CHARLES F. PWINTZ, JR. 834 Lost Road Martinsburg, WV 25403

Transcription

1 BOWLES RICE PAGE 01/07; I CHARLES F. PWINTZ, JR. 834 Lost Road Martinsburg, WV Direct Dial: Fax: To: Sandra Squire, Exccutivc Secretary Datc; Public Service ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s Pax No Pages: 5 including cover T"i> 17'".

2 MARLE 884 Lost Road e Martinsburg, West Virginia December 22, 2010 Ms. Sandra Squire, Executive Secretary Public Service Commission of West Virginia 201 Brooks Street VIA U.S. MAIL ANI) FACSIMltE: e: Case No O-E-CNI Enclosad please find the original and twelve (12) copies of the Response of Charles FA Prink, Jr, and Donna F. PrMz to Stars Motion to Dismiss and Reply fa PATH'S Response in Bpposifion to Staffs Motion fo Dismiss, A copy of this document has been provided ea Applicant's counsel. Thank you for your assistance. Very truly yours, Charles F. Prink, Jr. Enclosure cc: John Philip Melick, Esq.

3 BDNLES RICE PUBLIC SERVICE COMNIlSSlON OF WEST VIROlNl PATH WEST VIRGINIA TRANSMISSlOh COMPANY, LLC; PATH ALLEGHENY %RAN S MI S S I a N COMPANY, LLC; PATH-W UNO ACQUlSlTlON COMPANY; and PATH-ALLEGHENY LAND ACQUISITION COMPANY, RE; CASE NO Applicants RESP0MS.E OF CHARLES F., PRINTZ, JR., AND DPNNA F, PRlNTZ TO STAFF'S MOTIQM TO DISMISS AND REPLY TO, PATH'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO $TAFF'S MOTION TO DISMISS Intervenors Charles F. Printz, Jr, and Donna F, Printz Dffer the following in response to Staffs cr'rion to Dismiss and in reply to Applicants' Response in Opposition to Staff's Metion to Dismiss: 4, While previous time extensions and tollinga of the statutory deadline for awe bean based largely an the need for mars accurate or updated informatian and data, no new time extension RF tollin can 60ned the deficiency in the Application and in the writtan testimony that PATH has not sufficiently addressed reasonable alternatives to its graposed project. 2. In their responw in opposition, the Applicants do not confront Staff's argument that existing and proposed alternative solutions have not bean presented. Rather, the Applicants' attempt to misdirect the Commission from that issue and to ernbrace another tatring request basad upon the pending PJ Load Forecast. 3. Evaluating ~ Iiefh~r the rebuild of the Mt. Storm-Doarb line and proposed rebuild of the Prurhytawn-Mt. Stom line will have an effect: on the approval of. the Applicaticrn ce;nnaf: be left to evidentiary development at the hearing of this matter, as Applicants suggest. It must be documented and subjeded to the in-depth discovery the Commission's Rules provide,

4 PAGE 04/B5 4. The Commission has a ped that a rigorous consideration of "available, reasonable alternatives, capable of being implemented by the Applicant or its aiiiiiates which are utilities, ar othewuise capable of being predicted within a reasonable degree of certainty" fits within the statutory mandate OF West Virginia Code la(@. (Case E-CN, August 1, 2008 Final Order at page 41) 5. The Applicants simply eannot: proceed without a full development of the alternatives to the proposed project. Tolling at this juncture provides no fair remedy and makes P mockery of the regulatory process. Staff has been forced to chase a moving target rumemus times in this case, as the Applicants' need for new data has driven new deadlines. The Applicants' failure (and apparent refusal) to address and/or cansider existing and pending reasonable alternatives to their proposed transmission line cannot be remedied by another totling. Tats many resaurceo, public and private, have been expended, and additional time is of no benefit if it will not be utilized. 8. Therefore, the only reas~nable solution is far the Commission dismiss the Application without: prejudice, which will allow the A ~ ~ lto i properly ~ a ~ present ~ ~ and address the energy alternatives and the relevant environmental faactors in a re-filed application. HARLES F. PRINTZ, JRm DONNA F. PRINT2 884 Last Road Martinsburg, WV I, Charles' F. Printz, Jr., certify that I have served a copy of the Response of Charles F. Pthtz, Jr. and Donna F, Prinfir to Staff's ~~~~~~ Dismiss and Reply to 2

5 12/22/ : EDWLES RICE PkGE 05/05 PATH'S Response to SfafP=s Maf;ion to Dismiss upon the follawing parties who have stated that they are unwilling or unable to participate in the case by ernail, by United States Mail, postage prepaid, on the 2Pd day of December, 2010: Brenda Jarvis P.0, sax 64 Flatwoods, W 2662 I Elizabeth Rivard WC 71 Box 855 Duck. W Helen C. Mottle Charlestown Road Harpers Ferry, WV James 3. I: Stella M. Bovard 432 San~tti3t-y Lane Charles Town, WV Mark V. Stanton HC 71 Box 1004, Godey Road Ellamore, WV Michael Castello 4021 Saint Clair Hill Road Morgantown, WV Paul L, Charnblin SO8l Leetawn Road Kearneysville, WV Rosemary Tenney 52 Truby Run Road Buckhannon, Wv Terry & Jaqet L. Kimble HC 36 Box 396 Tallmansvilie, WV Travis D. Cummings West' Fork Road Chloe, WV Dallas R. & Pal Coen 1021 West Fork Road Chloe, VW Fred &Judith M5ore 68 Broaklina Drive Charles Town, VW fda D. Keener Route 2 Box 178 Parsons, WV Linda K. Stark 82 Sag0 RQdd Buckhannon, WV Mary Katherine Cutlip 6343 Exchange Road Exchange, WV Michael W. Strider 2595 Garrity Rosd St. Leanard, MD Robert R. S, T. Callette Hawes 152 Sanctuary Lane Charles Town, WV25414 Silas Wikemann Location Road Parsons, W Thomas T. & Pamela Thompson I30 James Allen Lane Summit Point, W Vickio Manuel 2403 Summit Point Rod Summit Paint, WV Deana Steiner Smith WC 73 BOX 99 A-I Rock Cave, WV Glenn R. Davis 32 Meade Street Buckhannon, WV Ida Murphy P.0. Box442 Thomas, W Marjorie A. Cook 243 Old Oak Lane Harpers Ferry, W Melvin Adkins 2145 Speed Road Spencer, W Pamela Carey 229 Walker Creek Road Chloe, WV Ronald D, & Lois F. Curnrnings West Fork Road Chloe, WV Steven & Cynthia Riggs He 78, Box 402 Rock Cave. W Tony Beprospara 5836 Fall Run Road Ireland, WV