On May 27, 2016, House File 2459 was signed into law, adding § 478.6A “Merchant line franchises – requirements – limitations” to the Iowa Code. This newly- enacted statute creates a new class of electric transmission lines, called “merchant lines,” and sets time limits for processing franchise petitions for merchant lines. Clean Line’s proposed electric transmission line is a merchant line as defined in the new statute. Going forward, all petitions for a franchise for a merchant line that involves the taking of property under eminent domain will be subject to § 478.6A, which establishes a three-year deadline for Board action on those petitions.  If that deadline is not met then the petition shall be rejected and the petitioner may not file a petition for the same or similar project within sixty months following the date of rejection.
Section 39 of House File 2459 sets out slightly different time requirements for merchant line petitions filed on or after November 1, 2014, that have not yet been approved by the Board as of May 27, 2016. The three-year approval period is not applicable to these petitions; instead, the Board must act on these petitions within two years. The Clean Line petitions fall into this classification and therefore a decision on these petitions must be issued by the Board no later than May 27, 2018.

“If a bill like this were to become law, it would kill jobs by creating significant barriers to the many businesses in Arkansas, and other states, that build American infrastructure, as well as raise electric power costs. Denying American consumers access to the lowest-cost clean energy resources is never good policy,” the company said.

“The project has received supportive comments from thousands of Americans, including more than 3,000 Arkansans. Over 200 organizations and associations … have embraced the Plains & Eastern Clean Line because it will create jobs, provide low-cost energy, and result in cleaner air,” the company said.

I have asked legal experts and Congressional investigators to carefully review the Department’s decision. We are studying several related documents released by the Department, including the 22-page "Record of Decision" on the environmental review, a 73- page “Summary of Findings,” and a 210-page “Participation Agreement” between the Department of Energy and Clean Line. We will also require the Department to answer a series of questions related to its decision and provide all related documents and evidence.

Last year, in an effort to clarify the law and restore rights to Arkansans, I introduced the Assuring Private Property Rights Over Vast Access to Land (APPROVAL) Act. Congressman Steve Womack (AR-03) introduced the same bill in the House. The legislation is supported by the entire Arkansas delegation. In October, Congressman Womack and I highlighted the need for this legislation during a House Committee on Natural Resources hearing. Our bill would make it crystal clear that these kinds of projects must receive state approval.

Thankfully, the Obama Administration’s plan for this power line still faces hurdles. This is not a done deal. The Department must be able to legally defend its decision, and there are big gaps between what the law requires and the decision the Department reached. The plan also faces strong opposition by many in Congress.

“FirstEnergy already offers low-income customer and commercial lighting programs in West Virginia, and we are on track to achieve our 0.5 percent energy savings target by the end of 2016,” Todd Meyers, a First Energy spokesman, said in a statement. “We strongly believe that these and any future energy-efficiency programs are best managed by the utilities as overseen by the Public Service Commission of West Virginia, which balances the needs of both customers and the utilities.

“Local governments are better positioned to provide their residents with necessary core services such as police and fire protection, road maintenance, and the like,” he added.

FirstEnergy’s West Virginia utilities have gotten a reputation of offering fewer energy efficiency programs for Mountain State residents than the company offers for other states, such as neighboring Ohio and Maryland. But the utility argues it's a matter of cost in West Virginia.

"The reason is simple enough: surrounding states such as Pennsylvania and Maryland have state laws that mandate energy efficiency programs. At the same time, utilities operating in those states also recover all costs from their customers associated with operating these programs," Meyers said. "In Maryland, for instance, residential customers pay about $7 per month, each and every month, as part of their electric bill to support these programs, whether or not they ever participate or redeem a rebate.

"There is definitely a general misconception that these programs are free… they’re not," he added. "And there has been significant pushback over the years from businesses and residents in states with mandatory programs who don’t like paying the costs every month to subsidize other customers’ appliance purchases and other rebates."

Meyers also said Mon Power and Potomac Edison plan to file plans for Phase II Energy Efficiency Programs "to help customers achieve additional energy savings in the near future, with rollout occurring in mid-2017, contingent on PSC approval.”

“We’re suddenly not the big issue,” said one call participant. “I mean, this is all going to turn on refugees.”

“I think that helps us,” said another call participant. “I think it helps us with the White House being on defense,” another legislative strategist on the call said.

Lobbyists frequently use “must pass” legislation, such as raising the debt-ceiling and government appropriation bills, to enact proposals that would otherwise face a presidential veto. In the last omnibus spending bill, legislators slipped riders onto the bill that repealed rules that prevent banks from using taxpayer-backed funds from trading in derivatives, as well as more than $3 billion in weapons programs the Pentagon did not ask Congress to fund.

If congressional leaders attach provisions to the omnibus to block Syrian refugee settlement, the Obama administration may be forced to accept a compromise that allows for other legislative riders to sneak through.

The participants on the EEI call appeared eager to use the refugee fight to distract the administration.

“In our big meeting this morning, all our lobbyists, their report back from the Hill over the last couple of days in House and Senate is that offices have been saying they are hearing more on this refugee issue than they have heard on any other issue in the last eight years, more than Obamacare, more than anything,” one the legislative strategists remarked.

What you are will show in what you do.

We would like to invite you and a guest to please join your legislative colleagues and the management of FirstEnergy in West Virginia for one of our legislative dinners.  Company management will be discussing what is happening with the company in your area, and discuss FirstEnergy's legislative priorities.

All events begin with a reception at 6:30 PM and dinner at 7:00 PM.

November 10, 2015 - The Purple Iris, 1956 Winchester Ave., Martinsburg. 

Please RSVP to Sammy Gray, Director, State Affairs, and let me know if you plan to attend and bring a guest.

We look forward to seeing you at one of our events!

Thank you for you interest in meeting with us to discuss legislative issues and to meet our folks.
I would be pleased to meet with you privately at some time, however, the event tomorrow evening is for incumbents only.
Please check your calendar and suggest a few dates that you have available.

The U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Inspector General has given a big thumbs-up to the way FERC's Office of Enforcement is conducting its investigations.

"Based on our review, nothing came to our attention to indicate that [Office of Enforcement] had not performed enforcement activities in accordance with relevant policies and procedures," the inspector general said in a special report.

However, one of FERC's biggest critics in that regard assailed the inspector general for focusing on whether FERC complies with its own policies without discussing whether those policies are flawed or violate due process in the first place.

"That takes damning with faint praise to new heights," William Scherman, a former FERC general counsel and partner with the firm Gibson Dunn, said in an interview. The lawyer also said the inspector general appears to be inviting Congress to address the problem, "and hopefully they will" in the energy bills moving thru the Legislature.

7 closed investigations, 20 closed hotline cases, and 10 closed cases regarding potential violations, which had been self-reported by regulated entities.

Also, we specifically evaluated an allegation that the settlement of an enforcement action involving Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc., (Constellation) was inappropriately linked to a then-pending request for a merger between Constellation and the Exelon Corporation (Exelon). Specifically, the Senators expressed their concern that Constellation's agreement to settle the enforcement action was provided in exchange for FERC's approval of the merger (referred to as quid pro quo).

We found that that the Constellation-Exelon merger was specifically mentioned in the terms of the FERC/Constellation settlement agreement. Further, we determined that even before the merger was approved, Exelon executives were directly involved in the settlement negotiations. Finally, we note that the approval of the merger by FERC and the consummation of the enforcement settlement agreement took place on the same day. The lingering question was whether these actions represented an inappropriate quid pro quo. While these actions may have raised understandable concerns, the evidence did not support such a conclusion. In fact, we found that Exelon had specifically asked for language in the settlement agreement that linked the effective date of the settlement with the effective date of FERC's approval of its merger with Constellation.

In addition to the issues we specifically evaluated, there were several that we were unable to review. Those concerns related to what was essentially the basic fairness of FERC's enforcement authority/processes. We concluded that these matters were public policy questions which, as important as they may be, are best addressed by policy makers and as such, were outside the purview of the OIG.