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!

Interesting column this week from Tom Miller, who writes West Virginia legislative gossip column Under the Dome.

Although he mistakenly believes that the PATH case has been tolled just because a motion to do so has been filed, Miller has a really interesting take on the way PATH is being looked at in the legislature.  That's what Miller's column is all about -- a behind-the-scenes look at issues in Charleston and what is being said about them by our elected representatives.

Here's a link to Tom's take on the status of the PATH project. And here's a quote:

"MEANWHILE, the news that staff attorneys for the West Virginia Public Service Commission recommended that the long-distance PATH (Potomac Appalachian Highline) electric transmission line from Putnam County to Maryland not be authorized by the PSC suggests this project may not be the panacea many of its supporters claim.

This objection last week prompted American Electric Power and Allegheny Energy--the developers of this 275-mile, $2 billion project from the John Amos Power Plant in Putnam County to a site in Maryland--to ask the PSC for a six-month delay in the formal hearings on the project.

These two utility companies said the delay would allow more time to study and document the future electrical demands for the region.   The hearings originally were to be in the spring of 2011 with a final PSC decision coming by July 28, 2011.  Now the decision will be delayed until February of 2012.

PSC attorneys claim the project to construct a 765-kilovolt line is nothing more than a "huge extension cord" to East Coast population centers that will create more pollution-causing coal-fired power plant emissions in West Virginia.  And PSC approval would also provide the power company with the right of eminent domain to acquire the rights of way from landowners."

Looks like PATH's goose is also cooked in the legislature.  The citizens have been doing a little lobbying of their own, and it didn't cost a thing!  The efforts of the citizens of West Virginia who have taken the time to get to know their elected representatives and make their views on PATH known have been successful.  If you're one of these active voters, pat yourself on the back.  Mission accomplished and job well done!

Good news!  PATH has finally complied with the WV-PSC's Order and submitted responses to Ali Haverty's requests.

Now I see why it took so long.  It had to be created.  And I mean that in the most complete, literal sense.

What has PATH been doing with your money?  And lest they attempt to tell you it's not your money, here's the truth:  These particular expenses revealed in the PSC case are booked as an income deduction.  PATH's only income comes from you, courtesy of the return they earn on capital expenditures in the ratebase.  PATH deducts these "donation" & "civic and political activity" expenses from their income to come up with a lower total income figure for tax purposes.  So, where does the actual cash they pay for these items come from?  Right out of your pocket because you're paying them that return every month in your electric bill.

So, what turned up in discovery?

For account 426.1  Donations.  This account shall include all payments or donations for charitable, social or community welfare purposes.

For account 426.4 Expenditures for certain civic, political and related activities. This account shall include expenditures for the purpose of influencing public opinion with respect to the election or appointment of public officials, referenda, legislation, or ordinances (either with respect to the possible adoption of new referenda, legislation or ordinances or repeal or modification of existing referenda, legislation or ordinances) or approval, modification, or revocation of franchises; or for the purpose of influencing the decisions of public officials, but shall not include such expenditures which are directly related to appearances before regulatory or other governmental bodies in connection with the reporting utility's existing or proposed operations.

I'm not going to comment on any of the individual entries here.  I don't have that much time on my hands.  If anything makes you curious, do a google search on the vendor.  I'll just make the observation that it doesn't add up.  So, was PATH cheating in their FERC filings, or are they cheating here?

Although I tried to give them the benefit of the doubt for much longer than I should have, it's now become quite obvious that this financial codswallop is being done on purpose in order to bolster the bottom line.  This would be cheating, in my book.  It's a stunning display of "error" after "error" after "error".  Can the accounting staff of a regulated corporation really be this inept?  No.  When something doesn't make sense, it's usually not true.  And Allegheny could not be that stupid and still manage to operate.  Yes, I said Allegheny.  It seems that's where most of the codswallop takes place.  I'm not absolving AEP here though.  They certainly had their finger in the pie too, although not as deep.  And when the manure hits the fan at game end, they're both going to be covered in it.

Yesterday, PATH filed another correction to their 2010 Formula Rate Annual Update.  Read the letter carefully and pretend you're FERC and this is the second correction you've received because of "errors" in PATH's accounting.  Are any alarm bells going off?  Although he tries to pretend that the "errors" were discovered by PATH, they were really discovered by Ali Haverty and myself and PATH was tipped off to them either through our discovery requests or our Preliminary Challenge.  Unfortunately for them, they still didn't fix them all!  This is a mere drop in the bucket.  It's so not over yet.  PATH has rather begrudgingly provided us with more than enough to hang them as we continue to move forward on the challenge to their Formula Rate filing. 

We all learned in kindergarten that George Washington supposedly said "I cannot tell a lie" when his father asked if he chopped down the cherry tree.  It's no coincidence that George's likeness appears on the dollar bill because, just like George himself, a dollar won't lie to you.  Follow the money and it will always lead you right straight to the truth.  That was always my favorite part of accounting.  It's black and white -- there are no shades of gray for crooked companies to hide behind.  And I get it, PATH.  I completely get it now.

Remember the Frederick County Planning Commission meeting that PATH ditched?  Well, now they're trying to pretend that they didn't get an invitation to the party and therefore are entitled to another "do over".

Yes, try not to laugh at their poor, disorganized souls... they simply didn't know about the meeting and relish the opportunity to go back before the Planning Commission and beg for forgiveness.  You believe them, don't you?

The Planning Commission has set another hearing for January 19, 2011 at 1:00 p.m.  Please mark your calendar to attend (yes, PATH, this means YOU!)

Funny that hundreds of citizens showed up for that "secret" meeting.  It was the best kept secret in Frederick County, apparently.  PATH should quit embarrassing themselves this way.  It's positively EERIE!

Personally, I'm looking forward to seeing that little smirk Chairman White wears so well again.  See you there!  :-)

Today was the deadline for PATH to submit their substantive response to the data request submitted by WV intervenor Ali Haverty, as ordered by the Commission on December 17.  Ali didn't receive a response.

The Order states:  "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Haverty Motion to Compel is granted. The
Applicants will submit its substantive response to the data request within ten days of the date of this order."

It says "ten days", not "ten business days".  Ten days from December 17 would be December 27, which is today.  So, therefore, PATH has defied the Commission's order.  Way to go, boys!  I guess PATH has given up on trying to score any more brownie points with the Commission and intends to behave like a stubborn child instead.

Yes, we know how much this one hurts, trust me, but that doesn't mean PATH can or should simply ignore it.

Let's see... what will PATH's excuse be for defying the Commission?  It seriously can't be the old "days vs. business days, not including holidays" argument, can it?  Really, that one isn't going to fly.  It didn't work last time, and it's not going to work this time either.

Isn't it high time that PATH realizes they're no longer driving this train, and that the citizens have taken over engineer duties?  Get with the program, fellas.

PATH's proposal to toll the PATH case in all three states and blame it on PJM (another doltish strategy decision that will go down in history) is already getting push back.  Today, three separate motions were filed to dismiss the case in lieu of tolling.  See them here, here and here.  All of these motions are well-written and rely on different valid points of law (as well as common sense -- something that PATH seems to be missing).  I have a feeling there will be more.  Lots more.

It's all coming crashing down in flames for PATH now.  They've got so many serious problems with their project they simply can't recover.  End times.  Give up.

Like a giant, disease-filled boil on the posterior of society, PATH is about to be lanced.

Merry Christmas, you greedy b@stards!  Don't say we didn't give you anything :-)

Good article in Frederick News Post.  Another reporter smells the lies and omissions of fact in PATH's press release!  And another PATH PR flack looks like a monkey...

Last night's Frederick County, Maryland, Board of Appeals hearing turned out to be even eerier than PATH had imagined!  When the Board finally yelled, "Boo", PATH jumped, screamed and may have even wet their pants a little...

At issue here was PATH's request for reconsideration on the Board's previous decision to deny a Special Exception for the gigantic substation in Mt. Airy, PATH's proposed terminus.

A request for reconsideration is just that -- a request, and in what ended up being record time, the Board denied PATH's request and refused to reconsider their previous decision.

Chairperson Westdorp began by asking the Board if they wanted to hear from the applicant.  *crickets*  Just before this, she had done the group swear-in, where anyone present who was prepared to give testimony is required to stand up and take the oath.  The 100 or so citizens present all stood up, letting the Board know that if the applicants intended to put on more testimony, subject to cross examination, that they would be cross examined... ad nauseam.  Did PATH's blood curdle at that moment?

Westdorp tried for a creepy amount of time to get someone to make a supernatural motion to grant or deny the applicant's sinister request.  It was spine-chilling!  The unnatural sound of silence was uncanny!  When it became freakishly obvious that no one was going to help her out, Westdorp herself made the scary motion to deny the applicant's frightening request.  Board member Sepe seconded the motion, in spooky, otherworldly fashion.  A hair-raising vote was taken and the applicant's request was denied a terrifying 3-0.

The crowd once again loudly displayed their approval.  PATH representatives looked a bit red in the face.  I guess it was just too frightening for them to come face-to-face with eerie democracy.

PATH's next step is to continue to pursue this through the courts.  That's probably guaranteed to be even spookier!