Friday marked the first time the public has been able to take a look at what's shaken out of PATH's consolidated FERC case (ER09-1256-002 & ER12-2708-003).
Docket No. ER09-1256 deals with the three Formal Challenges to PATH's formula rate filings for rate years 2009, 2010 and 2011 that were made by West Virginia ratepayers Keryn Newman and Alison Haverty. The Challenges alleged that PATH recovered millions of dollars that it was not entitled to.
Docket No. ER12-2708 deals with PATH's recovery of $121M of stranded capital investment in the PATH project. In 2008, FERC granted PATH the right to recover all prudently-incurred expenses for the project in the event it was abandoned for reasons beyond PATH's control.
These two very different PATH cases were consolidated by FERC in 2012, forever joined at the hip for settlement and hearing purposes.
Earlier this year, the settlement phase ended and a procedural schedule for hearing was set. Under the procedural schedule, PATH filed its Initial Direct Testimony in May of this year, supplemented in July. Intervenors filed their Direct and Answering Testimony on Friday. The public, trial-type evidentiary hearing is scheduled to begin on March 24, 2015 in Washington, D.C.
Here's what was filed Friday:
Direct and Answering Testimony of Keryn Newman and Alison Haverty, along with testimony from their witness Doug Kaplan. Files are labeled, and the narratives are files number 2 of 20, 16 of 20, and 17 or 20. The other files are supporting exhibits as mentioned in the testimony. This testimony deals exclusively with the Formal Challenges in Docket No. ER09-1256.
Testimony and Exhibits of FERC Trial Staff. Witnesses Miller and Deters deal with the Formal Challenges, while witness Keyton testifies on PATH's return on equity percentage that is part of the abandonment docket.
State Agencies and Joint Consumer Advocates filed testimony. The testimony of witness Lanzalotta is with regards to the amount PATH should recover in the abandonment docket, while witness Woolridge deals with PATH's return on equity in the same docket. The third JCA witness questions the prudence of PATH's legal expenses.
Docket No. ER09-1256 deals with the three Formal Challenges to PATH's formula rate filings for rate years 2009, 2010 and 2011 that were made by West Virginia ratepayers Keryn Newman and Alison Haverty. The Challenges alleged that PATH recovered millions of dollars that it was not entitled to.
Docket No. ER12-2708 deals with PATH's recovery of $121M of stranded capital investment in the PATH project. In 2008, FERC granted PATH the right to recover all prudently-incurred expenses for the project in the event it was abandoned for reasons beyond PATH's control.
These two very different PATH cases were consolidated by FERC in 2012, forever joined at the hip for settlement and hearing purposes.
Earlier this year, the settlement phase ended and a procedural schedule for hearing was set. Under the procedural schedule, PATH filed its Initial Direct Testimony in May of this year, supplemented in July. Intervenors filed their Direct and Answering Testimony on Friday. The public, trial-type evidentiary hearing is scheduled to begin on March 24, 2015 in Washington, D.C.
Here's what was filed Friday:
Direct and Answering Testimony of Keryn Newman and Alison Haverty, along with testimony from their witness Doug Kaplan. Files are labeled, and the narratives are files number 2 of 20, 16 of 20, and 17 or 20. The other files are supporting exhibits as mentioned in the testimony. This testimony deals exclusively with the Formal Challenges in Docket No. ER09-1256.
Testimony and Exhibits of FERC Trial Staff. Witnesses Miller and Deters deal with the Formal Challenges, while witness Keyton testifies on PATH's return on equity percentage that is part of the abandonment docket.
State Agencies and Joint Consumer Advocates filed testimony. The testimony of witness Lanzalotta is with regards to the amount PATH should recover in the abandonment docket, while witness Woolridge deals with PATH's return on equity in the same docket. The third JCA witness questions the prudence of PATH's legal expenses.
RSS Feed