It's a great read, with quotes such as:
"PJM's "2010 RTEP" is not a term that is open to interpretation." and
"Staff has not contended that the application fails to include any information on the original configuration." regarding PATH's apples to oranges comparison of original routes to current route.
"Of course, scrutiny of this circular logic for noncompliance is unnecessary for the Commission to rule on the compliance issue before it."
"PATH-VA's concern regarding prior Commission precedent fails to acknowledge the unprecedented nature of the PATH project."
"The expression by PATH-VA's own affiliates of this concern - that nonincumbent transmission owners (like PATH-VA) place the transmission system at serious risk and are not bound by legally enforceable obligations..." where the staff uses PATH's own words against them -- priceless!
"In other words, a Commission finding of need does not lead to the inevitable conclusion that only one solution - or solutions offered by only one entity - can appropriately address this inadequacy ." Opening the door for Dominion Virginia Power's alternative to modernize existing lines instead of building PATH?
The VA SCC staff kind of reminds me of one of my old English teachers, right before she smacked me upside the head with a ruler. This battle is better than a night at the movies -- pass the popcorn!