As a follow-up to the manufactured swill that PATH filed as a response to WV intervenor Ali Haverty's discovery request regarding FERC USofA account 426.4 "Certain Civic and Political Activities", she filed another request for additional information on Thursday afternoon.
For whatever reason, the PSC docket clerk went off for her three-day weekend without posting the pdf files or sending out the notices for a whole plethora of new additions to the docket which were filed on Thursday. However, you can see Ali's request here.
What's really interesting in Ali's request is a copy of an invoice from one of PATH's lobbyists that she included as an example of the type of detailed invoices that she's requesting for various vendors in PATH's 426.4 account detail.
Take a look at page 5 of her request to get a feel for what PATH's lobbyists are getting paid to do, paying particular attention to the line item I highlighted. "Working with Craig Glazer of PJM to determine strategy."
But, wait a minute, both PJM and PATH claim that there's nothing funny going on here... PJM is not biased or favoring the PATH project and their dealings are "transparent" and aboveboard. If that's true, then PATH isn't getting their money's worth here.
So, which is it? Is PATH's lobbyist working to influence PJM actions, or are they throwing their money away on a lobbyist who's billing for work never performed? You be the judge.
For whatever reason, the PSC docket clerk went off for her three-day weekend without posting the pdf files or sending out the notices for a whole plethora of new additions to the docket which were filed on Thursday. However, you can see Ali's request here.
What's really interesting in Ali's request is a copy of an invoice from one of PATH's lobbyists that she included as an example of the type of detailed invoices that she's requesting for various vendors in PATH's 426.4 account detail.
Take a look at page 5 of her request to get a feel for what PATH's lobbyists are getting paid to do, paying particular attention to the line item I highlighted. "Working with Craig Glazer of PJM to determine strategy."
But, wait a minute, both PJM and PATH claim that there's nothing funny going on here... PJM is not biased or favoring the PATH project and their dealings are "transparent" and aboveboard. If that's true, then PATH isn't getting their money's worth here.
So, which is it? Is PATH's lobbyist working to influence PJM actions, or are they throwing their money away on a lobbyist who's billing for work never performed? You be the judge.
RSS Feed