“In my view, Dominion looked really hard at the input this community had and listened to us around the table. I’ve served on a lot of task groups in Alexandria, but this is probably the best I ever sat on.”

And Mayor Allison Silberberg touted Dominion’s proposal for the fact that both options keep power lines underground.

“The good news is Dominion put forward two alternatives that are, in the proposal, both shown to be underground in Alexandria,” Silberberg said. “That’s really good, because that has been a top concern. We are awaiting more info from Dominion with regard to the specifics, and then once we get that specific info from them, we will be reconvening the work group, which has been excellent, to go over these considerations and the two options.”

Todd Meyers, a spokesperson for MonPower, responded to questions about the study by saying the company believes the purchase benefits their customers and that it supports coal mining.

“It continues to provide reliable, low-cost power to our customers, and has preserved the opportunity to use more than 5 million tons of West Virginia produced coal annually, supporting hundreds of coal miners with solid, family-sustaining wages,” he said.

A front group is an organization that purports to represent one agenda while in reality it serves some other party or interest whose sponsorship is hidden or rarely mentioned.

...immediately convene an independent audit of all public comment statements submitted to docket of Case No. CP16-22 since the opening of the comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement; that the Commission strike Intervenors’ Exhibits A through O from the docket and grant leave to any intervenors to this proceeding to submit
further pleadings relating to striking other public comment statements from the docket; finally, that the Commission make a referral to its Division of Investigations, the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Inspector-General, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Inspector-General, and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service.

As an energy consumer advocacy organization, CEA has developed a process of gathering grassroots support for affordable, reliable energy projects. As part of that widely accepted business process, CEA conducts automated telephone surveys with selected individuals. When an automated call is placed, and consistent with accepted industry practice, the call is directed to the individual listed in phone company records. The individual who participates in the survey is asked a series of questions from a scripted questionnaire to which he or she is requested to answer by pressing on the phone’s keyboard “1” for “yes” and “2” for “no”. But, it is the nature of automated surveys that the questions are not asked by a live person and there is no process to identify and confirm who answers the phone and responds to the question.

The survey used here began with an introductory statement telling the respondent that the Commission is considering whether or not to grant a permit to build the NEXUS pipeline and explaining the benefits of the pipeline, including creation of jobs in the region and reduction of energy costs for manufacturers and consumers. The survey continued with the express question on whether or not the respondent would give his or her permission to relay to the Commission his support for the pipeline. If the respondent replied with “no”, the survey would ask another question reiterating the importance of the Project and again ask the respondent if he or she would support the pipeline and authorize CEA to pass that view on to the Commission. On behalf of those respondents who indicated their support for the project and authorized CEA to forward that viewpoint to the Commission, CEA then generated the letter for the 347 individuals that were filed.

Moreover, it is implicit in the nature of any automated phone survey that from time to time there will be instances where the person who answers the phone and responds to the survey is not the person listed in the telephone company’s records as the householder. This would explain the inadvertent error that can occur when a supporting letter is generated in the name of the person listed as householder, but someone else actually answers the phone. So, even though the householder – in whose name the support letter was generated – may not be competent or even in agreement, the person who answered did respond affirmatively and authorize support for the Project. Similarly, in some instances the respondent may not fully understand the presented question, unintentionally answer it in the wrong way and later change his or her mind. Or, in some cases, the respondent may forget that the survey even took place, let alone that he or she gave the authorization for his comments to be filed with the Commission. CEA regrets any such misunderstanding or miscommunication that may have occurred.

Detweiler said the ruling ignores that the project would lower electricity prices for Illinois consumers as more power would be made available in the market. The new line would be designed to move up to 4,000 megawatts, enough to power 1.4 million homes.

It's different than most high-voltage lines in that its developers aren't asking regulators to force captive ratepayers to pay higher electricity rates to finance the project. Instead, Rock Island is a "merchant" line and will be a success only if it signs up enough wind farm developers to pay it to move their output from low-population parts of the Dakotas, Minnesota, Kansas and Iowa to population centers like Chicago and the mid-Atlantic.

The decision doesn't pass constitutional muster, [Detweiler] said.

"It's a terrible precedent—not just for us but any nonincumbent," Hans Detweiler, Rock Island vice president of development, said of the decision in an interview.

He argued that the logic of the ruling is that only established utilities like ComEd and Ameren Illinois can win approval for transmission lines. That undermines competition, he said.

 The United States issued the first domestic infectious disease travel advisory since the 1950’s earlier this month for Florida over the spread of Zika virus. This is an historic advisory. (The FDA is now expanding the testing of blood for Zika in the United States.) SACE has a pregnant staff member in south Florida who is now effectively in a state of house arrest because of this vector borne tropical disease outbreak.

The low cost wind coupled with the concurrent transmission revenue that TVA will likely receive for wheeling the wind power to other recipients makes the deal more competitive for TVA consumers, even if your demand is low, by displacing higher cost fossil fuels.

We believe Clean Line is “in the money” or very close.

Jimmy Glotfelty, executive vice president for Clean Line Energy Partners, told the TVA board last week that it could deliver wind-generated power from Oklahoma and Texas up to 60 percent of the time at around 3 to 3.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, which is cheaper than some of TVA's other energy costs. Such wind-generated power could be available in two to three years after new wind turbines are erected in Oklahoma and Texas, where the wind blows more steadily than in the Southeast, and after Clean Line builds its proposed 700-mile line from the panhandle of Texas to Memphis.

The cost will be cheaper this year because the maximum federal production tax credits, worth the equivalent of 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour, will begin to decrease after Jan. 1.

TVA President Bill Johnson said no decision has yet been made about Clean Line or any other proposal. He said TVA could move ahead "if it makes sense under our timetable, not someone else's timetable.

"We've been in long-range discussions with them (Clean Line Energy) under several memoranda of understanding," Johnson said. "Our objective here is quite simple: to have the least cost, cleanest, most reliable system all at the same time. If it turns out that Clean Line is a part of that, then we will do that. But we are still in the evaluation phase."

"We continue to to have strong discussion with utilities in the Southeast and we continue to have productive talks with TVA because we believe this is a very competitive source of clean energy which we think would add value to their portfolio," Glotfelty said.

In fact, very much like what happened in Nebraska, the resistance in Iowa against the Dakota Access pipeline is led by ranchers furious at what they see as the state's complicity in a private land-grab. Earlier this week, a judge denied a stay on construction of the pipeline, kicking the decision over to the Iowa utility board. The plaintiffs in that case accused Energy Partners of blackjacking them into granting easements by threatening to have their land condemned, a charge that the company's lawyers denied, but one that is more than familiar to the people in Nebraska who fought TransCanada.

"This has been the slow erosion of property rights," said Kleeb. "This is the only way that pipelines will be stopped. Construction companies will find ways to get around permits and other obstacles. That has to be brought through the courts."

There are other problems as well. On Wednesday, The Des Moines Register ran a story in which farmers who were paid to allow an easement through their property along the pipeline's route in Iowa complained that the pipeline company had reneged on promises to restore the land once the pipeline got buried.

Instead, he's got a scar running across his soybean fields where the dark, fertile topsoil is being stacked on top of several feet of hard clay mixed with clay loam. The result, Goebel fears, will be soil less suited for growing crops—and much less valuable.

"Nature separated those soils for a reason, that's the way I feel," said Goebel, who runs a 164-acre century farm in Sioux County. "If nature put it there, they should put it back the way it was." His complaint is one of several popping up across Iowa as work ramps up on the pipeline that will stretch from the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota across Iowa to Patoka, IIl."

“CEOs hold positions of special trust and authority, not only in the companies they serve but as leaders in society. We expect them to act with integrity,” Minkler said in a press release. “Exploiting that special trust for personal gain is an egregious crime, especially when those defrauded are friends and neighbors in a community that the CEO was hired to serve.

Mizelle allegedly siphoned funds from the company’s expense account for his own personal use on a routine basis, according to Minkler.

As CEO, Mizelle was permitted to seek reimbursement for legitimate business expenses. Since at least 2009, however, Mizelle submitted dozens of fraudulent expense reports that disguised personal expenses as business expenses, Minkler said.

For instance, on an April 2009 expense report, Mizelle claimed approximately $650 for business entertainment. According to the federal charges, however, he actually bought a black sapphire bracelet and Mont Blanc pen from a local jewelry store for his own use.

On an October 2014 expense report, Mizelle claimed $1,250 for sponsoring a business-related dinner event. According to the charges, Mizelle had actually purchased a Eurail train pass for a family vacation in Europe.  

His fraudulent claims allegedly resulted in reimbursement checks not only for personal vacations and jewelry, but also for iPhones and iPads, tickets to sporting events, clothing, meals, and even groceries.

No amount was too small. According to the charges, in January 2012 Mizelle claimed $20 for a business lunch that actually went toward the purchase of a pizza delivery to his home.

Two groups representing landowners are suing to block an electric transmission line planned for delivering wind-generated power across Arkansas from Oklahoma to Tennessee.

The federal lawsuit, filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Jonesboro by Golden Bridge LLC and Downwind LLC, the two landowner organizations, will test the legality of a decision by the U.S. Department of Energy to aid construction of the Plains & Eastern Clean Line through provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

The landowner groups are represented by Christopher L. Travis and Jordan P. Wimpy, both of the Gill Ragon Owen firm in Little Rock. The complaint lists as defendants the Energy Department and Ernest Moniz, the U.S. secretary of energy, as well as the Southwestern Power Administration and its administrator, Scott Carpenter.

The lawsuit questions the Energy Department's authority to approve the construction of one of the nation's largest electric lines without seeking state-level review. It also challenges its power to exercise the federal right of eminent domain to condemn and acquire private property under the Energy Policy Act. Landowners, it says, should have played a bigger role in the Energy Department's review of the project, which is being carried out by Clean Line Energy Partners of Houston.

CLEAN LINE OFFICIALS SAY ‘FULL STEAM AHEAD’

Late Monday evening, Clean Line officials said they had not seen the legal complaint against the DOE regarding their project and would not be able to provide specific comment. However, a Clean Line executive reiterated the company’s ongoing refrain that the Houston-based venture group has already invested nearly $100 million of private capital to develop the project and anticipates making more than $30 million in payments to Arkansas landowners for easements and upfront transmission structure payments.

In addition, Clean Line will pay Arkansas counties that host the electric transmission project a total of approximately $140 million in voluntary payments over the first 40 years of operation, which will support local schools, fire departments and other community services.

“It’s no secret that the United States suffers from an infrastructure deficit and that we must push through gridlock to move the country forward. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon to see legal complaints filed against the most important infrastructure projects,” said Mario Hurtado, Clean Line’s executive vice president of development. “In order to modernize the grid, enable the delivery of low-cost energy, create new jobs and enhance our energy security, the private and public sectors must come together to bring new infrastructure projects to fruition.”

Hurtado, who recently told Talk Business & Politics that the multibillion dollar project is expected to get underway in early 2017, added: “The Plains & Eastern Clean Line is the largest clean energy transmission project in America and is moving full steam ahead.”

"The Plains & Eastern Clean Line is a pro-jobs, pro-consumer, pro-environment public energy infrastructure project," said Mario Hurtado, executive vice president for development.

DOE executed the Participation Agreement, which creates a "Coordination Committee," which "shall be composed of two (2) representatives from Holdings and two (2)
representatives from DOE." One of Holdings' representatives is the chair of the Coordination Committee. Unless Clean Line has defaulted, the Coordination Committee requires a representative of both Holding and DOE to have a quorum. The Coordination Committee can only make "public announcements relating to DOE's involvement in the Project" if such public disclosure is approved by "one (1)
representative of each of Holdings and DOE on the Coordination Committee."