Scheduling Conference for Brookings routing

Filed under:PUC Docket — posted by admin on May 9, 2009 @ 11:55 am

weasel

The Dept. of Commerce was up to their usual tricks, a private meeting with the applicants to arrange the schedule, and the result proposed by Commerce was missing major parts of the process and was decidedly counter to past practice in these types of dockets.

Proposed Schedules:

Moes-Eis-and-Hearing-Schedule

Johnson-Schedule

NoCapX-U-CAN-ProposedSchedule

And the revised schedules submitted after the meeting:

NoCapX – RevisedProposedSchedule

Johnson-ScheduleRevised

What was the weirdest, beyond MOES’ failure to include known parties in discussing the schedule, was the repeated statement, when addressing whether applicants would submit Direct testimony, where MOES did NOT include that in the schedule, was the comment, “The application is sufficient for our purposes.”  Oh, right.  Who is “our?”  What are those purposes?  The applicant always submits Direct Testimony, to think otherwise is so bizarre, even applicants agreed that they planned to submit Direct Testimony.  So what is MOES up to?

moes-tavern



image: detail of installation by Bronwyn Lace