Clean Line energy will discuss the public engagement challenges that are inherent when developing and building new large infrastructure projects. How do we overcome these challenges and work to ensure that our stakeholders feel they are informed and part of the process, each step of the way? He will discuss the lessons learned and some of the challenges faced in his career developing transmission projects across multiple states.

Case Studies: Understanding Ins-and-Outs of Utilizing Social Media for Public  Engagement.
In a time where social media is one of the most common forms of communication, it is
important to understand when it is appropriate to utilize it to engage the public and stakeholders during the transmission siting process. It is crucial to understand when to use it as a main form of communication or as a supplementary form of communication - and who you can expect to reach, and how. This presentation will use and demonstrate
how social media is currently being used as an integral portion of a public outreach and
communications plan.
- Louisa Kinoshi, Associate, Clean Line Energy

Going BANANAs with NIMBYs – Best Practices in Dealing with Community Based Opposition Groups.
Increasingly, organizing public participation opportunities means having to handle
disruptive influences from community-based opposition groups - BANANAs (Build
Absolutely Nothing Anywhere near Anything/Anyone) and NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard). This presentation will discuss experiences at Southern California Edison and
how the company has adapted to this new business environment. Southern California
Edison is currently experiencing one of the largest infrastructure capital investment
programs in company history. Driving this are multiple factors, including California’s
ambitious renewable energy goals and the need to replace aging infrastructure that
was constructed during the post-World War II boom. As a result, the opportunity for
community based opposition groups to develop has increased significantly. Recent
advances in technology have made it easier for community-based opposition groups to
organize and, more importantly, to strategize. With the opportunity cost of starting and
participating in such groups constantly decreasing, it is important for public participation practitioners to have a healthy understanding of how such groups are motivated and how to manage them effectively.  The discussion will provide the audience with best practices on dealing with community based opposition groups as well as tips on how to prepare internal, technical subject matter experts to effectively handle emotionally charged situations. These best practices are based upon the experiences of Southern California Edison’s local public affairs department.

Marketing to Mayberry: Communicating with Rural America.
Communications and marketing outreach in small town America requires entirely
different tactics than those used with larger more metropolitan communities. Join this
conversation to learn some of the pitfalls to avoid and the strategies to deploy when
reaching out to small communities. Attendees will learn to prepare for the challenges of
engaging a rural setting, communicate in a conversational tone rather than corporate
tone, identify and engage credible  spokespersons in rural communities and understand which communications and marketing tactics to utilize.

Mock Open House
Open houses are commonly used during the public outreach campaign through the
transmission siting process. They are used to communicate with the community, land
owners, stake holders and public officials and allow them to express their concerns
regarding the transmission lines. Effective, clear and concise communications are crucial
for the open house to run smoothly and successful. This mock open house will allow
key subject experts to run an open house and the attendees to participate in the “open
house,” showing effective forms of communication, how to answer questions and walk away with everyone being pleased with the outcome.

Despite the abovementioned evidence, the plaintiffs fail to overcome the most persuasive evidence that substantiates the reasons the State is seeking in-state development. A significant portion of the trial focused on locational deliverability areas (LDAs). (Stipulated Fact ¶ 30). As previously noted, New Jersey is located in such an area that is known as EMAAC. In addition, there are two other locational deliverability areas within New Jersey known as PSEG and PS North (T. 1529, 3-13). Generally, these LDAs have higher capacity prices than other PJM areas due to transmission costs. Even the Plaintiffs agree that a capacity price cannot be set for an entire region. (Pl.’s Ex. 26, at 34). As a result, there is separation in price which is authorized by PJM and the Commission. The record as a whole supports the proposition that the closer the generation facility is to the delivery area, transmission costs will subside. As Mr. Herling concluded when discussing the reliability crisis, reliability issues could only be resolved in one of two ways – transmission via the Susquehanna Connection or additional generation in or near the location where the reliability issue will occur. (Def.’s Ex. 563, at 33) (emphasis added). As such, it appears reasonable that the Board would incentivize construction in areas where reliability concerns are in flux. As such, the Board has the authority to incentivize construction within New Jersey. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. As such, the incentive for community benefits to generators in New Jersey appears reasonable. Since Plaintiffs have not briefed or argued the commerce clause in such a fashion, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not met its burden of proof.

In recent weeks Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan and state Senate Republican Leader Jeb Bradley have weighed in and signaled that, contrary to PSNH’s unrelenting public relations campaign and full-page newspaper ads, the Northern Pass is not a done deal.

There has also been some clear evidence in the past week that nearly all the Northern Pass supporters are those with a direct financial interest, including those at the Department of Energy hearing in Concord wearing “Support Clean Energy – Support Northern Pass” T-shirts. One estimate of the audience at the Sept. 24 hearing in Plymouth was 650 opposed to Northern Pass, eight in support.

Northern Pass offered only bogus informational sessions, with a police presence at the door and no unscripted questions or comments allowed. Citizens were ushered out the door if there was even a hint of skepticism on their lips, and the follow-up was always the same boilerplate letter to the editor from Northern Pass, thanking the locality for the chance to “clear up any misconceptions you may have had about the project.

"Once we review this agreement will are hoping that it will lead to a decrease in rates for customers right off the bat with a reduction of about a $1.50 to the average residential customer." said Todd Meyers, First Energy Spokesman.

1. First Energy and Mon Power must agree through written verified statements filed in the record in this case within ten days of the date of this Order that they understand and agree that if First Energy does not make additional equity investment in Mon Power to cover the decline in equity caused by the write-off of the $332 million (pre-tax) Acquisition Adjustment, Mon Power must agree not to pay, and First Energy must agree that it will not receive, any dividends from Mon Power until the equity to total capital ratio of Mon Power returns to forty-five percent.

2.    First Energy, AE Supply, Mon Power and Potomac Edison must agree through written verified statements filed in the record in this case within ten days of the date of this Order that they understand and agree to allow the initial $257 million Acquisition Adjustment to be subject to adjustment through a refund from First Energy or AE Supply if the FERC determines that purchase price paid by Mon Power exceeds the fair market valuation of Harrison. If the FERC makes such a determination, the portion of the $257 million Acquisition Adjustment that exceeds fair market value will be returned to Mon Power by either First Energy or AE Supply, and the refund will be credited to the Acquisition Adjustment account.

3.  First Energy, Mon Power and Potomac Edison must agree through verified written statements filed in the record in this case within ten days of the date of this Order that they understand and agree that the return on, and return of, the $257 million Acquisition Adjustment will be allowed in base rates only to the extent that fifty percent of the net margins from off-system transactions from the additional Harrison capacity acquired by Mon Power will support that return. The full return requirement will be allowed each year subject to prospective adjustment based on a review of the achieved net margins from off-system sales in relation to the amount of return requirement built into the initial surcharge, and thereafter base rates. During the initial Surcharge true-up period, and thereafter when the return component on the Acquisition Adjustment is built into base rates, we will consider fifty percent of net margins on off-system sales attributable to the additional Harrison capacity as available for return on, and of, the remaining balance of the $257 million Acquisition Adjustment authorized in this case. This will not affect the ENEC calculations. If the monthly accumulation of return requirements previously built into the initial surcharge and thereafter base rates of MPPE between base rate cases exceed the allowable amount based on the achieved net margins on off-system sales, a prospective adjustment credit will be embedded in prospective base rates, If the monthly accumulation of return requirements previously built into the initial surcharge or base rate of MP/PE between base rate cases is less than the allowable amount based on the achieved net margins of off-system sales, no prospective adjustment will be made to base rates. Each base rate case will reset the balance of the net return components to allowable amount on the achieved net margins of off-system sales to zero.

The Commission will not authorize Mon Power and Potomac Edison to enter into the Revised Agreement at this time because of concerns regarding certain aspects of the Revised Agreement, including (i) operation of public utility generation and market-regulated plants of First Energy by FE GenCo, (ii) separation of responsibilities for economic dispatch, market offers, and planned outages between utility regulated plants with captive customers and market-regulated plants, (iii) whether provision of generation services by FE GenCo will be provided at cost or at higher market-based price if that exceeds the FE GenCo costs of operating the Mon Power generation plants, and (iv) liabilities that FE GenCo may have if there are claims or damages related to the Mon Power plants resulting from operating decisions made by FE GenCo,