockets.
In their letter order, FERC wants to inform all of you citizen ratepayers who submitted comments about PATH's suspension last year that the comments are "beyond the scope of the proceeding, and therefore will not be addressed in this proceeding." I think that means that you are dismissed, but read it for yourself. The "you" referred to by FERC is our pal Randy Palmer.
"On March 7, 2011, you also filed in Docket No. ER08-386-000, for informational purposes only, an update on the status of the PATH Project (Project Update). You indicate that PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. directed PATH to suspend development of the PATH Project other than activities needed to maintain the PATH Project in its current state. Several individuals filed comments in response to this informational filing on the
Project Update, and PATH filed answer to these comments. These comments raise various challenges regarding the location of the Project, the need for the Project, and its costs. These comments raise issues which are beyond the scope of this proceeding, and
therefore will not be addressed in this proceeding."
I guess the Commissioners missed those parts of certain comments where it was pointed out that PATH's rebuttable presumption, upon which the granting of incentives was based, has run away from home.
However, the two outstanding Formal Challenges live on:
"Consistent with the Commission’s delegated letter order issued in Potomac-Appalachian Highline Transmission, L.L.C., Docket No. ER09-1256-000 at 2-3 (February 2, 2010), PATH’s Annual Updates and any related challenges filed in the above dockets and Docket No. ER09-1256-000 will be addressed in Docket No. ER09-
1256-000, consistent with the formula rate implementation protocols providing specific procedures for notice, review, and challenges to these Annual Updates."
FERC also wanted to let Randy know:
"The Commission retains the right to investigate the rates, terms, and conditions under the just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential standard of section 206 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 824e (2006)."
And I think that will about do it for now.