by "PowerMAD"
I've been following the letters sent to FERC arguing against PATH being allowed to “suspend” the project so it can continue to collect that 14.3% Return on Equity and keep some maintenance level of activity going. So far, 31 individuals and one organization have submitted comments, every single one of them objecting to PATH's attempt to create a new project category - “No Plan to Build But You Already Promised Us the Money” (NP2BYPU$, for short).
You know what's missing? Where are all the “citizens” (Affiliated Construction Trades Foundation, intervenor in favor of PATH) who supported PATH, and all the “experts” (Dan Ervin) who wrote pro-PATH op-eds, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce “leaders” (Bill Kovacs, SVP for Environment, Technology and Regulatory Affairs, USCofC) who just argued that PATH is a critical project?
They're MIA.
In fact, if you look at the FERC docket for PATH, you might notice that even PJM hasn't filed anything to support PATH's argument that it gets to keep collecting our money.
Do you think that might be because it's one thing to pay “experts” to spout the corporate line to the public, but quite another to lie to the federal agency that regulates your industry?
Editor's Note: The above is a submission written by one of our regular readers who goes by the screen name "PowerMAD". We do accept submissions -- send yours here.
I've been following the letters sent to FERC arguing against PATH being allowed to “suspend” the project so it can continue to collect that 14.3% Return on Equity and keep some maintenance level of activity going. So far, 31 individuals and one organization have submitted comments, every single one of them objecting to PATH's attempt to create a new project category - “No Plan to Build But You Already Promised Us the Money” (NP2BYPU$, for short).
You know what's missing? Where are all the “citizens” (Affiliated Construction Trades Foundation, intervenor in favor of PATH) who supported PATH, and all the “experts” (Dan Ervin) who wrote pro-PATH op-eds, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce “leaders” (Bill Kovacs, SVP for Environment, Technology and Regulatory Affairs, USCofC) who just argued that PATH is a critical project?
They're MIA.
In fact, if you look at the FERC docket for PATH, you might notice that even PJM hasn't filed anything to support PATH's argument that it gets to keep collecting our money.
Do you think that might be because it's one thing to pay “experts” to spout the corporate line to the public, but quite another to lie to the federal agency that regulates your industry?
Editor's Note: The above is a submission written by one of our regular readers who goes by the screen name "PowerMAD". We do accept submissions -- send yours here.
RSS Feed