FERC has responded to Rep. Roscoe Bartlett's inquiry about PATH's suspension and the status of the Formal Challenge. In a letter dated April 28, Chairman Wellinghoff declines to comment on the matter of PATH's "suspension" and the Formal Challenge in accordance with FERC regulations. Think of FERC as a court... they hear evidence from both sides, and then make a decision. They don't comment on cases in process, just like a judge wouldn't comment in the middle of a trial.
The questions Bartlett posed are as follows:
1. What is the status of the PATH application in FERC's point of view?
This one sort of gets punted with repetition of Bartlett's description of PATH and PATH's "Status Update."
2. How long does a rate guarantee survive, if the project does not go forward? If the 14.3% rate is allowed to continue, for how long?
FERC declined to answer this as related to a "contested proceeding."
3. Is there a process in place to rescind the rate guarantee, which could be implemented now, based on the history of frequent, reoccurring changes in the need horizon, particularly in the framework of the continuing depressed economy that will not be producing a need in the foreseeable future?
Declined as "contested proceeding."
4. Does the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision (February 2, 2011) to vacate the 2007 Department of Energy (DOE) designation of two National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETCs) affect the PATH rate guarantee?
This gets an answer. However, be sure to read Ali Haverty's comments about the NIETCs and how the granting of PATH's incentives relied on this now defunct designation.
5. How/does/can FERC incentivize renewable generation as it has with nonrenewable coal in the PATH case?
This one is also answered by FERC. Read the letter.
6. What is the status of the challenge from West Virginia Intervenors to PATH's accounting procedures? When will that be decided?
Declined as "contested proceeding."
One thing is made clear in FERC's letter though... FERC considers the issue of PATH's self-created "suspension" a "contested proceeding" and does not agree with PATH's counsel that it is, "for informational purposes only and does not require any action on the part of the Commission." Ut-oh, PATH, UT-OH!!!
PATH's "suspension" is now a "contested proceeding" because of all of you who have sent your comments to FERC. If you haven't commented yet, there's still plenty of time. You can comment your little fingers to the bone until FERC makes a decision. Here are the instructions.
The questions Bartlett posed are as follows:
1. What is the status of the PATH application in FERC's point of view?
This one sort of gets punted with repetition of Bartlett's description of PATH and PATH's "Status Update."
2. How long does a rate guarantee survive, if the project does not go forward? If the 14.3% rate is allowed to continue, for how long?
FERC declined to answer this as related to a "contested proceeding."
3. Is there a process in place to rescind the rate guarantee, which could be implemented now, based on the history of frequent, reoccurring changes in the need horizon, particularly in the framework of the continuing depressed economy that will not be producing a need in the foreseeable future?
Declined as "contested proceeding."
4. Does the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision (February 2, 2011) to vacate the 2007 Department of Energy (DOE) designation of two National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETCs) affect the PATH rate guarantee?
This gets an answer. However, be sure to read Ali Haverty's comments about the NIETCs and how the granting of PATH's incentives relied on this now defunct designation.
5. How/does/can FERC incentivize renewable generation as it has with nonrenewable coal in the PATH case?
This one is also answered by FERC. Read the letter.
6. What is the status of the challenge from West Virginia Intervenors to PATH's accounting procedures? When will that be decided?
Declined as "contested proceeding."
One thing is made clear in FERC's letter though... FERC considers the issue of PATH's self-created "suspension" a "contested proceeding" and does not agree with PATH's counsel that it is, "for informational purposes only and does not require any action on the part of the Commission." Ut-oh, PATH, UT-OH!!!
PATH's "suspension" is now a "contested proceeding" because of all of you who have sent your comments to FERC. If you haven't commented yet, there's still plenty of time. You can comment your little fingers to the bone until FERC makes a decision. Here are the instructions.
RSS Feed