Well, it looks like someone's mad, doesn't it?

Today, counsel for PATH filed their Objections to Ali Haverty's Fourth Set of Discovery Requests.  Right away Melick jumps in with a rather bold accusation, "Ms. Haverty intends to use the information to disparage Applicants."  Really?  And how would you know this with enough certainty to phrase it as a statement of fact?  Can you read minds or something?  That's really stretching it, even for ol' Melick.  Gosh, I wonder who really wrote most of it?  Who ever it is must be as ticked off as Cheetah the cat was over a little water washing the dirt off his paws.

Here's a translation of what ol' Phil is trying to say about the Sheffer invoices "incorrectly" being recorded to regulatory accounts that were subsequently recovered from ratepayers in 2009:  We took money out of the ratepayers' pockets that we were not entitled to and we got caught! 

And what's that about Ali "disregarding the position of Applicants that 'the use of responses to Information Requests propounded under the protocols is limited to the purposes identified in the protocols'"?  This holds no water and is simply the puffery of Randy Palmer.  There's no confidentiality requirements in the protocols and the information was provided without benefit of a protective agreement.  You know, I could tell Randy to go jump off a cliff if I wanted to, but that doesn't mean he'd have to comply.  Someone's still a little sore that we wouldn't sign his after-the-fact protective agreements.  PATH wrote their own protocols and now finds them difficult to live with.  Too bad, so sad, that's what happens when you want the public to pay for your project.  With public funding comes transparency.  If PATH didn't want to risk that public scrutiny of their activities could "disparage" them, then maybe PATH should have pursued a course of action that held them above reproach.

Blah, blah, blah... none of what Phil cites has any relation to the possible wrongful use of public funding, which is the case here.  Ten pages of this crap?  Really?

He finishes up with another accusation he can't back up:  "Ms. Haverty’s latest discovery request was plainly propounded to vex and harass the Applicants." 

PATH and their attorneys haven't got a clue, but they do a great job of showcasing their guilt.  There's definitely more here than meets the eye.  Stay tuned.

"The precious, they've stolen it!"

Utterly ridiculous, and now they've started making wild, disparaging accusations against pro se intervenors.

December 13, 2010
Editor,

In Ashley Craig’s November 17 story, “Packed house voices opposition to AEP rate increase,” AEP spokesman, Steve Ferguson, defends the company’s 13.8% rate hike proposal. He said, “We know the economic challenges our customers are facing and we’re doing our part to keep costs down.” There is such irony in this statement, which is completely incongruous with reality.

I am so sick of watching the unnecessary television commercials, which AEP and Allegheny Power air nonstop, about their proposed boondoggle, the PATH power line. How could anyone think squandering more than 6 million dollars of ratepayers’ hard-earned money on such frivolous expenditures is keeping costs down? And now, AEP is asking ratepayers to pay more, at a time when people are having difficulty simply paying their utility bills. 

This egregious multimillion dollar PR campaign has been added onto our monthly bills, since March 2008. The power companies are collecting reimbursement for these commercials every time we pay our power bills. The struggling citizens of our state have been and will continue to be footing the bill for this wasteful spending spree. AEP is saying they are keeping costs down, yet they continue to spend millions of dollars on an unnecessary “Public awareness campaign.” And now, they want more money from us?

Nancy Williams
Elkview, WV

Note:  The above letter submitted to the Charleston Daily Mail was edited until it no longer bore any resemblance to its original form.  I'd say their editor needs to go back to school to learn how to edit and have the remaining piece make sense, but this isn't the first time culling of facts that portray the power companies in a poor light has turned a well-written letter into a senseless, rambling shadow of its former self.  Shame on you, Daily Mail!

It's a crying shame that Virginia's webcast hearings don't come with video like Maryland's do, because I swear PATH's Virginia attorney must have been on his knees this afternoon while begging the hearing examiner not to dismiss their application.  After starting out railing against having their application deemed "incomplete" as suggested by staff and adamantly opposed to routing discovery continuing, PATH ended up agreeing to both of these after a 5-minute private timeout after the respondents had spoken and before their rebuttal.  They were agreeing with just about anything by the end there, just please, please, please don't dismiss us!

The respondents did a great job pointing out that this whole scenario is just another replay of the application dismissal in Virginia last January and that PATH should not continue to be given chance after chance after chance to get it right.  It was likened to a court case being tried over and over again until the desired result was obtained.  That can't happen, and is exactly what PATH is attempting.  It was also pointed out that PATH has kept the citizens of the Commonwealth hostage for nearly three years, with no end in sight. 

PATH's promises not to play the FERC card cannot be relied on with any certainty when their word isn't worth a plug nickel.  In fact, respondent Al Ghiorzi had a very interesting take on how PATH could be deceiving the state commissions in an attempt to set up a certain scenario whereby they would break their worthless promises and run crying to Mother FERC.  PATH is not to be trusted... at all.

Very interesting, relatively short hearing, but if you missed it, you missed it.  Fortunately, hearing examiner Skirpan promised to have a decision on the applicant's motion to hold the application in abeyance by COB tomorrow.  Watch for it!

A friend pointed out to me this evening that PATH's response filed at the WV PSC this morning also reads like the desperate ramblings of a repentant child caught with their hand in the cookie jar. 

And what's up with the Jackson-Kelly drone's recent sharing of information?  We note that it's only some information -- the kind that he thinks doesn't show PATH in an unfavorable light.  What a dweeb.  Google "email etiquette", will you, Matt?  You will obviously be surprised at what is considered rude -- or perhaps not.  I would hope it's not an attempt at bullying or rudeness.

Scared much, PATH?  Yes, we know.  Isn't it time to end this farce?  Has anyone noticed how we've now come full circle here?  Back in 2008, we citizens were individually knocked to our knees at one of the PATH "Open Houses" or by a land agent knocking on the door.  We were scared.  We were angry.  We were in shocked disbelief.

Now we stand tall and confident of victory while PATH cowers on their knees.  That's life.

Appropriately - an adverb derived from the word "appropriate" meaning right or suitable; fitting. 

Appropriate is also a heteronym.  When pronounced differently it can also mean to take for one's own use, esp illegally or without permission.  Kind of fitting, don't you think?

See this story in yesterday's Town Courier regarding the challenge to PATH's formula rate.  My pal Todd Meyers says, “We are aware of the preliminary challenge and will respond appropriately.”  Uh huh, Todd.  "Appropriately" must mean "screw up really, really badly" in Todd's company dictionary.  Nice work!

Speaking of nice work (no, I mean the real kind in this instance) reporter Krista Brick does a fairly nice job with a very complicated, confusing subject.  Thanks, Krista, for hanging in there!

As many of you already know, a Preliminary Challenge to PATH's 2010 Annual Update was filed on November 29.  The 2010 Annual Update is PATH's accounting for ratepayer money collected and spent in the year 2009.  The Preliminary Challenge spells out the accounting errors PATH made as well as questions the prudence of much of their spending in the area of public relations and marketing propaganda.

According to OATT protocols that detail the procedure for public oversight of PATH's spending, PATH had until January 3 to attempt to resolve the issues.  The intent of this is for Formal Challenges, which take up FERC's time, to be minimized.  It's kind of like your Mom telling you and your brother to settle your differences among yourselves before whining to her.

Whether they're just dumb or arrogant, PATH chose not to respond to their challengers in an attempt to resolve the issues.  Instead, they filed a correction to their 2010 Annual Update with FERC and did not notify the challengers.  Unfortunately for PATH, they got their corrections wrong.  In addition, PATH chose to defend rather than correct many other egregious accounting errors resulting in over-recovery from ratepayers and completely denied any imprudent expenditures.

Because we subscribe to FERC's docket notify system, we received notice of their filing.  In an honest attempt to give PATH one more chance to correct the remaining accounting errors before the January 3 deadline, challenger Ali Haverty sent PATH counsel Randy Palmer this email detailing the incorrectness of their corrections.  Could she have spelled it out any clearer?  It's not like we're being paid to do their accounting for them or anything.  Why are the ratepayers put into this position by the complete ineptitude of a corporation who is making money hand-over-fist by tormenting the residents of three states with questionable applications for an unneeded transmission line?  And FERC trusted them enough to bequeath them with the ability to use public money for their project?  Unbelievable!

Yesterday was the deadline for the resolution period.  PATH finally responded directly to the challengers with this letter.  A few highlights:

We have resolved certain of the alleged accounting errors identified in your Preliminary
Challenges through a correction posted to the PJM website and an informational filing submitted
to the Commission on December 28, 2010. By email received on December 30, 2010 in
reference to the December 28 submittal, Ms. Haverty asserted that further corrections were
needed. We have not had the opportunity to review her email with our accountants but will do
so within the next ten (10) days and advise you if we determine that further corrections are
appropriate. To the extent that the proposed corrections identified in Ms. Haverty's December
30 email were included in your Preliminary Challenges, we disagree with your assessment that
these proposed corrections, including any other proposed corrections for alleged accounting
errors identified in your Preliminary Challenges other than those described in the PJM website
posting and the December 28 submittal to the Commission, are required. 

Yes, they corrected a few of the accounting errors.  This is but a drop in the bucket.  They have also granted themselves a 10-day extension of the resolution period to take another look at the issues that Ali brought up in her email.  Sorry, that's not in the protocols... you can't do that.  You should have contacted us sooner.  Hope you enjoyed your holiday vacation and all, PATH.  FERC really doesn't want to be bothered having to do your simple accounting for you. 

The function of electric utilities under the Federal Power Act is to render public service in a business affected with a public interest. Consequently the Commission has deemed it fair and reasonable to require customers to pay the expenses properly incurred by electric utilities in
rendering this public service. Accordingly, the Commission generally does not require that utilities seeking recovery of costs through their rates demonstrate initially that all expenditures for which they seek recovery are prudent. In fact, longstanding Commission precedent dictates that a party seeking to call the prudence of an expenditure into question must do so by adducing evidence or citing material of which the Commission may take official notice.

Yessssssssssssssssss....  we know that. 

In response to PATH's letter, challenger Keryn Newman sent this email response.

And that's all I have to say about it for now.  January 24 is the deadline to file a Formal Challenge.  Read it here then!

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.   Therefore, it's time to have $10.80 worth of fun with Allegheny Energy's membership in The Duquesne Club.

"Dues" related to this exclusive hobnob snob club showed up on Allegheny's account detail under "Certain Civic & Political Activities".  Allegheny's claim regarding the portion of its corporate membership cost allocated to the PATH project states, "Dues related to the Duquesne Club allocated to all companies and PATH receives its share."  A good friend of mine immediately asked me if the word "receive" has recently been re-defined.  "Receive" indicates something collected or given.  PATH isn't "receiving" its share of a company cost allocation, it's paying its share, which is the acting of giving.  And whose wallet does PATH's giving come from?  Yours!  Gotta love PATH's spin doctors, they take double entendre to new heights every day!

Okay, so you're paying for Allegheny Energy's corporate membership in a private club (and also their membership in a private golf club, but we'll save that fun for another occasion).  The membership in this club has been categorized as a "civic or political activity".  How is membership in a private club civic?  So, it must be political, then.  I guess it's a place where old, rich, white men can influence politicians who are also old, rich, white men while they pretend not to conduct business at all.  The Duquesne Club's "policies" (aka rules) prohibit anything as crass as public display of briefcases or business papers or cell phone conversations.  I can kind of agree with them on prohibiting cell phones in restrooms though... that's just weird!  Ever been in a public restroom and had someone enter, plunk their posterior down in the stall next to you and proceed to loudly say, "Hi, what are you up to?"  Immediate reaction is to run screaming from the room, but usually they're just double-tasking and making cell phone calls from their throne.  The rest of the rules and dress code just make me laugh!  My, my, my, aren't we special!

Imagining all the hoity-toity, la-di-da pretense going on at The Duquesne Club is like the parody that writes itself and brings to mind the similar pretense I've observed during Allegheny Energy's Earnings Calls, and this inevitably leads to our friends, Burns and Smithers.  Allegheny CEO Paul Evanson (aka Charles Montgomery Burns) and CFO Kirk Oliver (aka Waylon Smithers) are probably quite at home here at The Duquesne Club, and in a remarkable display of life imitating art, the resemblance is uncanny.

Burns:  Smithers, a peon is trying to enter the club wearing spandex and informal leather attire!  Release the hounds!

Smithers:  Yes, sir, Mr. Burns, sir.  Shall I charge the ratepayers for the labor of the hounds?

Burns:  Can we do that, Smithers?  Would anyone notice or care?

Smithers:  Yes sir, we've been getting away with billing the ratepayers for all sorts of imprudent costs for years.

Burns:  Excellent!  Now help me to the solarium, Smithers, it's time to do a little sunbathing.

Smithers:  Right away, Mr. Burns, sir!  Can I hold your towel?