The Derecho: Dominion Energy, The Monopoly that Can’t Shoot Straight
Heh, heh, heh, I take great joy in watching a corporate giant with the institutional arrogance of Dominion Energy, twist and squirm while repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot.
It has been a busy 24 hours for the gang that can’t shoot straight as they fire off motions, letters and press releases that seemingly contradict each other or make even more enemies.
Yesterday morning began with an ORDER DIRECTING ADDITIONAL PLEADINGS issued by the SCC. That order required:
(1) On or before August 7, 2017, the Applicant, Virginia Electric and Power Company,
shall file a response to the above-referenced requests for rehearing or reconsideration.
(2) On or before August 14, 2017, the Coalition to Protect Prince William County and
Somerset Crossing Homeowners Association shall separately file a reply to the Applicant’s
response.
That was followed a few short hours later by a Motion to Hold Proceeding in Abeyance for 60 Days and for Expedited Consideration, filed by Dominion.
Now before I go further, I believe it bears noting that the timing of recent events and filings could lead one to believe that there is an uncomfortably close relationship if not collusion between the SCC executives and the legal representation for Dominion Power. I do not say that lightly and would ask that the skeptical consider that one of the SCC judges, James C. Dimitri, was Dominion’s hired legal counsel from McGuireWoods just prior to his appointment as an SCC judge by Gov. Kaine in 2008. And on what matter was he representing Dominion at the time, why the controversial transmission line from Frederick County to Loudoun County, the project that died when Dominion couldn’t get that portion in Haymarket.
Now, back to the matter at hand. In its motion Dominion asserts that
“Prior to and separate from the Requests for Rehearing or Reconsideration, the Company has begun the detailed surveying process that typically follows-the issuance of a Commission Final Order in a transmission CPCN proceeding. During this process, the Company has discovered certain issues with the Carver Road Route related to land transfers, dedications, easements, and similar property interests held by the County or its agencies. It now appears that any variation to the Carver Road Route in the area of the Somerset Drive extension, including the variation described in the Company’s Comments to the Hearing Examiner’s Report and depicted in the Company’s June 5, 2017 Update to the Commission, will require affirmative County approval before construction can commence, thereby creating a new situation where the County can thwart another Commission-chosen route. In addition, there are several areas along the entire Carver Road Route where the transmission line will cross property where the County’s agencies hold easements and other rights related to stormwater management and the Prince William County Service Authority (“Authority”) holds easements for water and sewer lines. The Company will confer with the County and its agencies’ officials and with the Authority for the necessary easements, permits, approvals, or confirmations regarding whether the transmission line right-of-way is a compatible use in these areas. Finally, the Company is investigating whether there are additional cultural and potentially historic resources along the Carver Road Route that were not included in publicly available datasets or public comments, and not otherwise raised during the case, but nevertheless have been brought to the Company’s attention since entry of the Commission’s Interim Order.
A couple of things bear noting, first, the BOCS has already taken the position that the transmission line is an incompatible use in the area so I’m curious what response Dominion expects when they ask the question again. Second, and more importantly, Dominion’s statement that there are new circumstances that were not previously raised or available in publicly available datasets is an outright fabrication. Many of the issues that Dominion is now “discovering” were raised at multiple times during the case both in oral and written testimony. In their defense, I guess Dominion just glossed over those presentations as they were made by people such as a sitting member of the Board of Supervisors, the County Historian and the Planning Director for Prince William County, whose testimony the Hearing Examiner found un-creditable. Instead the Hearing Examiner chose to accept the testimony of Dominion “Expert” Witness Gill who admitted under oath that although he was an engineer he was not a land use or planning expert. Hmm, an SCC judge that used to represent Dominion and a Hearing Examiner that accepts the testimony of Dominion’s “Expert” Witness over that of a sitting public administrator, anybody else sensing a pattern here? All this tells me is that many of us were corrrect in assuming that Dominion had not seriously vetted the Carver or Madison Routes as they were simply proposed as red herrings.
Which brings us to yesterday’s letter from Dominion to Chairman Stewart:
