A good PR company is always looking out for their client's best interests.  This would necessarily include notifying their client of anything discovered that may run counter to their client's interests, right?  Charles Ryan Assoc. bills themselves to PATH as a bunch of geniuses, and PATH eats it up, spending millions of dollars to have CRA representatives present at all public events to "observe" the public.  But what happens when CRA discovers something that makes them look foolish and also runs counter to PATH's PR business model?  They keep it to themselves, of course!  They never want to give PATH bad news or admit that they made a grave mistake.  Just like a cat who falls off a piece of furniture, CRA keeps a straight face and says, "I meant to do that."

In order to keep this fun for the hundreds of people waiting to find out Charles Ryan's secret, we'll turn this into a cyber treasure hunt.  Here's your first clue.  If you figure out CRA's secret, post it in the comments.  If you knew their secret all along, don't spoil it for everyone else! 

Congratulations to hafabee and ? who caught on with only one clue and helped direct the power companies in their cyber treasure hunt for the secret Charles Ryan Associates was trying to keep from them.  Mission accomplished!

Here's their "secret" -- and how they ever thought they'd get away with it is beyond me!  Charles Ryan Associates designs and maintains PATH's many claimed and unclaimed (front group) websites as part of their "self-anointed genius" PR services.  The geniuses at CRA have been hosting a dead link on PATH's main website, which at one time connected with one of their long-since abandoned front groups, the "Coalition for Reliable Power".  This has been going on since PATH allowed their ownership of the domain to expire on August 30, 2010, nearly six months ago.  A "dead link" is a link on a website that connects to a non-existent website.  Extremely unprofessional!

Once a domain registration is allowed to expire, ownership is terminated and that domain is made available for purchase by anyone.  This is why hosting dead links is a bad idea.  Anyone could buy up an available domain name and construct their own website.  That's exactly what happened with the Coalition for Reliable Power.

PATH's website has recently been hosting a live link to a grassroots Coalition whose mission is, "dedicated to  increasing the reliability of the West Virginia and U.S. electrical systems through sensible improvements to our electric generation, distribution and transmission systems.  In our mission to create a vital public conversation about reliable electrical power  and real alternatives to our dangerously centralized electrical grid.  Our current goal is to press for the rebuilding of the Pruntytown to Mt. Storm 500 kV transmission line in West Virginia which will make the proposed PATH line completely unnecessary."

Meanwhile, CRA had begun a new internet advertising campaign intending to drive traffic to a page of PATH's website with the dead link on it and were inadvertently also driving traffic to the Coalition's website.  On Monday, CRA happened to click on the dead link and arrived at the Coalition's site.  Did they tell PATH what they had found?  No, they thought they could keep their incompetence a secret.  So, they removed the dead link from PATH's website and didn't say a word.  Lack of integrity seems to be a character trait that's shared all around by those behind this project.  Maybe now they know how we feel when we're intentionally lied to again and again...

Update:  The "secret" is revealed here

Charles Ryan Associates, LLC has a secret that they're keeping from their bosses at PATH!  When PATH finds out CRA's secret, they might question CRA's ability to provide competent public relations services for their floundering transmission line project.  Some of you blog readers already know CRA's secret -- shhh! don't give it away!

Over 30 years of experience raising children, I've found that it's best to make the naughty child 'fess up on their own when they have done something wrong.  It builds character and integrity to admit one's mistakes and accept responsibility for them. 

Something happened yesterday afternoon at 1:26 p.m., didn't it?  All three of us wish we could have been there to see your face, but that's okay, we all have very creative imaginations, as I'm sure you've noticed.  C'mon, you can tell those nice fellas at PATH how the opposition outsmarted you once again, can't you?  After all, they don't seem to mind at all that competent web design & maintenance is WAY ABOVE your current skillset.  They seem to love you anyway, as evidenced by the millions of dollars of ratepayer money they showered upon you last year, and the year before, and the year before that.

Please be responsible and tell them what you did, how long you did it, and what you found yesterday that was caused by your own lack of proper maintenance, a duty they are paying you lavishly to perform.  Don't make me tell them for you.

And when you're done with that, you'd better start searching for your other HUGE mistake.  That one is probably going to be considered even worse when it's discovered.  Happy hunting!

And for you regular blog readers who are now incredibly curious... check back on this post at a later date.  Once CRA confesses to PATH, I'll let you all know what their secret was...

We attended a couple of the Virginia SCC hearings in Winchester and Purcellville on Wednesday and Thursday.  Although there didn't seem to be as many people testifying as last time, the quality of the comments was outstanding!  Virginia went from somewhere around 20 intervenors (respondents) in the last case to well over 100 this time, so I'm sure that had a lot to do with numbers as well.  Intervenors are prohibited from speaking in their home state, however there is no restriction on intervenors from other states speaking.

The longer this case drags on, the larger and more knowledgeable the opposition becomes.  I was very impressed with all the testimony (not including PATH shills, since what they offered could hardly be classified as "public" testimony) at the two sessions I attended.  A couple of themes definitely emerged: 

1.  14.3%   Greed, not need!

2.  Dominion's Alternative One as a sensible, economical alternative to PATH that obviates any supposed "need" to acquire new rights-of-way and spend billions of dollars on a PATH to nowhere.

3.  PATH has no endpoint.  Frederick County, Maryland, has denied siting of the substation.

4.  PATH has been smokin' something wacky!  Funny phrase and even funnier that I've heard it quite a few times in the past couple of days.  Puts a whole new spin on the PATH Pink Elephant cocktail (5 parts pure grain alcohol and one part Pepto Bismol) recently concocted by one of our regular readers.

5.  The citizens of all three states have formed a cohesive, active, regional opposition group that continues to rack up victory after victory.  All three states were represented through testimony at the Virginia hearings.

6.  PATH can't resist deploying shills to speak in favor of their project.  They still can't manage to make them appear knowledgeable or believable, however.  Will PATH ever learn that slimy, unethical PR programs are only causing them even more resistance and public disfavor?

Here are two copies of testimony submitted about PATH's lack of ethics:

Winchester
Purcellville

And here are links to a couple of newspaper articles that support the Purcellville comments.

Winchester Star
Leesburg Today

Be sure to read Bill Howley's correction of the garbage Ron Poff was spouting in the Winchester Star and Leesburg Today articles here.  Aw shucks, Poff's good ol' boy farmer act is wearing thin already....

We all get it, but PATH continues to pee on the public's leg and tell them it's raining...

Maryland PATH case intervenors John & Terri Armand have outsmarted PATH by using Allegheny's arguments in a previous PSC case against them.  And the AEP public relations strategy powerpoint also makes another appearance.  Gosh, it's been quite handy for making so many cases lately, thanks AEP, for letting your egos  bragging about your past "accomplishments" get the best of you!

The Armands filed this motion Tuesday.  In the motion, they state that the applicants assert, "that the Commission has the authority to site the substation along with the transmission lines".  However, in "PSC Case No. 9018, In the Matter of the Application of the Potomac Edison Company d/b/a Allegheny Power for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Construct an Overhead 230kV Transmission Line in Frederick County, Maryland ... Allegheny Power argued repeatedly that the Commission had no authority or jurisdiction over substation siting and that the Commission could not order Frederick County to grant Allegheny a site in the County for a new transmission substation."  So, which is it, Allegheny?  Does the county or does the county NOT have jurisdiction to site the substation?  It seems to depend on what falls in line with Allegheny's current plan.  There's no consistency, rhyme or reason.

The Armands ask that the Maryland PSC:

Therefore, we respectfully request that the Maryland Public Service Commission:

1. Separate the substation from the transmission line construction in the above-referenced proceedings

2. Deny Commission authority and jurisdiction over the substation in the above-reference proceeding

3. Acknowledge that authority and jurisdiction of the substation in the above-referenced site belongs with Frederick County.

Don't you just love it when common sense cannot be denied?

The Armands also filed a letter supporting the submission to the PSC entitled “CAKES OPPOSITION TO POTOMAC EDISON’S REQUEST TO DELAY; AND MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENY POTOMAC EDISON’S INCOMPLETE APPLICATION”.  You have to read this!

"As proof of this deliberate strategy, we refer to a presentation made in 2009 by Lisa Barton, a Vice
President for American Electric Power (one of PATH's parent companies). With regard to AEP's
Jackson's Ferry 765kV project, Ms. Barton stated that it took, “16+ years to permit” and gloats that in
“1999 Public opposition [was] at 33 percent, [but by] 2004 public opposition was 11 percent."
Appallingly, she goes on to ask, in part, “How do we keep the 300 pound elephant –who pays for this –
from derailing…development?"⁽¹⁾ Clearly, Potomac Edison/Allegheny Power/PATH is counting on the
fact that the taxpayers (“the 300 pound elephants”) will eventually be financially and mentally
exhausted by a potentially multi-decade battle and eventually public opposition will die a slow, yet
inevitable death, clearing the path for PATH (pun intended)."

All you elephants will love it!  Bravo, John & Terri, well done!!

Here's a downloadable quick version of the Formal Challenge for those who are having trouble with file size.  This version strips out the exhibits and is only just over 300kb -- quick and easy.  For those who prefer the entire package, the full version is still available here (or those who read the quick version and want to cross-reference with exhibits afterward).

This morning, Ali Haverty and I filed with FERC a Formal Challenge to Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline, LLC 2010 Formula Rate Annual Update, with a copy served on PATH's Counsel.  PATH now has 20 days to respond to the Challenge.

Just a warning:  It's a large file -- begin downloading and then go do something else -- like file your tax return, and come back later.  But don't give up on the link, it works.  You didn't expect a nearly $4 million dollar campaign of imprudent and improperly recovered expenses, advocacy-building and influence buying to come on the back of a gum wrapper, did you?

Have fun reading, everyone.  I'm going to go catch up on all those things I've neglected for the past two weeks while I've been working on this, like eating and sleeping.

Note to Randy and Phil:  Since we can all stop pretending that you're not reading this now, I'd just like to mention that you completely misinterpreted the meaning of my comment that you submitted to the WV-PSC the other day.  This Challenge is what I meant when I said, "this program of influence buying with ratepayer money".  Got it now?  I'll expect an apology and correction to be filed next week.  Have a nice weekend!  :-)

I have a feeling PATH is wishing they'd just shut up and given Ali what she asked for in the first place.  When are they going to learn?

Today, WV intervenor Ali Haverty filed her second motion to compel discovery.  Her first motion, filed in September, was granted in December and brought us all the list of PATH's "donations" and "certain civic and political activities.  As a follow-up, Ali asked to see invoices for certain of PATH's vendors.  PATH counsel Phil Melick and Randy Palmer tipped their collective hand by going a little nutty-cuckoo in their response.  Hey, fellas, next time you poke a stick in the lion's cage, make sure the door is securely latched first... just sayin'  ;-)

Ali's motion of today not only thoroughly trounces their legal "arguments" (someone was really reaching there, weren't they?), but questions PATH counsel's vicious, unfounded, libelous attacks on her character.

Ali has been more than patient with these incredibly caustic, nasty little children and their juvenile character assassinations.  Now it's time for them to get reprimanded and sent to their rooms without supper, as only the mother of 4 children under the age of 12 can do so well.  Ali has remained cheerful and pleasant throughout, she's even polite when she rakes them over the coals.  However, it's about time the PSC assert a little authority here and give PATH the slap upside the head they so well deserve.  Wasn't the PSC worried about the citizen intervenors turning the case into an unprofessional, name-calling cesspool?  Funny that the ones actually responsible for that are PATH themselves.  Grow up, PATH!!  And now that I'm done giving the "Mom Lecture", please turn your attention to Ali's reasons for compelling this information.

It seems that some of the PATH lobbyists that were on the list of "Certain civic and political activity" payments are up to no good on PATH's behalf.  Ali included a copy of a State of Maryland Lobbyist Registration form for one of these paid lobbyists.  On the registration, this lobbyist has listed the matters upon which he will be acting during the registration period in the State of Maryland.  First on his list is "Certificate of Need".  You know, that approval PATH needs from the impartial Maryland Public Service Commission?  Why would PATH need a lobbyist acting on that?  I thought PATH was "needed" to prevent brownouts and blackouts in Maryland?  If it was truly needed, I don't think a lobbyist would need to persuade the PSC to approve it.  Are you paying attention, citizens of Maryland?  Ali just handed you a big, gift-wrapped present.

Nice work, PATH counsel.  I can always count on you to screw things up when push comes to shove.  :-)

Today, the Virginia SCC's hearing examiner denied PATH's motion to hold the application in abeyance.  What that means is.... no toll in Virginia!  PATH's current application will continue to proceed under the original schedule.  This means public hearings in early February and evidentiary hearings beginning at the end of April, 2011.  A status hearing will be held on January 18 to sort out how PATH is going to present its new evidence by current deadlines.

Whoops!  That didn't go the way PATH wanted it to, did it?  In fact, it's a rather deja vu situation!  The last time this happened, PATH ended up begging to have its application withdrawn rather than proceed.  This is the second application PATH has filed in Virginia which they cannot back up.  PATH needs to take its ball and go home, as WV intervenor Steve Smith has been urging them to do.  This dragging out of process by a corporation who is using funds from electric ratepayers in 13 states to pay their costs of this nonsense also costs the same folks more money trying to fight back.  It also holds thousands of landowners in three states in a state of suspended animation as they wait to see how or if this will affect their properties.  This is an unconscionable  situation that needs to end.

Anyhow, let's get to the ruling.  The main reason the hearing examiner wants to continue with the current application/schedule is to maintain control of their jurisdiction and not lose it to FERC.  Despite PATH's desperate promises, no one trusts them.  The ruling states, "The respondents pointed out that the Commission would have only PATH-VA's word or promise, and that prior promises  to the Commission by affiliates of PATH-VA have not been kept."  You know what they say.... once a liar, always a liar!  The hearing examiner opines that, "there remains the risk that PATH-VA could choose not to abide by its agreement."

Here's the deal with the FERC jurisdiction thing...  If PATH can get their applications delayed in all three states at least one year past their filing date and those states issue denials, PATH could run crying to FERC that the denials are not valid because the state did not act within one year.  Piedmont Environmental Council did all of us a huge favor when they litigated FERC siting authority a couple of years ago.  The 4th Circuit ruled that FERC backstop authority would not be triggered if a state issued a denial of an application.  However, if a state failed to act within one year, backstop authority could be asked for.  If PATH's delays run the clock out for more than a year, they can ask FERC to step in, even if the state had issued a denial after the one-year period had expired.  PATH's promises mean nothing, as we all know very well.  Too bad the WV-PSC isn't as smart at the VA-SCC.

Now we wait to see what Maryland will do with PATH's motion to toll, afterall, we've got all the time in the world here in West Virginia...

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!