Legalectric

Would ya look at that!  Here I thought it was bad when I’d submitted a Petition to Intervene and then the enviros, who had NOT submitted a Petition, were invited to Intervene, and then I was denied Intervention because it would be duplicative of their Intervention… how duplicitous… well, in Delaware it’s the same theme and it’s different.

Today Intervenors in the Integrated Resource Planning docket (07-20) were told to find Barney and all join hands,  sing Kumbayah, and everybody now, in UNISON, let’s ALL INTERVENE TOGETHER!!!  ALL TOGETHER AS ONE!!!!

You hear that, Alan!!! Hop to! Get with it!  Now where’s Barney?

Really, here’s that part of the Order:

I approve, under certain conditions, Dr. Firestone’s, Mr. Muller’s and Ms. McGonegal’s petitions, so that they may represent their interests as residents of Delaware concerned with the IRP’s impact on the environment and public health.  (See the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, Rule 21(d), authorizing the Hearing Examiner to prescribe reasonable conditions on the approval of intervention petitions.) 

Because their interests in the IRP as Delaware residents concerned with the environment are substantially the same, Dr. Firestone, Mr. Muller and Ms. McGonegal may act as one party, with one voice.  As such, they will submit one filing with each deadline and will appear as one party at all proceedings.  In this way, we will not have parties whose interests are represented by other parties (as referenced in Rule 21(a)(iii)) and we can avoid duplicative submissions and responses throughout the life of this docket. 

Dr. Firestone, Mr. Muller and Ms. McGonegal should confer with each other and advise me, with the March 7th filing in this case, who their lead representative will be.  The lead representative’s name will be the name of the party.  In the event that they cannot agree, I will direct Dr. Firestone as the lead, for the reasons stated in his intervention petition, at paragraphs 26, and 34 through 46 (and because his was the only intervention petition of the three that was filed in compliance with the “original and ten (10) copies” requirement of Rule 6(c), which requirement was highlighted in e-mails dated February 19 and February 23, 2007).  If any of the three would prefer not to participate in this manner, then I can move that individual (or individuals) to the “non-party, e-mail only” portion of the service list, if they wish.  In this way, they will receive copies of all the submissions and can be heard separately as non-party members of the public.    

FULL INTERVENTION ORDER HERE