It's about time PATH realizes that it's in a "no-win situation," and the reason it finds itself in its current predicament is because they're wrong, plain and simple.
"PATH is in a no-win situation. In the past, PATH has permitted individual end users to participate in
Annual Update open meetings and has provided data in response to information requests propounded
by those individuals. However, those individuals, including Complainant and Ms. Newman, abused
their access to the information provided by PATH within the context of the Annual Update review by
posting the data on the Stop Path blog. See generally www.stoppathwv.org PATH then agreed to
provide the information under a protective order but the individuals refused to sign the protective
order. PATH filed a motion with the Commission for adoption of a protective order, but the
Commission did not act on PATH’s request to adopt the proposed protective order and request for an
administrative law judge to be appointed as discovery master. See PATH Companies’ Motion to
Dismiss the Formal Challenge and Motions to Compel, Docket Nos. ER08-386-000 and ER09-1256-
000 (filed Oct. 20, 2011)."
Awww, c'mon Randy, don't be such a sour puss!
1. "...abused their access to information by posting data on StopPATHWV Blog." Any of you seen any confidential "data" here? Yeah, me neither. Any of you seen PATH documents used as exhibits in publicly filed documents at the FERC that were linked here? Guess what? Once information is publicly filed with FERC, anybody with an internet connection can download it and use it for any purpose they desire! No where in PATH's protocols is use of information generally restricted. That's what protective agreements are for. Nobody ever signed one. *hiss*
2. "PATH agreed to provide the information under a protective order..." No, PATH didn't. They attempted to coerce interested parties to sign retroactive protective agreements to cover up PATH counsel's discovery errors that provided certain highly sensitive information that was never requested, disclosure of which could probably put them in serious legal jeopardy if the owner(s) of the information only knew what PATH counsel disclosed to interested parties. It is not incumbent upon interested parties to sign protective agreements to cover up PATH counsel's legal blunders. *growl*
3. "...request for an administrative law judge to be appointed as discovery master." What request? That flat out never happened. PATH only requested a protective order, not a discovery master. If they had, things would have run a lot smoother last year, and from the look of things, this year as well. *screech*
Nice kitty, calm down, kitty! And again, PATH invites FERC to come have another ex parte with us on the blog. So, if PATH doesn't mind if we have this little private conversation with FERC's decisional staff here, let's get this parte started!
All that and they still couldn't come up with any cites to support their contention that consumers have no interest in rates, and therefore no legal recourse against unjust and unreasonable rates they must pay that are under the Commission's jurisdiction (because further misuse of North Star Steel doesn't count!).