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!!
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!!
RSS Feed