Future Posting will be on pages of blogs: Poultry Processing Plant, Setbacks on Land, Keep Ban On Uranium Mining, People rights vs Gas Pipelines

Comments:   Posting will be done on the pages: on the right side of the on blog and  follow us on Facebook:  Piedmont Residents in Defense of the Environment

Here are the following environmental concerns and issues we are following:
  • Poultry Industrial Farming/Processing Center
  • Info all Gas Pipelines and  people personal property rights
  • Setbacks and Biosolids spreading:  again Sludge is full of metals, germs
  • Keep the Ban Uranium Mining
  • Coal Ash:  move the ponds off our rivers

Biosolids:  No to Setbacks based on spreading of sludge
Pittsylvania County Setbacks group selects leaders :                            
Subcommittee grapples with how to balance agricultural, residential interests: 
The Agricultural Development Board is proposing that residential property owners bordering farmland be required by the county to abide by the same requirements that farmers adjoining residential dwellings must follow.
According to guidelines from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, farmers cannot operate — such as spreading biosolids or manure — within 200 feet of an occupied dwelling or within 100 feet of a well.

Supports Uranium Mining:  Pittsylvania County Farm Bureau’s stance on mining differs from statewide group:  “We feel we should be able to harvest our products and be they animal, vegetable or mineral  Another dude who raises beef cattle in Gretna, says he supports VUI’s efforts

Federal complaint says NC hog farms hurt minorities
By Bruce Henderson
Published in: Local News

A federal complaint says North Carolina’s regulation of hog farms discriminates against minorities who, disproportionately, endure strong odors and contaminated water.
Three groups filed a complaint Wednesday that asks the Environmental Protection Agency to investigate what they say are violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The filing comes nearly 20 years after 25 million gallons of waste burst from an Onslow County hog farm into the New River, focusing public attention on a fast-growing industry.
Then and now, manure is washed out of the metal barns where hogs spend their brief lives into open pits called lagoons. Water from the lagoons is then sprayed onto fields, where grass absorbs its heavy nutrient loads.
A new, statewide animal waste permit for the swine industry, the subject of public hearings in late 2013, goes into effect Oct. 1. The complaint calls the standards in the permit inadequate and outdated.
The new permit “does not change things at all. It basically allows the industry to continue business as usual,” said Larry Baldwin of the Waterkeeper Alliance, one of the groups that wrote the EPA.
The state’s 2,200 to 2,300 industrial hog farms are often located in rural areas of Eastern North Carolina with high black, Hispanic and American Indian populations, the complaint says.
The smell alone is enough to chase nearby residents indoors, the groups say, and years of complaints haven’t brought improvements. “This is no way to treat your neighbor,” Baldwin said.
North Carolina’s environment agency says the new permit makes several key changes in how hog farms are regulated, including in how waste and soil are sampled and in standards to prevent lagoons from overflowing.
The N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources had no comment on the complaint to the EPA, saying the department is reviewing it. The N.C. Pork Council also declined to comment.
The N.C. Environmental Justice Network, the Rural Empowerment Association for Community Help and the Waterkeeper Alliance filed the complaint.
Henderson: 704-358-5051; Twitter: @bhender

Food Inc. (2008)

For most Americans, the ideal meal is fast, cheap, and tasty. Food, Inc. examines the costs of putting value and convenience over nutrition and environmental impact.

Director Robert Kenner explores the subject from all angles, talking to authors, advocates, farmers, and CEOs, like co-producer Eric Schlosser (Fast Food Nation), Michael Pollan (The Omnivore’s Dilemma), Gary Hirschberg (Stonyfield Farms), and Barbara Kowalcyk, who’s been lobbying for more rigorous standards since E. coli claimed the life of her two-year-old son.

The filmmaker takes his camera into slaughterhouses and factory farms where chickens grow too fast to walk properly, cows eat feed pumped with toxic chemicals, and illegal immigrants risk life and limb to bring these products to market at an affordable cost. If eco-docs tends to preach to the converted, Kenner presents his findings in such an engaging fashion that Food, Inc. may well reach the very viewers who could benefit from it the most: harried workers who don’t have the time or income to read every book and eat non-genetically modified produce every day.

Though he covers some of the same ground as Super Size Me and King Korn, Food Inc. presents a broader picture of the problem, and if Kenner takes an understandably tough stance on particular politicians and corporations, he’s just as quick to praise those who are trying to be responsible – even Wal-Mart, which now carries organic products. That development may have more to do with economics than empathy, but the consumer still benefits, and every little bit counts.

Meeting: Mountain Valley natural gas pipeline : Dec. 15, from 5:30 p.m. to 8 p.m. at the Hampton Inn on McBride Lane in Gretna. /

Overall Pipeline

Meeting:  Mountain Valley natural gas pipeline :   Dec. 15, from 5:30 p.m. to 8 p.m. at the Hampton Inn on McBride Lane in Gretna.

Pipeline meeting planned

Star-Tribune Editor | Posted: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 9:22 am 

Pittsylvania County residents can learn more about the proposed Mountain Valley natural gas pipeline at a community open house Monday, Dec. 15, from 5:30 p.m. to 8 p.m. at the Hampton Inn on McBride Lane in Gretna.

The public will have an opportunity to ask questions and talk with project team members about the 300-mile pipeline.

EQT Corp. and NextEra Energy announced plans for the pipeline earlier this year and are seeking approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

The pipeline would run from Wetzel County, W. Va., through southwest Virginia to Pittsylvania County and connect with Williams’ Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Company’s compressor station in Chatham.

Estimated to cost $3 billion to $3.5 billion, the pipeline would pass through Giles, Montgomery, Roanoke, Franklin, and Pittsylvania counties.

Community meetings also are scheduled Dec. 16 at the Harvester Performance Center in Rocky Mount, Dec. 17 at Salem Civic Center, and Dec. 18 in Blacksburg.

Additional open houses will be scheduled in January 2015, the companies said.

Natalie Cox, a spokesman with EQT in Pittsburgh, Pa., said the project includes 15 to 20 miles of pipeline in the county and will affect about 120 landowners.

She said company representatives are looking forward to starting a dialogue with property owners.

“We work very hard to develop a relationship with landowners,” Cox said. “We’re here to answer their questions. We encourage a two-way dialogue.”

Cox said Mountain Valley is seeking permission to walk properties and stake the proposed pipeline route. A final route is expected next spring.

Coates Field Services in Beckley, W.Va., is doing the fieldwork. Cox said representatives carry Mountain Valley Pipeline identification.

Cox said the pipeline will use as many existing utility transmission corridors as possible and try to avoid environmentally sensitive areas.

FERC review and approval takes 10 to 12 months.

Construction of the 36-inch to 42-inch diameter steel pipeline is scheduled to begin in late 2016 and will take two years.

The pipeline, which will buried at least three feet underground, will require approximately 75 feet of permanent easement and 125 feet of total easement for temporary work space.

Property owners are entitled to fair compensation for having the pipeline on their land, and the companies said eminent domain — a legal taking of land — is a last resort.

Company officials said the pipeline will be equipped with remote-controlled shut-off valves and will be monitored 24 hours a day through EQT’s gas control center.

Scheduled to go into service in late 2018, the pipeline will deliver 2 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day from the Marcellus and Utica natural gas supplies to markets in the southeastern United States.

Chris Sherman, a representative of EQT and NextEra, outlined the pipeline project at a Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors meeting in October.

Supervisors had plenty of questions.

Westover District Supervisor Coy Harville wanted to know how many local jobs the pipeline will bring.

“I don’t hear anything where you will create jobs in Pittsylvania County,” the supervisor said.
Sherman said the pipeline is expected to create 3,000 jobs in Virginia, mostly during construction, and the companies try to use local labor when available.
Harville asked for proof.

Staunton River District Supervisor Elton Blackstock wondered whether the pipeline would supply natural gas for economic development in the county.

He suggested running the pipeline down Route 40 from Rocky Mount to Gretna and along U.S. 29 to Chatham.

Transco’s natural gas pipeline, built in the late 1940s, cuts through the heart of the county, but provides no local natural gas distribution.

“I think its paramount we don’t make the mistakes we made in the past,” Blackstock said.

“With the amount of natural gas coming in this county, there’s no reason why we shouldn’t have access. We need to hold their feet to the fire and get on top of this.”

Sherman said local access points are possible along the pipeline, especially if installed during construction.

Once the high-pressure pipeline is in operation it becomes more difficult and expensive to tap into the line, he said.

For more information, visit mountainvalleypipeline.info or call 844-MVP-Talk.


Meeting: Community meeting targets Mountain Valley gas pipeline: Dec. 12, from 6 p.m. until 8 p.m. at El Cazador restaurant in Chatham / Roanoke Co. supervisors oppose natural gas pipeline

Community meeting targets Mountain Valley gas pipeline

Posted: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 9:22 am
Star-Tribune Staff Writerchathamstartribune.com

Area residents interested in information about how other communities have and are dealing with natural gas pipelines have an opportunity Friday evening to hear about issues in Dickenson County.
  Michael Yates, commissioner of the revenue in Dickenson County, has a pipeline on his property and will talk about how he and the county have tried to ask the right questions, make wise decisions and support individual and county rights.

The event is scheduled, Friday, Dec. 12, from 6 p.m. until 8 p.m. at El Cazador restaurant in Chatham.

Yates will share information about ordinances that help control the gas industry, benefits of a pass through tax, the importance of getting the state legislature involved, and the possibility of benefiting from a gross receipt tax.

He will also share his experience of dealing with a pipeline on a personal level.

Yates has been quoted as saying natural gas hydro-fracking is a two-edged sword.

“It is wonderful for the gas industry and the country’s need for energy, but most people who have dealt with it say they wish they had never heard or seen the gas companies,” he said.

Dickenson and Buchanan counties are reportedly the state’s two largest gas producers, but that has resulted in complaints, disputes and lawsuits.

The event is sponsored by Piedmont Residents in Defense of the Environment.

Roanoke Co. supervisors oppose natural gas pipeline

Posted: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 6:30 pm
By Duncan Adamsduncan.adams@roanoke.com981-3324roanoke.com

The joint venture that wants to build the interstate Mountain Valley Pipeline got off to a bad start this fall with members of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, who first learned from constituents or the news media that the natural gas pipeline’s proposed route would take it through the county.

Chairman Joe McNamara and supervisors Butch Church and Jason Peters referenced that early dearth of communication during discussion Tuesday afternoon that preceded the board’s 4-to-1 vote to pass a resolution expressing its opposition to the proposed pipeline.

The supervisors said a presentation to the board by pipeline executives in mid-October was disappointing. McNamara said pipeline officials seem to be available only after realizing that the Mountain Valley Pipeline is on the board’s agenda.
“Where were you the last three weeks when we were trying to get information?” McNamara asked rhetorically.
Although Supervisor Al Bedrosian cast the lone “no” vote, he joined his colleagues in voicing concerns about the buried pipeline’s current route, which would take it close to the Spring Hollow Reservoir, an important regional source of drinking water, as well as to Camp Roanoke and Bottom Creek.
Bedrosian also expressed dismay that Mountain Valley could ultimately acquire rights-of-way across reluctant property owners’ land through eminent domain.
But he said he voted against the resolution because he felt it was not specific enough in citing the concerns underlying the opposition it expressed. Bedrosian said he supports the right of private companies to earn a profit and noted that nearly everyone relies on an energy source that uses a fossil fuel.
Natalie Cox, a spokeswoman for Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC, said that the proposed pipeline’s current routing would travel “just under 10 miles” in Roanoke County.
Cox said about 70 property owners in Roanoke County have been contacted by a pipeline subcontractor seeking permission to survey their land for a possible route. She said about 55 percent of those property owners have granted permission. That figure compares with about 82 percent granting permission along the pipeline’s full 300-mile route, according to Mountain Valley.
In recent filings with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Mountain Valley, a joint venture of EQT Corp. and NextEra Energy, reported that the company is considering siting an above-ground compressor station at milepost 224, which would be within Roanoke County. Milepost 224 is about 2,000 feet from the Spring Hollow Reservoir.
Mike Mayo, who owns property in the vicinity of the reservoir and Camp Roanoke, attended the supervisors’ meeting. He said afterward that he has refused permission for his property to be surveyed and intends to stick to that position.
During the meeting Mayo sat next to Maurice Royster, manager of government relations for EQT Corp. Mayo said Royster visited his property several weeks ago and was cordial and professional during the visit.
Royster declined to comment after the supervisors’ vote, deferring to Cox, who was not immediately available Tuesday night.
Dan Crawford, group chairman of the Roanoke Group of the Sierra Club, said he was pleased by the vote.
“I’m delighted,” Crawford said, noting that the board’s opposition reflects its apparent understanding that the pipeline ultimately is not in the best interests of the county, the region, the state or the nation.
As proposed, the Mountain Valley Pipeline would travel through several counties in West Virginia and five counties in Virginia: Giles, Montgomery, Roanoke, Franklin and Pittsylvania. The pipeline would terminate at a Transco pipeline in Pittsylvania County.
The interstate pipeline would transport natural gas at high pressure through buried, 42-inch diameter steel pipes. The source of the natural gas would be hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, of drill wells in the Marcellus and Utica shale formations in Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia.
If FERC approves the pipeline project, Mountain Valley would have access to eminent domain to obtain rights-of-way across private property.
Proponents say the pipeline would help transport abundant natural gas to markets, support conversion of coal-fired power plants to natural gas, stimulate economic development and more.
Opponents say the project threatens the environment, property values and safety, and lends continued support to a fossil fuel extracted via fracking, a controversial practice.
The company is in the early stages of seeking FERC approval. Related community open houses are set to begin Dec. 15 in Pittsylvania County. For the schedule, go to mountainvalleypipeline.info.
Meanwhile, Preserve Roanoke and Preserve Bent Mountain will host a “Pipeline Pushback” meeting Wednesday night to discuss tactics to oppose the pipeline. The meeting is scheduled to begin at 7 p.m. at the Bent Mountain Center on Tinsley Lane.


More pipelines: Western Marcellus Pipeline is 3rd seeking passage through Va

Western Marcellus Pipeline is 3rd seeking passage through Va

Thursday, October 30, 2014 5:00 pm
A company with deep roots in interstate natural gas pipeline construction and operation began testing the waters last month for a new pipeline whose path would — like two others already proposed — take it through West Virginia and Virginia to serve markets that would include the mid-Atlantic and southeastern U.S. along with possible export customers. The Western Marcellus Pipeline would be a project of Oklahoma-based Williams, which describes itself as one of North America’s leading energy infrastructure companies. Its operations include the Transco natural gas pipeline, whose mainline extends nearly 1,800 miles from South Texas through Virginia to New York City.   
Williams’ proposed interstate pipeline would be the third such project in Virginia likely to jockey for approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The other two are the Mountain Valley Pipeline, a joint venture of EQT Corp. and NextEra Energy, and the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, a project proposed by Dominion, Duke Energy and other partners.
Both the 300-mile, $3.5 billion-plus Mountain Valley and the 550-mile, $4.5 billion-plus Atlantic Coast projects are in the early stages of seeking FERC approval.
Yet both projects have already stirred fierce opposition among many residents of counties along the proposed pipelines’ routes and others who contend the pipelines support the extraction of a fossil fuel by a controversial practice known as fracking.
Christopher Stockton, a spokesman for Williams, said the company is well aware of this opposition and the possible competition for FERC approval from the other two projects.
“There is some overlap,” he said. “There are several companies doing the same thing. We feel we’ve got a good story to tell and offer the market some advantages.”
Williams published a map tied to its announcement last month that the company was seeking customer commitments to buy natural gas from the Western Marcellus Pipeline. That map indicates a route through Southwest Virginia, although is not very detailed.
But Stockton emphasized Wednesday that predicting any route would be premature.
“Right now, we are in the process of negotiating contracts [with potential customers],” he said.
“The purpose of that map was to illustrate a project path, not necessarily to reflect a specific route,” Stockton said. “We are still in the early stages of looking at potential routes for the project.”
As currently envisioned, the Mountain Valley Pipeline route would take it through the counties of Giles, Montgomery, Roanoke and Franklin on its way to a delivery point at a Transco pipeline compressor station in Pittsylvania County that would also be a delivery point for the Western Marcellus Pipeline.
FERC’s review of the interstate pipeline proposals would, among other things, determine whether the projects would yield enough public benefit to justify their construction.
On Tuesday night, during a citizens meeting in Blacksburg focused primarily on the proposed Mountain Valley Pipeline, longtime environmental lawyer Joe Lovett wondered whether FERC, which he described as industry friendly, could justify the environmental damage and exercise of eminent domain that would accompany three such projects, let alone one.
Lovett, executive director of West Virginia-based Appalachian Mountain Advocates, said the organization will help “attack these three pipelines together.”
Natalie Cox, a spokeswoman for EQT Corp., said in an email that Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC is “confident that there is more than sufficient demand for clean-burning natural gas in the mid-and-south Atlantic regions of the U.S. to make the Mountain Valley Pipeline project commercially viable.”
Frank Mack, a spokesman for Dominion, offered a similar response in an email.
“We cannot speak for others, but Dominion is very confident in the specific demands of our customers and the markets that our project would serve,” Mack said. “The Atlantic Coast Pipeline is more than 90 percent subscribed and we are moving forward with the project.”

Games of Tic and Pipelines: $30 million, we’d better make sure that the Commission gets what it is supposed to get or in the contract.

Virginia Tobacco Indemnification and Community ...



May 17, 2012 - Commission is well aware, and that means the contemplated. 16. Dominion Power ... And by the beneficiary, that is the entity that gets the cash from. 20 the Commission. ... gas pipe across these counties, that Transco put $200 million. 25 ..... that we're dealing with $30 million, we'd better make sure that

MR. STEPHENSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. 14 Chairman, my presentation today is related to a project that the 15 CCommission is well aware, and that means the contemplated 16 Dominion Power Plant constructed in Brunswick County, which 17 you included in your budget in January. This is an extraordinary 18 opportunity, one that we’re very fortunate to have involving a lot 19 of players. It’s a huge deal for everyone. 20

I think there’s some details about the project that 21 needs to come before this Committee today. In particular, you 22 have placed funds and you’ve asked the staff for a budget that 23 allows this project to go forward. However, the Commission has 24 not yet approved the project. We’re seeking today your

MR. STEPHENSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. 14 Chairman, my presentation today is related to a project that the 15 Commission is well aware, and that means the contemplated 16 Dominion Power Plant constructed in Brunswick County, which 17 you included in your budget in January. This is an extraordinary 18 opportunity, one that we’re very fortunate to have involving a lot 19 of players. It’s a huge deal for everyone. 20

I think there’s some details about the project that 21 needs to come before this Committee today. In particular, you 22 have placed funds and you’ve asked the staff for a budget that 23 allows this project to go forward. However, the Commission has 24 not yet approved the project. We’re seeking today your
consideration of the project, for you to make a recommendation 1 to the full Commission next week for final approval of this grant. 2

I want to recognize in the audience Mr. Jim Eck, 3 Dominion, and he’s available to speak to some of the details on 4 the project itself. 5

First, I’d like to walk through the essence of the 6 grant that you’re going to be asked to make. This request has 7 come to us as a TROF request, and didn’t have do that, but that 8 was a form in which it came to us. There are several elements 9
about this that I’ll present t
The applicant on the grant was the Brunswick 12 County IDA. They’re asking you for $10 million per year for 13 three years. Your budget preparation was only for the upcoming 14 year and only for $10 million. So the ask is really for three 15 years, but under consideration today is only the first year for the 16 $10 million. 17

The beneficiary in this grant is a company called 18 Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, known as Transco. 19 And by the beneficiary, that is the entity that gets the cash from 20 the Commission. So that’s where

DELEGATE MARSHALL: One the reasons we as the 17 Tobacco Commission put this money in this pipe line so that we 18 as economic developers can tap this gas line in the future. I see 19 some heads nodding over there, but is there language in here, so 20 two years, three years, or ten years from now we can tap the 21 pipe line and we don’t get hit with a tap fee or whatever you call 22 it.

Danny, I understand from Transco that perhaps Mr. 2 Eck can answer that, not just garden hose that water comes 3 through, there are issues and pressures and check points and 4 booster pumps and hydraulic, and engineering issues. And 5 there’s all kind of issues with getting gas out of that pipe. 6

I think what is clear is that the ability that the 7 availability and access of gas in those five counties will be vastly 8 more available and cheaper with the pipe there than if it would 9 be if the pipe were not there. That’s the essence of Transco’s 10 representation to you.

SENATOR RUFF: The 180 figure, would that access or 11 what you’d use for -- 12

MR. ECK: -- The access, our capacity requirements, 13 250,000 decatherms per day. With this 24-inch pipe, you’ll have 14 an incremental 180,000 decatherms or more, and that’s 15 somewhat dependent on where you’re at on this pipe line. So 16 you can see incrementally it’s very significant, and it’s available 17 at a much lower rate.

DELEGATE MERRICKS: The Transco built the 14 infrastructure. They’re going to lease it to Dominion for 20 15 years. Dominion is going to have a lease on the main pipe line. 16 Across that line, they’re going to be building some booster 17 stations, and every now and then, they get the gas to Brunswick 18 County. Are we going to see where people want to branch off, or 19 say Halifax wanted to branch off for an industry, then the lease 20 or the main line is going to have to jump through a lot of hoops 21 to be able to tag onto that main line, at least from Dominion?

MR. STEPHENSON: My concern in focusing your 23 attention on this paragraph is that the availability of gas, I 24 believe is the essence of this transaction. I do not want you to

get three years down the road and have a prospect customer 1 who needs gas only to find out that there are issues and you 2 can’t get what you thought you could get. These issues are 3 engineering-related and they’re complex and expensive and all 4 that. I don’t want you to go into this expecting one thing and 5 you’ll be disappointed later on. 6

DELEGATE JOHNSON: Who prepared the contract? 7
MR. STEPHENSON: I wrote the contract, and I hired 8 an attorney from a law firm in downtown Richmond, and they 9 have revised it, and the two of us worked on it for about six 10 weeks.

DELEGATE JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, it appears to me 16 that we’re dealing with $30 million, we’d better make sure that 17 the Commission gets what it is supposed to get or in the 18 contract.

DELEGATE BYRON: I understand that, but we need 15 someone to look at this contract. I don’t understand why we 16 don’t have someone hired even temporarily sitting in the room 17 here addressing these questions that we’re not able to answer. 18

SENATOR RUFF: I think Jim Eck wanted to respond to 19 the last couple of comments.

MR. ECK: Thank you, Senator Ruff. I did want to 21 address some questions. There is a public record with the 22 Federal Regulatory Commission which basically demonstrated a 23 process they conducted in open session, and they represented, 24
Transco represented a rate going in of this capacity. In the
public record, they have indicated to build out expansion as a 1 proposed rate, so they say all along that they’re adding 2 compression and it’ll support that lower rate. I don’t know if 3 you’ve seen this diagram, and you may have seen it in the past, 4 all that is a matter of public record, which I think answers the 5 question, will there be gas at a materially lower rate or is this 6 just a non-commitment? They made that representation to 7 FERC.

MR. ECK: The question was asked with FERC. In the 17 last two weeks, I can see the map, this is the lateral, and it 18 includes what I’ll call the A-line, and in over 93 percent of this 19 new proposed pipe line will be on the existing right-of-way, is 20 what they told FERC. The property rights will be obtained and is 21 relatively, a small portion of the work effort because they’re 22 losing an existing right-of-way, and there’s an existing Transco 23 pipe already in that right-of-way, the available capacity, it’s 24 maxed out. They believe that they, they’re working on that end
of the process to obtain all remaining property rights with the 1 different localities. There’s been public meetings, as well as and 2 talking to landowners as we speak, and they’re targeting the 3 proper certificates and applications. And I think this should take 4 until about next July with few disruptions. 5

MS. CARTER: I don’t know if I understood this 6 correctly, but you say you’ve put in the application with FERC 7 Pipe Line, correct? 8

MR. ECK: Yes, the application with FERC.

MR. ECK: What they’re building right now is what 12 you’ll see, they’re putting in new compression, 165 will support 13 the line and the gas will flow all the way down to where you see 14 167, and that’s on the way to the Brunswick County facility. 15 They’re adding compression, and then they have the ability to 16 add additional compression along this route to boost the capacity 17 on the route. They won’t put the compression or the additional 18 compression in until somebody asks for it. It’s very economical 19 for them to have the compression. They can’t put in extra 20 compressors now. 21

DELEGATE KILGORE: And a lot of these places, the 22 right-of-way thing, if none of that goes forward, this won’t go 23 forward anyway. If something

DELEGATE MARSHALL: Time frame, is the full Board, 4 at its meeting, going to adopt this next week? 5

MR. NOYES: We’ll be looking for a motion from the 6 Executive Committee to add $10 million to the budget to draw 7 from the account and the TROF panel will execute the 8 transaction. 9

DELEGATE KILGORE: The only issue before the full 10 Committee will be to authorize $10 million in the first phase. 11

MR. NOYES: That’s correct.

DELEGATE WRIGHT: Mr. Chairman, I wish you’d 13 expand on Don’s question about how industry or customers are 14 going to tap into the pipe line. I understand Dominion is going to 15 lease the pipe line and then these industries would have to deal 16 with the pipe line company and Dominion and both would have to 17 sign off on what’s done. Since you have the lease, would it be 18 just you?

MR. ECK: We’re not going to lease the entire pipe 20 line. We’re leasing space or capacity to push gas through the 21 pipe line. The actual pipe line is still owned and operated by 22 Transco. So when an entity is interested in paying or picking up 23 4,000 decatherms and Transco has a tariff rate for basically the 24 ability to push gas through to the location.

DELEGATE WRIGHT: Wouldn’t it be to Transco’s 1 benefit to have as many people along that pipe line as possible? 2

MR. ECK: Absolutely, capacity. Also, Transco is in our 3 benefit, as well. As more people use the pipe line and they put 4 more capacity through, may contemplate to lower the rates for 5 all of the entities. So the more capacity you get through there, 6 that’s better for everyone. 7

DELEGATE WRIGHT: What then appears to be the 8 problem with getting Transco to be more definitive if Transco and 9 Dominion, why can’t they be more forthcoming?

DELEGATE WRIGHT: Ned, you mentioned several 8 times that you didn’t want us to get two or three years down the 9 road and then you don’t get what we wanted or what we were 10 supposed to get. In your opinion, how do we get to the comfort 11 level now so we won’t be worried two or three years down the 12 road? I know you’ve negotiated this and worked hard on it, but 13 how do we get there?

this Commission to engage a private consultant to give you 1 whatever insurances you need from the gas engineering 2 viewpoint as to what you can and cannot get out of the pipe that 3 the contractor built under the contract. And that can burn a lot 4 of time. I’m not prepared to say to you today it’s okay, go 5 ahead. I don’t know and neither does our attorney.

SENATOR RUFF: I believe that would be an 20 engineering issue. It depends on if it’s 10 miles from Chatham, 21 it’s more pressure and there is, if it’s five miles west of South 22 Hill, unless you change the dynamics. I think part of the reason 23 Transco did not want to put it in writing exactly what it is, is 24 because you’ve got a 91-mile pipe line and there’s going to be

variables when it goes into the ground. It can vary every mile of 1 that way. 2

So I think we’re really running around in circles here. 3 Transco is in the business of selling gas. If they don’t sell gas, 4 they don’t make money. Dominion needs that gas, and that’s 5 why they want to build it. I don’t see why we’re treading on like 6 this. 7

DELEGATE KILGORE: Let’s move on with your 8 presentation, and if we need to come back, we can.

DELEGATE MERRICKS: It’s usually on construction 5 loans you pay out after a certain percentage of the work is 6 completed, and that’s why I asked the question. 7

DELEGATE KILGORE: Ned, what action do we have to 8 take today? 9

MR. STEPHENSON: Mr. Chairman, for clarity of the 10 process, I believe that it would be fitting for this Committee if it 11 chooses, to make a recommendation to the full Commission, one, 12 that $10 million be transferred from the other line item to the 13 TROF account; number two, that the Dominion contract as 14 presented today be approved and executed with the caveat that 15 there are remaining a very few nonmaterial issues from the 16
contract that are to be resolved by conference call this afternoon
So if it please the Committee, that’s a two-part motion 19 that would be in order.

DELEGATE WRIGHT: Mr. Chairman, I’m in favor of 15 this project and I’ve backed it all along, but I think in the future 16 something of this nature and being this important, we need to be 17 sure that we have a legal counsel who can answer direct 18 questions that we have. I think Ned has proposed and rightly so 19 things that we should be aware of before we vote. I don’t 20 consider when we’re talking about $10 million to start with, I 21 think we ought to be able to ask questions and find out what’s 22 happening. I frankly would be more comfortable if we had a 23 lawyer here to answer the specific questions that we’ve raised 24 even more thoroughly.

Having said that, I still support the project. 1
SENATOR RUFF: Mr. Chairman, I think it’s important 2 we’re able to ask questions, but at a certain point to make an 3 informed decision. Currently, we have no access capacity along 4 this area. So we need this capacity for any heavy industry. If 5 we don’t have it, we’ll never make the list. 6

DELEGATE KILGORE: Motion and a second that we 7 suggest that we go to the full Commission and with that caveat 8 that there may be some changes this afternoon. All those in 9 favor, say aye. (Ayes). Opposed? (No response).

Tobacco commission grant above recommended amount ...

The Washington Post
Nov 30, 2014 - When energy giant Dominion Resources Inc. wanted $30 million in ... power plant, the Virginia tobacco commission was happy to oblige. ... helping a dietary supplement maker in exchange for receiving more than $165,000 in gifts and loans. ... Transco in order to lower construction cost of a $300 million

Dominion's Strange Tobacco Money | Bacon's Rebellion

Dec 1, 2014 - The tobacco commission was created to use money from a massive 1996 ... which has received $7 million in tobacco money to expand broadband access. ... a major interstate pipeline operated by Transco and runs from the Gulf State gas ... Turns out the taxpayers ALSO spent 30 million on the Brunswick
[PDF]C-3 - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Nov 21, 2013 - Transco states that on January 10, 2012, the Virginia Tobacco ... $30 million (pre-tax) over a three-year budget timeframe to benefit shippers .... result in Virginia Power receiving a different quality of service than other shippers.
by TOFR MOUNT - ‎2013 - ‎Cited by 1
- ‎Related articles
Jun 4, 2013 - June 30, 2018: This plan is a document to forecast significant expenditures ...... $1.5 million from the Virginia Tobacco Commission to develop
Order of Notice and Hearing - Dominion
Dominion Resources
Dec 12, 2012 - that its firrn transportation arrangements with Transco will allow the ... 8 Id. The Project, and the Company's customers, also will benefit from a total of $30 million from the Virginia. Tobacco Indemnification and Community Revitalization .... Commission to receive and to consider reports on the proposed
Tobacco Commission Grant Above Recommended Amount Read the original story w/Photo. Sunday Nov 30 | Manufacturing.net ... approved the first $10 million grant aimed at inducing Dominion to build a natural gas-fired ... (The new line runs parallel to a Williams Transco line that was laid in the 1960s.)