(D) When approval of the affected govern- mental bodies is required, evidence must be provided as follows:
2. A certified copy of the required approval of other governmental agencies;

If any of the items required under this rule are unavailable at the time the application is filed, they shall be furnished prior to the granting of the authority sought.

No person or persons, association, companies or corporations shall erect poles for the suspension of electric light, or power wires, or lay and maintain pipes, conductors, mains and conduits for any purpose whatever, through, on, under or across the public roads or highways of any county of this state, without first having obtained the assent of the county commission of such county therefor; and no poles shall be erected or such pipes, conductors, mains and conduits be laid or maintained, except under such reasonable rules and regulations as may be prescribed and promulgated by the county highway engineer, with the approval of the county commission.

The Trump administration could help by pushing for an infrastructure package that would see the government “buying down a portion of the capacity” on big transmission projects so they can enter construction more quickly, or perhaps through an investment tax credit, Skelly suggests.

“All the ideas come down to a temporary underwriting of the project so you can get these things over the top, or some sort of tax mechanism.”

Plains & Eastern is “pretty much fully developed at this point”, Skelly says. “We’re now in the commercialisation phase, matching chippers – that is wind developers – with utilities in the southeast.”

“It’s still a bit early to tell exactly what the administration will do to stimulate more infrastructure investment,” Skelly says. “But in terms of the things they’re talking about, with private-sector-led projects, it forms a pretty nice Venn diagram with transmission.”

Our Mission

The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) is the association that represents all U.S. investor-owned electric companies. Our members provide electricity for 220 million Americans, and operate in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. As a whole, the electric power industry supports more than 7 million jobs in communities across the United States. In addition to our U.S. members, EEI has more than 60 international electric companies as International Members, and hundreds of industry suppliers and related organizations as Associate Members.
 
Organized in 1933, EEI provides public policy leadership, strategic business intelligence, and essential conferences and forums.

Our Vision
EEI will be the best trade association.

We will be the best because we are committed to knowing our members and their needs. We will provide leadership and deliver services that consistently meet or exceed their expectations.

We will be the best because we will attract and retain employees who have the ambition to serve and will empower them to work effectively as individuals and in teams.

Above all, we will be the best trade association because, in the tradition of Thomas Edison, we will make a significant and positive contribution to the long-term success of the electric power industry in its vital mission to provide electricity to foster economic progress and improve the quality of life.

When third-party organizations or public service commission staffs have attempted to protect ratepayers from funding political organizations in recent years, their attempts have met with fierce resistance from the utility companies.

This report explores how regulated utility companies are including their Edison Electric Institute (EEI) annual payments, along with payments to other trade associations, in their operating expenses. The widespread practice forces ratepayers to pay for political and public relations activities with which they may not agree, and from which they do not benefit. It also has the effect of ratepayers subsidizing the political activities of EEI and other trade associations. Utility commissions have a responsibility to protect ratepayers from paying for industry groups and their political work along with public relations activities. But utilities have become adroit at using EEI, and other organizations, to effectively and quietly influence policy while sheltering their shareholders from the bulk of the associated costs. Almost no other political organizations have the luxury of subsidization enjoyed by EEI and other representatives of the regulated utility industry.

The evidence in this report reveals that EEI is primarily and inherently a political organization, and that much of its work targets policymakers throughout all levels of government to build influence, specifically for their member companies but also for the industry at large. While many states have their established practices of how to code trade association dues, they should revisit outdated guidelines due to the nature of EEI’s modern activities to ensure that they are adequately protecting ratepayers. Throughout the past three decades, some regulators and consumer advocates have acted to protect ratepayers, but scrutiny has waned dramatically. Precedent exists for public officials to act in every state to investigate whether or not EEI’s inherently political work ought to be funded by ratepayers.

Designated Entity shall meet the milestone dates set forth in the Development Schedule in Schedule C of this Agreement. Milestone dates set forth in Schedule C only may be extended by Transmission Provider in writing. Failure to meet any of the milestone dates specified in Schedule C, or as extended as described in this Section 4.1.0 or Section 4.3 .0 of this Agreement, shall constitute a Breach of this Agreement. Transmission Provider reasonably may extend any such milestone date, in the event of delays not caused by the Designated Entity that could not be remedied by the Designated Entity through the exercise of due diligence, or if an extension will not delay the Required Project In-Service Date specified in Schedule C of this Agreement;
provided that a corporate officer of the Designated Entity submits a revised Development Schedule containing revised milestones and showing the Project in full operation no later than the Required Project In-Service Date specified in Schedule C of this Agreement.

Except as otherwise provided in Article 10, a Breach of this Agreement shall include:

(b) The failure to meet a milestone or milestone date set forth in the Development
Schedule in Schedule C of this Agreement, or as extended in writing as described in Sections
4.1.0 and 4.3.0 of this Agreement;

In the event that a breaching Party does not cure a Breach in accordance with Section 7.3 of this Agreement, Transmission Provider shall conduct a re-evaluation pursuant to Section 1.5.8(k) of Schedule 6 of the Operating Agreement. If based on such re-evaluation, the Project is retained in the Regional Transmission Expansion Plan and the Designated Entity's designation for the Project also is retained, the Parties shall modify this Agreement, including Schedules, as necessary. In all other events, Designated Entity shall be considered in Default of this Agreement, and this Agreement shall terminate in accordance with Section 8.1 of this Agreement.

In the event that: (i) pursuant to Section 1.5.8(k) of Schedule 6 of the Operating Agreement, Transmission Provider determines to remove the Project from the Regional Transmission Expansion Plan and/or not to retain Designated Entity's status for the Project; (ii) Transmission Provider otherwise determines pursuant to Regional Transmission Expansion Planning Protocol in Schedule 6 of the Operating Agreement that the Project is no longer required to address the specific need for which the Project was included in the Regional Transmission Expansion Plan; or (iii) an event of force majeure, as defined in section 10.0 of this Attachment KK, or other
event outside of the Designated Entity's control that, with the exercise of Reasonable Efforts, Designated Entity cannot alleviate and which prevents the Designated Entity from satisfying its obligations under this Agreement, Transmission Provider may terminate this Agreement by providing written notice of termination to Designated Entity, which shall become effective the later of sixty calendar days after the Designated Entity receives such notice or other such date the FERC establishes for the termination.

For years the citizens of Maryland have been waiting to find out whether the Public Service Commission really cares about justice and protecting the public. We have our answer. The answer is NO!

The Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC) in their recent Order has taken a position in support of Potomac Edison (PE) on the major issue, against ratepayers’ interests. The Commissioners’ decision is in conflict with both their own Judge’s determination and the West Virginia Public Service Commissioners on the same issue.

The most important decision on this matter was whether or not to require PE to read meters monthly. The PSC Commissioners, as usual, supported the utility company when they overturned the Order issued by the Judge who heard the case.

This should have been expected because in every meeting and mediation, PE’s attorney would declare that PE will not do monthly reads! Apparently lawyers and attorneys trump justice every time! We now know our PSC stands for money in politicians’ and big businesses’ pockets without concern for the problems and concerns of the people or justice at all.

As a brief history, in May 2012, as President of Sugarloaf Conservancy (Doug) filed a formal complaint with the PSC asking them to “establish a formal case to investigate this matter” in response to members’ complaints about PE meter reading practices.  These practices included the failure of the company to read meters bimonthly as required, using inaccurate estimations, which caused substantial over and under billings. Both situations have negative ramifications causing harm to those who can least afford to pay overcharges or large catch-up bills.

A case was finally opened in April 2013. After years of delay the Judge in May 2016 ruled against PE. In part of his Order he stated, “I find that PE's meter reading tariff must be modified to require an actual reading on a monthly schedule...” (as is the case with all other electric utilities in Maryland).  PE appealed the Judge’s Order. A year passed without any decision by the Commissioners. On May 16th, in a letter sent to the PSC, we insisted they fulfill their obligation. Finally on June 19th, the PSC issued an Order.

The Order upholds most of the findings of the Judge’s ruling, including that PE must submit a monthly report for 24 months; pay a minor penalty of $25,000; offer a payment plan to those customers who receive a substantially low estimate bill, followed by a substantial catch up bill the following month; modify their bill to clearly show when an estimate occurs and the reason for not reading the meter.  The reversal of the Judge’s Order to require PE to read meters monthly is in stark contrast to a similar case in West Virginia. West Virginia took less than a month to open a case after the issue was raised whereas the Maryland PSC waited a year after we asked for an investigation; Maryland dragged out the case for four years before the Commissioners issued a final Order; West Virginia issued a comprehensive ruling against PE including the requirement that they read meters on a monthly basis after only a year.  Maryland PSC Order required PE address only 4 areas of concern whereas in West Virginia their PSC hit PE on twelve major requirements.

There is great concern that this slap on the wrist will embolden PE to resume their past business practices, which have caused severe harm to so many.  Unfortunately the losers will be the senior citizens on a fixed income and the poor who can least afford to either pay for electricity they have not consumed or be hit with a sizable catch-up bill.  The Commissioners, through this Order, confirmed their past history of supporting utility companies at the expense of ratepayers in Maryland. This pattern should be disturbing to everyone and unfortunately will not likely change.

In the transaction, Clean Grid Holdings LLC (“Clean Grid”), a new investor in Clean Line, will be entitled to convert its Preferred Units in Clean Line, which are a convertible preferred security, into common equity interests in Clean Line, with the result that the current majority common equity owner of Clean Line will no longer be the majority common equity owner.

Clean Grid is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bluescape Resources Company LLC (“Bluescape”), a Delaware limited liability holding company. Bluescape is a private investment and operating company with its headquarters located in Dallas, Texas. Bluescape pursues investment opportunities in the oil and gas and power and utilities industries. The Bluescape management team has significant experience in these industries and in making investments and managing assets and companies across the energy sector.

On June 30, 2015, Clean Grid invested $12,000,000 in Clean Line in exchange for 12,000,000 newly issued Preferred Units (comparable to preferred stock in a corporation). In addition, as a result of this investment, Clean Grid is entitled to appoint two directors to Clean Line’s Board of Directors (the “Board”), which has expanded from five members to seven members. After approval of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (“OCC”), pursuant to Oklahoma law, is obtained for further investment by Clean Grid in Clean Line, (1) the Board can require Clean Grid to make an additional $5,000,000 investment, for a total investment of $17,000,000; and (2) Clean Grid, at its option, will have the right to invest another $33,000,000, for a total investment of $50,000,000.

If Clean Grid exercises its option with respect to the 12,000,000 Preferred Units it already holds, then the common equity interests of Clean Line Investor, LLC, GridAmerica Holdings, Inc., Michael Zilkha, and Clean Line Investment LLC, would decline from 54%, 39%, 2% and 5%, respectively, to 47%, 32%, 2% and 4%, respectively. Clean Line Investor, LLC would then own less than 50% of Clean Line and as a result, would no longer be the majority owner of Clean Line.

The transactions described herein will result in an additional investment of $12,000,000, a subsequent investment of $5,000,000, and potentially an additional investment of $33,000,000, in Clean Line. Clean Line can invest this new capital (potentially up to $50,000,000) in the projects of Clean Line’s subsidiaries, including the Rock Island Project.

Grain Belt Express must invest tens of millions of dollars in engineering, environmental permitting, and easement acquisition to continue to develop the Project. The Company’s ability to make this investment is severely limited by the present state of regulatory uncertainty in Missouri. If the Commission grants a CCN in this proceeding, that uncertainty will disappear and Grain Belt Express will continue to develop the Project. While parties opposed to the Project may appeal such a decision because of the lack of certain county assents, planning for the Project can continue. Because the Company has agreed that the Commission may condition the CCN to provide that Grain Belt Express will not begin construction until it has obtained all Section 229.100 county assents, no party will be prejudiced.

The parties are entitled to receive a decision by the Commission. Whether that decision grants or denies the Application, the parties and the public at large deserve to know whether the Commission believes that Grain Belt Express has met the Tartan criteria, and if it has, what conditions should govern the CCN. Any significant delay in the Commission coming to a decision benefits no one.

If the Commission desires to rule on this case now, it must reject the Application.