By notice dated March 13, 2013, the Commission scheduled evidentiary hearings on July 24-26 and 29-30, 2013 in Hearing Room 2, Commonwealth Keystone Building, Harrisburg. On March 15, 2013, PPL filed a motion requesting that I issue a protective order in this proceeding and enclosing a proposed order with its motion. In Prehearing Order #4, dated March 20, 2013, I granted the motion and approved, adopted and incorporated the proposed order into the March 20, 2013 order. By notice dated March 28, 2013, the Commission scheduled public input hearings for this case on May 2, 2013 at 2:00 and 6:00 p.m. in Thornhurst, Lackawanna County. In Prehearing Order #5, dated March 28, 2013, I directed PPL to publish notice of the public input hearings in a local newspaper and file proof of that publication with the Commission. By letter dated April 1, 2013, NP CARE requested that I conduct a site view at 10:30 a.m. on May 2, 2013, the same day as the public input hearings. NP CARE contended that this would allow parties time to view the location and still arrive at the location for the public input hearing ahead of the scheduled hearing time. The letter requested a site view on Phelps Road which, according to NP CARE, is located twenty minutes from the site of the public input hearings. According to the letter, the site view would allow me and the parties to view the location of the proposed line. NP CARE stated that the area of the site view is situated in one of the primary natural tourist attractions of the area. By letter dated April 3, 2013, PPL responded to NP request for a site view. CARE’s PPL opposed the request because 1) NP CARE had failed to describe the details of the site visit; 2) the site view would not be useful since there is no cleared right of way for the parties to observe; 3) the majority of the Phelps Road loop is unrelated to the proposed route for the 230 kV transmission line; 4) the site view would confuse and mislead the parties; 5) the better course of action would be to introduce photographs of the area at the evidentiary hearings; and 6) the site view should not be
By notice dated March 13, 2013, the Commission scheduled evidentiary hearings on July 24-26 and 29-30, 2013 in Hearing Room 2, Commonwealth Keystone Building, Harrisburg. On March 15, 2013, PPL filed a motion requesting that I issue a protective order in this proceeding and enclosing a proposed order with its motion. In Prehearing Order #4, dated March 20, 2013, I granted the motion and approved, adopted and incorporated the proposed order into the March 20, 2013 order. By notice dated March 28, 2013, the Commission scheduled public input hearings for this case on May 2, 2013 at 2:00 and 6:00 p.m. in Thornhurst, Lackawanna County. In Prehearing Order #5, dated March 28, 2013, I directed PPL to publish notice of the public input hearings in a local newspaper and file proof of that publication with the Commission. By letter dated April 1, 2013, NP CARE requested that I conduct a site view at 10:30 a.m. on May 2, 2013, the same day as the public input hearings. NP CARE contended that this would allow parties time to view the location and still arrive at the location for the public input hearing ahead of the scheduled hearing time. The letter requested a site view on Phelps Road which, according to NP CARE, is located twenty minutes from the site of the public input hearings. According to the letter, the site view would allow me and the parties to view the location of the proposed line. NP CARE stated that the area of the site view is situated in one of the primary natural tourist attractions of the area. By letter dated April 3, 2013, PPL responded to NP CARE’s request for a site view. PPL opposed the request because 1) NP CARE had failed to describe the details of the site visit; 2) the site view would not be useful since there is no cleared right of way for the parties to observe; 3) the majority of the Phelps Road loop is unrelated to the proposed route for the 230 kV transmission line; 4) the site view would confuse and mislead the parties; 5) the better course of action would be to introduce photographs of the area at the evidentiary hearings; and 6) the site view should not be
1252661.docx