Hibblen:  "So, I take it the property owners don't want to sell?"
Massey:  "Well, some of them don't want to sell.  And others sort of resent being forced to sell even though they may get a good price for the use of their land."

Massey:  "Well, the delegation would say the difference is that this is the benefit of private company that is Clean Line Energy Partners of Houston and it's a little different from an interstate in that Clean Line has not been declared a utility by the PSC so the Congressional delegation is framing this as an unprecedented partnership between the Department of Energy, which is backing this project, and a private company."

Hibblen:  "What would be the benefits of this project?"
Massey:  "Well there would be a few jobs in maintaining the line, but the main benefits would be to the landowners."

"But the big number is the $147M in taxes that would flow to the 12 counties that the line crosses."

Hibblen:  "Are the landowners and Clean Line talking possible settlements?"
Massey:  "Clean Line is negotiating with individual landowners and they have commitments with a great many of them as I understand it."

"So I think a great many people find this attractive and would be happy to have the money for the line coming through their land.

Rock Island does not own, control, operate, or manage assets within the State. In testimony before the Commission, Rock Island admitted that the project was in the planning stages and that it would only pursue construction if the company determined that it would be profitable in light of future market developments and financial support. Rock Island currently does not own any transmission assets in Illinois, nor does it have any agreements for service with renewable energy generators in this state. While the potential may exist for generators to purchase service on the line, no Illinois generators have agreed to use the proposed line.

The standard of review of the Commission’s findings of fact is deferential. Orders of the Commission are deemed prima facie reasonable, and the Commission’s findings of fact are deemed prima facie true. 220 ILCS 5/10-201(d) (West 2012). The Commission’s findings of fact may only be overturned if they are against the manifest weight of the evidence. Apple Canyon Lake Property Owners’ Ass’n v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 2013 IL App (3d) 100832, ¶ 57.

The Commission’s interpretation of statutory standards is also entitled to deference; however, reviewing courts are not bound by its interpretation of law. Citizens Utility Board v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 166 Ill. 2d 111, 121 (1995). The Commission’s interpretation of a statute is reviewed de novo. Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 398 Ill. App. 3d 510, 522 (2009). Where governing statutory language is clear and unambiguous, it must be applied as written, and there is no need to resort to extrinsic aids. Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 362 Ill. App. 3d 652, 657 (2005). Courts will not defer to an
agency’s construction where the statute is clear because “an interpretation placed upon a statute by an administrative official cannot alter its plain language.” Burlington Northern, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 32 Ill. App. 3d 166, 174 (1975).

In reaching our conclusion, we acknowledge the Commission’s position that public utility status is not a prerequisite to seeking a certificate of public convenience and necessity under sections 8-406(a) and (b). The Act does not require an applicant to be a public utility before it seeks certification under the appropriate provisions. A plain reading of the statute shows that an applicant may seek public utility status while, at the same time, applying for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to transact business and construct facilities. See 220 ILCS 5/8406(a), (b) (West 2012). In this case, the issue is whether jurisdiction was properly conferred
based on the Commission’s decision that Rock Island was a public utility. We conclude that it
was not.

Further, the Court ignored that it is perfectly logical for Rock Island to have no service agreements with customers before receiving its CPCN. Not only did §8-406 prohibit Rock Island from transacting utility business before receiving a CPCN, but customers will not contract for service on a transmission line that does not have regulatory approvals. Rock Island could not even establish pricing for its service before receiving its CPCN, since the ICC must approve a route for the line and could impose requirements with potentially major cost impacts – such as requiring that a
longer route, or one crossing more difficult terrain, be used, thus increasing the costs to construct the Project and provide the service.

The Appellate Court also seems to misunderstand the physics of the transmission
system. The Project will deliver all of the electricity into Illinois, where Illinois consumers will consume some portion of the electrons. The uncontested facts in the record show that Rock Island’s equipment will convert the electricity from direct current transported on the Project into alternating current in Grundy County, Illinois, where the current will be injected into a transmission network owned by Commonwealth Edison and controlled by the regional grid operator PJM Interconnection.

The best and most appropriate manner for this Commission to fully examine potential supply options would be with the use of a broad, competitively neutral RFP in which multiple suppliers could actively compete to meet the needs of West Virginia consumers. This would ensure that all available supply-side and demand-side resources are transparently reviewed in accordance with the state’s applicable rules and laws.

The first key issue for incremental resource procurements is the design of safeguards to prevent potential improper self-dealing by the utility. Because the utility may financially benefit from the selection of its own self-build offer or a proposal from an affiliate, safeguards are necessary to ensure that the process is not improperly tilted toward the selection of such offers.

“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.