Professional Documents
Culture Documents
February
16,
2010:
President
Obama
announces
that
the
Department
of
Energy
(DOE)
has
offered
conditional
commitments
for
loan
guarantees
totaling
$8.33
billion
for
the
Plant
Vogtle
project.
March
25,
2010:
Southern
Alliance
for
Clean
Energy
(SACE)
submits
a
Freedom
of
Information
Act
(FOIA)
request
to
DOE
for
records
pertaining
to
the
loan
guarantees.
April
2,
2010:
DOE
acknowledges
receipt
of
the
FOIA
request
and
states
that
the
request
has
been
sent
to
the
Office
of
the
Loan
Programs
Office
and
the
Office
of
the
General
Counsel
to
conduct
a
search
of
their
files
for
responsive
records.
April
22,
2010:
DOE
sends
an
email
again
acknowledging
receipt
of
the
FOIA
request.
April
26,
2010:
DOE
confirms,
by
phone,
that
it
does
not
yet
have
a
response
to
the
FOIA
request.
May
27,
2010:
SACE
sends
a
letter
to
DOEs
Office
of
Hearings
and
Appeals,
requesting
a
response
to
the
FOIA
request.
June
1,
2010:
Via
letter,
DOEs
Office
of
Hearings
and
Appeals
denies
that
it
has
any
responsibility
to
respond
to
SACEs
demand
for
a
response
to
its
FOIA
request.
June
8,
2010:
DOE
again
confirms,
by
phone,
that
it
does
not
have
a
response
to
the
FOIA
request.
June
22,
2010:
DOE
again
confirms,
by
phone,
that
it
does
not
have
a
response
to
the
FOIA
request.
July
6,
2010:
DOE
sends
to
SACE
a
partial
response
to
the
FOIA
request
consisting
of
three
heavily
redacted
loan
guarantee
term
sheets
purported
to
be
responsive
to
6
of
the
FOIA
request.
July
8,
2010:
DOE
sends
to
SACE
another
partial
response
to
the
FOIA
request
consisting
of
two
redacted
documents
purported
to
be
responsive
in
part
to
3
of
the
FOIA
request
regarding
the
environmental
critique
of
the
loan
guarantee
applications.
July
16,
2010:
SACE
files
an
administrative
appeal
concerning
the
inadequacy
of
the
July
6
partial
response.
The
administrative
appeal
challenges
DOEs
application
of
FOIA
Exemption
4
to
the
term
sheets,
and
seeks
their
release
in
unredacted
form.
Information
related
to
each
request
is
color
coded
as
follows:
March
25,
2010
request
to
DOE;
July
19,
2010
request
to
DOE;
November
10,
2010
request
to
DOE;
February
9,
2011
request
to
OMB;
March
3,
2011
request
to
Department
of
Treasury;
April
27,
2012
request
to
DOE;
May
31,
2012
request
to
OMB;
September
27,
2013
request
to
DOE;
September
27,
2013
request
to
OMB;
February
19,
2014.
July
19,
2010:
SACE
submits
a
FOIA
request
to
DOE
for
the
executed
term
sheets
and
definitive
agreements,
as
well
as
any
other
documents
pertaining
to
the
loan
guarantees
not
covered
in
the
March
25,
2010
FOIA
request.
July
20,
2010:
DOE
sends
an
interim
response
acknowledging
receipt
of
the
FOIA
request.
August
9,
2010:
SACE
files
a
complaint
against
DOE
in
the
U.S.
District
Court
for
the
District
of
Columbia,
seeking
to
compel
DOE
to
release
the
requested
documents.
August
11,
2010:
DOEs
Office
of
Hearings
and
Appeals
(OHA)
issues
a
Decision
and
Order
granting
SACEs
July
16,
2010
administrative
appeal
regarding
the
term
sheets.
According
to
the
OHA
Decision,
the
appeal,
if
granted
would
require
[the
DOE
Loan
Guarantee
Program
Office]
to
release
the
withheld
information
to
SACE.
Notwithstanding
this
statement,
the
OHA
does
not
order
release
of
the
withheld
information,
but
rather
remands
the
matter
to
DOEs
Loan
Guarantee
Program
Office
for
further
explanation
on
why
the
information
was
withheld.
August
18,
2010:
DOE
sends
a
partial
response
to
the
FOIA
request,
but
releases
no
documents.
In
this
response,
DOE
states
that
the
executed
term
sheets
were
already
released
pursuant
to
the
March
25,
2010
FOIA
request.
The
executed
term
sheets,
however,
had
not
been
released.
September
1,
2010:
DOE
sends
a
letter
to
SACE
purporting
to
withdraw
the
July
6,
2010
determination
letter
regarding
the
term
sheets.
September
2,
2010:
DOE
issues
a
revised
determination
letter
that
is
substantially
similar
to
the
July
6
initial
determination.
No
responsive
documents,
redacted
or
otherwise,
are
released
with
this
revised
determination
letter.
September
10,
2010:
SACE
files
an
administrative
appeal
with
DOEs
Office
of
Hearings
and
Appeals
concerning
DOEs
failure
to
(1)
release
the
executed
term
sheets,
and
(2)
respond
timely
to
part
3
of
the
FOIA
request,
which
requested
release
of
loan
guarantee
records
not
otherwise
covered
in
the
March
25,
2010
FOIA
request.
September
16,
2010:
The
Office
of
Hearings
and
Appeals
dismisses
the
appeal
because
(1)
the
Loan
Guarantee
Program
Office
acknowledged
that
it
failed
to
produce
the
executed
term
sheets,
and
(2)
the
OHA
claimed
not
to
have
authority
to
address
DOEs
failure
to
respond
to
a
FOIA
request.
September
22,
2010:
DOE
sends
another
partial
response,
purporting
to
respond
to
5
of
the
FOIA
request
regarding
the
use
of
union
labor.
DOE
claims
it
did
not
locate
any
responsive
records.
September
24,
2010:
DOE
sends
another
partial
response,
purporting
to
respond
to
1
of
the
FOIA
request
regarding
the
loan
guarantee
applications
(releasing
heavily
redacted
versions
of
the
Georgia
Power
Company,
Municipal
Electric
Authority
of
Georgia,
and
Oglethorpe
Power
Corporation
applications),
part
of
2
of
the
FOIA
request
regarding
correspondence
(releasing
heavily
redacted
emails
regarding
the
Georgia
Power
loan
guarantee),
part
of
3
of
the
FOIA
request
regarding
the
environmental
critique
of
the
loan
guarantee
applications
(releasing
no
documents),
4
of
the
FOIA
request
regarding
the
Credit
Review
Board
(releasing
no
documents),
and
part
of
7
of
the
FOIA
request
regarding
DOEs
review
of
the
loan
guarantee
applications
(releasing
no
documents).
DOE
also
sends
a
final
response
to
the
July
19,
2010
FOIA
request,
releasing
heavily
redacted
versions
of
the
executed
term
sheets.
October
25,
2010:
SACE
files
an
administrative
appeal
to
DOEs
Office
of
Hearings
and
Appeals
concerning
the
correspondence
records
released
in
the
September
24,
2010
partial
response.
SACE
also
files
an
administrative
appeal
concerning
the
redacted
term
sheets
released
pursuant
to
the
July
19,
2010
FOIA
request.
November
10,
2010:
The
Office
of
Hearings
and
Appeals
dismisses
the
appeal
as
premature,
claiming
that
the
Loan
Program
Office
has
not
completed
its
search
of
correspondence
records.
SACE
also
sends
a
third
FOIA
request
to
DOE
requesting
documents
related
to
the
credit
subsidy
fee.
November
19,
2010:
DOE
sends
a
letter
informing
SACE
that
it
is
continuing
to
search
for
Georgia
Power
correspondence
documents
responsive
to
2
of
the
FOIA
request.
November
29,
2010:
DOE
sends
an
initial
response
to
the
November
10,
2010
FOIA
request
stating
that
the
request
has
been
sent
to
the
Loan
Program
Office
and
that
a
final
response
will
be
forthcoming.
December
3,
2010:
DOE
releases
new
versions
of
the
term
sheets
with
fewer
redactions;
however,
DOE
continues
to
withhold
substantial
portions
of
the
term
sheets
from
release.
DOE
does
not
provide
any
explanation
or
justification
for
the
redactions
beyond
its
September
2,
2010
revised
determination
letter.
On
the
same
day,
the
U.S.
District
Court
for
D.C.
issues
a
scheduling
order
instructing
DOE
to
make
rolling
productions
of
documents
on
the
10th
day
of
each
month.
December
10,
2010:
DOE
sends
an
interim
response
to
the
November
10
request,
promising
that
the
request
will
be
processed
in
as
timely
a
manner
as
possible.
January
10,
2011:
DOE
produces
heavily
redacted
Credit
Review
Board
documents.
January
14,
2011:
SACE
files
an
amended
complaint
in
the
D.C.
District
Court,
adding
a
claim
regarding
DOEs
unlawful
withholding
of
portions
of
the
term
sheets.
January
21,
2011:
DOEs
Office
of
Hearings
and
Appeals
denies
SACEs
administrative
appeal,
finding
that
the
information
within
the
term
sheets
was
properly
withheld.
The
efficacy
of
these
redactions
is
wrapped
into
the
litigation
in
the
D.C.
District
Court,
and
thus
no
further
action
is
required
for
this
FOIA
request.
February
1,
2011:
SACE
files
a
Motion
for
Partial
Summary
Judgment
in
the
D.C.
District
Court,
asserting
that
the
term
sheets
should
be
released
in
their
entirety.
SACE
claims
that
(1)
DOE
failed
to
meet
the
governments
heavy
burden
of
proving
that
the
information
in
the
term
sheets
falls
under
a
FOIA
exemption,
and
(2)
even
if
DOE
had
provided
the
necessary
support
for
claiming
an
exemption,
the
requested
information
does
not
qualify
for
protection
under
FOIA
Exemption
4
because
the
information
was
not
obtained
from
a
person
and
release
of
the
information
would
not
result
in
competitive
harm
to
Georgia
Power,
MEAG,
or
Oglethorpe.
February
9,
2011:
SACE
submits
a
FOIA
request
to
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(OMB)
for
records
related
to
the
credit
subsidy
calculator
used
by
DOE
to
determine
the
credit
subsidy
fees
to
be
paid
by
Georgia
Power,
MEAG,
and
Oglethorpe.
February
10,
2011:
DOE
produces
heavily
redacted
Credit
Review
Board
documents.
February
15,
2011:
SACE
submits
a
FOIA
request
to
the
Department
of
the
Treasury
for
records
related
to
implementation
of
DOEs
Loan
Guarantee
Program,
including
records
related
to
the
credit
subsidy
calculator.
February
17,
2011:
Department
of
Treasury
sends
a
letter
to
SACE,
requesting
a
better
description
of
the
desired
documents.
February
25,
2011:
OMB
sends
an
initial
response
to
SACE
acknowledging
receipt
of
the
FOIA
request.
March
1,
2011:
DOE
files
a
Cross-Motion
and
Opposition
to
SACEs
Motion
for
Partial
Summary
Judgment
in
the
D.C.
District
Court,
asserting
that
information
in
the
term
sheets
was
properly
withheld
because
(1)
the
terms
and
conditions
of
DOEs
loan
guarantee
offers
were
obtained
from
the
applicants
themselves,
and
(2)
these
terms
and
conditions
constitute
confidential
commercial
information,
the
release
of
which
would
cause
the
applicants
competitive
harm.
DOE
also
produces
a
new
version
of
the
MEAG
term
sheet,
which
remains
heavily
redacted.
March
3,
2011:
SACE
sends
a
revised
FOIA
request
to
the
Treasury,
requesting
all
records
of
correspondence
between
the
Treasury,
OMB,
and
DOE
regarding
the
loan
guarantees
or
credit
subsidy
fees.
March
10,
2011:
DOE
produces
Credit
Review
Board
documents.
March
21,
2011:
The
Treasury
sends
a
response
acknowledging
receipt
of
the
FOIA
request
and
requesting
an
additional
10
days
for
processing.
March
22,
2011:
SACE
files
a
Response
to
DOEs
Cross-Motion
for
Partial
Summary
Judgment
and
Reply
in
support
of
SACEs
Motion
for
Partial
Summary
Judgment
in
the
D.C.
District
Court.
April
8,
2011:
DOE
produces
heavily
redacted
Georgia
Power
correspondence
documents.
April
21,
2011:
DOE
produces
Office
of
General
Counsel
correspondence
documents.
April
26,
2011:
DOE
files
a
Reply
in
Support
of
its
Cross-Motion
for
Partial
Summary
Judgment
in
the
D.C.
District
Court.
May
10,
2011:
DOE
produces
heavily
redacted
Georgia
Power
correspondence
documents.
OMB
sends
a
status
update
to
SACE,
promising
a
response
to
the
FOIA
request
by
May
27,
2011.
May
31,
2011:
SACE
sends
a
letter
to
the
Treasury,
again
requesting
a
response
to
the
March
3,
2011
FOIA
request.
June
3,
2011:
DOE
sends
SACE
an
index
of
documents
produced
to
date.
OMB
sends
another
status
update
to
SACE,
promising
a
response
by
June
30,
2011.
Treasury
sends
a
letter
to
SACE
acknowledging
receipt
of
the
request
for
document
production
and
stating
that
the
Programs
Office
will
contact
SACE
directly
with
a
response.
Treasury
does
not
contact
SACE
until
December.
June
9,
2011:
This
day
is
DOEs
court
imposed
deadline
for
producing
all
documents
responsive
to
the
FOIA
request.
Because
it
has
not
completed
its
search,
DOE
requests
a
one
month
extension.
SACE
consents,
and
the
D.C.
District
Court
grants
the
extension.
Also
on
this
day,
DOE
produces
heavily
redacted
Georgia
Power
correspondence
documents.
July
11,
2011:
This
day
is
DOEs
extended
deadline
for
producing
all
documents
responsive
to
the
FOIA
request.
Because
it
still
has
not
completed
its
search,
DOE
requests
another
two
month
extension.
SACE
consents,
and
the
D.C.
District
Court
grants
the
extension.
Also
on
this
day,
DOE
produces
heavily
redacted
Georgia
Power
correspondence
documents.
July
12,
2011:
SACE
sends
a
letter
to
OMB,
again
requesting
a
response
to
the
February
9,
2011
FOIA
request.
July
15,
2011:
General
Counsel
for
OMB
contacts
SACE
regarding
the
FOIA
request,
and
assures
SACE
that
documents
will
be
produced
soon.
SACE
agrees
to
narrow
the
FOIA
request
to
assist
in
document
production.
August
10,
2011:
DOE
produces
heavily
redacted
Georgia
Power
correspondence
documents.
August
22,
2011:
SACE
contacts
OMB
via
phone
and
again
requests
production
of
the
documents.
OMB
assures
SACE
that
the
documents
will
be
produced
soon.
In
an
effort
to
avoid
additional
litigation,
SACE
provides
DOE
with
examples
of
recently
produced
Georgia
Power
correspondence
documents
with
information
wrongfully
withheld
under
FOIA
Exemption
5
(the
interagency
deliberation
exemption).
DOE
agrees
to
review
these
redactions.
September
9,
2011:
DOE
informs
SACE
that
it
will
have
an
assessment
of
SACEs
November
10,
2010
FOIA
request
by
September
20.
September
12,
2011:
This
day
is
DOEs
extended
deadline
for
producing
all
documents
responsive
to
the
FOIA
request.
Because
of
a
technical
glitch
with
the
document
production,
DOE
requests
a
two
day
extension.
SACE
consents.
September
14,
2011:
DOE
makes
its
final
production
of
heavily
redacted
Georgia
Power
correspondence
documents.
Some
documents
have
not
been
produced
because
their
contents
are
still
being
reviewed
by
other
agencies.
Other
documents
have
not
been
produced
in
legible
formats.
September
20,
2011:
SACE
contacts
OMB
via
phone
and
again
requests
production
of
the
documents.
OMB
assures
SACE
that
the
documents
are
being
mailed
to
SACE
today.
DOE
informs
SACE
that
it
is
still
reviewing
the
Exemption
5
issues
brought
to
its
attention
by
SACE
on
August
22.
It
is
also
still
working
to
produce
a
few
remaining
documents.
In
an
effort
to
avoid
additional
litigation,
SACE
provides
DOE
with
examples
of
correspondence
documents
with
the
credit
subsidy
fee
redacted
under
Exemption
4
(confidential
business
information
exemption),
and
asks
DOE
to
confirm
that
it
stands
behind
the
redactions.
DOE
agrees
to
review
the
redactions.
DOE
informs
SACE
that
it
is
still
processing
the
November
10,
2010
FOIA
request,
but
new
requests
from
Capitol
Hill
and
other
parties
(presumably
about
Solyndra)
have
taken
precedence.
DOE
assures
SACE
that
it
will
have
a
production
schedule
by
September
26.
September
28,
2011:
SACE
contacts
OMB
via
phone
and
again
requests
production
of
the
documents.
OMB
assures
SACE
that
the
documents
are
being
mailed
to
SACE
by
the
end
of
the
week.
September
30,
2011:
OMB
sends
SACE
a
final
determination
letter,
withholding
all
documents
requested.
October
3,
2011:
DOE
and
SACE
provide
the
D.C.
District
Court
with
a
status
report
and
briefing
schedule
regarding
three
remaining
issues:
(1)
the
withholding
of
the
information
regarding
the
credit
subsidy
fee
under
the
confidential
business
information
exemption;
(2)
the
withholding
of
other
loan
terms
under
the
confidential
business
information
exemption;
and
(3)
the
withholding
of
records
of
correspondence
with
the
power
companies
under
the
intra-agency
deliberation
exemption.
October
4,
2011:
D.C.
District
Court
issues
a
scheduling
order,
adopting
the
parties
briefing
schedule.
The
issues
will
be
briefed
in
a
series
of
filings
from
October
31,
2011
March
2,
2012.
October
17,
2011:
SACE
sends
a
letter
to
DOE,
again
requesting
a
response
to
the
November
10,
2010
FOIA
request.
October
28,
2011:
SACE
files
an
administrative
appeal
with
OMB,
challenging
OMBs
decision
to
withhold
all
requested
documents
without
adequate
justification.
That
same
day,
OMB
acknowledges
receipt
of
the
appeal.
October
31,
2011:
DOE
and
SACE
agree
on
the
withheld
records
for
which
DOE
will
provide
justifications
in
its
briefing.
November
29,
2011:
DOE
re-releases
several
correspondence
and
application
documents,
removing
certain
redactions.
The
documents,
however,
remain
heavily
redacted.
December
8,
2011:
DOE
releases
correspondence
documents
with
OMB,
mostly
concerning
loan
guarantee
terms
and
the
credit
subsidy
fee.
The
documents
are
heavily
redacted.
DOE
releases
several
documents,
in
partial
response
to
the
FOIA
request.
Notably,
DOE
claims
that
it
had
previously
released
the
credit
subsidy
fee
model
and
DOEs
credit
policy
manual.
These
documents,
however,
have
not
been
released.
December
12,
2011:
SACE
contacts
DOE,
explains
that
the
credit
subsidy
fee
model
and
DOEs
credit
policy
manual
have
not
been
released,
and
again
asks
for
the
documents.
December
13,
2011:
DOE
acknowledges
that
its
claims
in
the
December
8
partial
response
were
incorrect;
it
has
not
released
the
credit
subsidy
fee
model
or
DOEs
credit
policy
manual.
DOE
commits
to
continue
searching
for
responsive
documents.
December
14,
2011:
Treasury
provides
SACE
with
an
update
of
the
FOIA
request,
explaining
that
it
is
continuing
to
search
for
responsive
records,
but
releasing
nothing.
Treasury
notes
that
it
has
located
certain
responsive
documents
that
originated
with
DOE
those
records
were
referred
to
DOE
for
processing
and
direct
response
to
SACE.
December
16,
2011:
DOE
files
a
Motion
for
Summary
Judgment,
claiming
that
all
documents
have
been
released
and
asserting
that
all
redacted
information
was
withheld
pursuant
to
FOIA.
January
19,
2012:
DOE
releases
several
documents
regarding
the
ranking
of
loan
guarantee
applicants,
in
partial
response
to
the
FOIA
request.
Most
of
these
documents
are
heavily
redacted.
January
20,
2012:
Treasury
provides
SACE
with
an
interim
response,
once
again
explaining
that
responsive
records
have
been
referred
to
DOE.
January
27,
2012:
SACE
files
a
Cross-Motion
for
Summary
Judgment,
claiming
that
DOE
has
failed
to
meet
its
burden
in
justifying
the
withholding
of
loan
guarantee
terms
and
credit
subsidy
fee
estimates
in
133
documents
and
asserting
that
the
withheld
information
must
be
released.
February
8,
2012:
DOE
calls
SACE
to
discuss
the
documents
referred
by
Treasury.
DOE
claims
the
documents
are
all
drafts
of
term
sheets
and
credit
review
board
documents
previously
released.
SACE
explains
it
is
interested
in
the
drafts
to
determine
whether
the
utility
companies
drove
the
negotiation
process
regarding
the
loan
guarantee
terms.
In
an
effort
to
assist
DOE
in
its
review,
SACE
nevertheless
agrees
to
narrow
the
scope
of
its
request
to
just
the
first
draft
of
the
documents.
DOE
promises
to
consider
the
request
and
contact
SACE
on
February
13.
February
13,
2012:
DOE
requests
a
two-day
extension
to
file
its
Response
and
Reply
to
SACEs
Cross-
Motion
for
Summary
Judgment.
SACE
consents.
February
15,
2012:
DOE
and
SACE
discuss
the
documents
referred
by
Treasury.
In
an
effort
to
assist
DOE,
SACE
agrees
to
narrow
the
scope
of
the
request
to
include
(i)
only
the
first
draft
of
the
term
sheets,
(ii)
no
draft
Credit
Review
Board
documents,
and
(iii)
no
duplicates.
In
an
effort
to
further
assist
DOE
in
its
processing
of
the
request,
SACE
offers
to
prioritize
the
documents
requested.
Specifically,
SACE
asks
if
the
three
(3)
draft
term
sheets
could
be
produced
first.
DOE
states
that
prioritization
would
further
complicate
the
review
process,
and
thus
DOE
will
continue
processing
the
request
without
prioritizing
documents.
DOE
also
concedes
that
it
has
not
yet
provided
an
estimated
date
on
which
it
will
complete
action
on
the
FOIA
request,
as
required
by
law.
Because
time
is
of
the
essence
with
regard
to
this
request,
DOE
promises
to
provide
an
estimated
decision
date
promptly.
February
17,
2012:
DOE
files
its
Response
and
Reply
to
SACEs
Cross-Motion
for
Summary
Judgment.
March
6,
2012:
SACE
files
its
Reply.
March
28,
2012:
The
DC
Circuit
District
Court
finds
in
favor
of
SACE
and
orders
the
immediate
release
of
the
credit
subsidy
fee
estimates.
While
the
Court
also
finds
that
DOE
failed
to
adequately
justify
the
withholding
of
the
other
loan
guarantee
terms,
it
does
not
order
their
immediate
release.
Instead
the
Court
gives
DOE
a
second
chance
to
justify
the
redactions.
DOE
must
provide
this
justification
in
sixty
(60)
days.
SACE
will
then
have
(30)
days
to
respond.
April
3,
2012:
DOE
and
SACE
discuss
production
of
documents
containing
the
credit
subsidy
fee
estimates.
DOE
claims
it
has
an
extensive
internal
process
it
must
complete
before
it
can
release
the
information.
SACE
explains
that
the
information
is
high
valuable
now;
it
may
not
be
as
valuable
when
the
loan
guarantees
are
finalized
which
could
occur
any
day.
April
27,
2012:
SACE
sends
a
FOIA
request
to
DOE
for
records
related
to
any
new
loan
guarantee
terms
and
conditions
imposed
by
DOE
since
issuance
of
the
loan
guarantee
term
sheets
on
February
13,
2010,
including
any
increase
in
the
credit
subsidy
fee.
May
4,
2012:
Because
time
is
of
the
essence
with
regard
to
this
request,
SACE
agrees
to
narrow
the
scope
to
offers
made
by
DOE
regarding
new
loan
terms
and
conditions,
including
the
credit
subsidy
fee.
SACE
also
requests
pursuant
to
FOIA
an
estimated
date
on
which
the
documents
will
be
produced.
May
7,
2012:
DOE
releases
correspondence
documents
related
to
the
credit
subsidy
fee.
Some
of
these
documents
are
heavily
redacted.
May
11,
2012:
OMB
and
SACE
discuss
the
status
of
SACEs
administrative
appeal,
and
OMB
agrees
to
once
again
review
the
documents
requested.
May
14,
2012:
DOE
and
SACE
enter
into
a
settlement
agreement.
DOE
agrees
to
release
the
initial
credit
subsidy
fee
estimates,
certain
correspondence
regarding
the
credit
subsidy
fee,
and
the
loan
guarantee
term
sheets.
Attorney
fees
will
be
negotiated
in
a
separate
agreement.
May
15,
2012:
DOE
releases
the
documents,
which
reveal
a
credit
subsidy
fee
for
Georgia
Power
which
significantly
underestimates
the
risk
of
default.
May
22,
2012:
DOE
states
that,
because
of
the
number
of
other
FOIA
requests
it
has
to
process,
it
will
not
be
able
to
respond
to
SACEs
FOIA
request
for
120
days.
DOE
refuses
to
work
with
SACE
towards
a
more
timely
response.
May
30,
2012:
In
light
of
DOEs
release
of
the
credit
subsidy
fee
estimates,
SACE
agrees
to
drop
its
administrative
appeal
with
OMB.
May
31,
2012:
SACE
sends
a
FOIA
request
to
OMB
for
records
related
to
any
increase
in
the
credit
subsidy
fee
estimates
since
those
estimates
were
initially
approved
in
January
of
2010.
June
1,
2012:
OMB
confirms
receipt
of
the
FOIA
request.
June
27,
2012:
OMB
requests
a
10
day
extension
to
process
the
FOIA
request,
due
to
unusual
circumstances.
July
26,
2012:
DOE
agrees
to
pay
SACE
$44,000.00
in
attorney
fees,
thus
concluding
the
DC
District
Court
litigation.
August
13,
2012:
DOE
and
SACE
discuss
ways
to
narrow
the
scope
of
the
FOIA
request
to
assist
DOE
in
meeting
its
120
day
deadline.
SACE
explains
that
it
is
interested
in
the
changes
to
the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
loan
guarantee
agreements
repeatedly
referenced
by
Georgia
Power
to
the
press.
August
30,
2012:
DOE
releases
correspondence
documents
related
to
the
credit
subsidy
fee.
Some
of
these
documents
are
heavily
redacted.
September
18,
2012:
DOE
issues
a
partial
response
to
the
FOIA
request,
releasing
three
letters
extending
the
termination
date
of
the
conditional
commitments
until
December
31,
2012.
September
21,
2012:
After
the
expiration
of
DOEs
self-imposed
120
day
deadline,
and
in
an
effort
to
avoid
litigation,
SACE
files
an
administrative
appeal
and
email
demanding
a
complete
response
to
SACEs
FOIA
request
within
20
working
days.
September
25,
2012:
OMB
dismisses
SACEs
FOIA
request,
wrongfully
assuming
that
the
request
covered
the
exact
same
information
released
by
DOE
in
response
to
SACEs
March
25,
2010
FOIA
request.
September
26,
2012:
DOE
dismisses
SACEs
administrative
appeal
as
premature,
stating
that
it
has
not
yet
completed
its
search
for
responsive
documents.
October
10,
2012:
SACE
sends
an
email
to
OMB
explaining
that
the
dismissal
was
based
on
incorrect
assumptions,
and
asking
OMB
to
reconsider.
OMB
does
not
respond.
October
24,
2012:
DOE
issues
its
final
response
to
the
FOIA
request,
releasing
a
draft
loan
guarantee
agreement
between
DOE
and
Georgia
Power,
and
a
heavily
redacted
chart
that
lists
outstanding
issues
between
DOE
and
Georgia
Power.
No
documents
related
to
Oglethorpe
or
MEAG
are
released.
Moreover,
DOE
claims
it
could
not
locate
any
documents
related
to
revised
credit
subsidy
fees.
SACE
also
submits
an
appeal
to
OMB,
challenging
the
adequacy
of
its
search
for
responsive
documents.
November
15,
2012:
SACE
files
an
administrative
appeal,
challenging
the
adequacy
of
DOEs
document
search
and
the
efficacy
of
its
heavy
redactions.
November
27,
2012:
SACE
sends
an
email
to
OMB
reminding
the
agency
that
its
response
is
past
due,
asking
for
an
estimated
response
date,
and
reiterating
that
time
is
of
the
essence
with
regard
to
the
request.
December
14,
2012:
DOE
issues
a
final
decision
and
order,
granting
in
part
SACEs
administrative
appeal.
Although
the
agency
found
that
(1)
numerous
redactions
were
unfounded,
and
(2)
the
search
was
inadequate,
the
agency
did
not
order
release
of
the
information.
Instead,
DOE
remanded
the
matter
back
to
the
Loan
Guarantee
Program
Office,
asking
the
office
to
further
justify
its
redactions
and
to
conduct
an
additional
search
of
responsive
documents.
January
9,
2013:
DOE,
on
behalf
of
the
Department
of
Treasury,
issues
its
final
FOIA
response,
releasing
503
pages
of
substantially
redacted
correspondence
documents
between
the
Department
of
Treasury
and
DOE.
OMB
also
issues
a
final
response
to
the
FOIA
Request,
stating
that
no
revised
credit
subsidy
estimates
were
provided
to
the
Plant
Vogtle
Project
after
DOE
offered
the
conditional
commitment.
In
light
of
this
response,
the
FOIA
request
is
closed.
January
18,
2013:
DOE
releases
correspondence
documents
related
to
the
credit
subsidy
fee.
Some
of
these
documents
are
heavily
redacted.
February
7,
2013:
SACE
files
a
complaint
in
the
U.S.
District
Court
for
the
District
of
Columbia,
seeking
to
compel
DOE
to
release
the
requested
documents.
April
15,
2013:
In
a
letter
to
SACE,
DOEs
counsel
promises
to
release
to
SACE
the
latest
drafts
of
the
Loan
Guarantee
Agreements
and
[Open]
Issues
Lists
within
the
next
few
days.
April
18,
2013:
DOE
releases
Loan
Guarantee
Agreements
for
Georgia
Power,
MEAG,
and
Oglethorpe
with
limited
redactions.
DOE
also
releases
heavily
redacted
open
issues
lists
for
Georgia
Power
and
Oglethorpe.
May
13,
2013:
Two
days
before
DOE
is
required
to
answer
the
complaint,
DOE
asks
for
a
30
day
extension.
DOE
needs
the
additional
time
to
get
the
last
documents
released
and
provide
an
explanation
for
the
redactions.
In
an
effort
to
resolve
the
litigation
without
unnecessarily
burdening
the
court,
SACE
consents.
The
Court
orders
an
extension.
May
21,
2013:
DOE
provides
SACE
with
an
explanation
of
redactions
in
the
Georgia
Power
Loan
Guarantee
Agreement
and
open
issues
list.
May
24,
2013:
DOE
provides
SACE
with
another
open
issues
list
for
Georgia
Power.
DOE
also
provides
SACE
with
an
explanation
of
redactions
in
the
MEAG
Loan
Guarantee
Agreement.
June
6,
2013:
DOE
provides
SACE
with
an
explanation
of
redactions
in
the
second
Georgia
Power
open
issues
list
and
the
Oglethorpe
Loan
Guarantee
Agreement.
June
12,
2013:
The
day
DOE
is
required
to
answer
the
complaint,
DOE
asks
for
a
14
day
extension.
DOE
needs
the
additional
time
to
resolve
the
few
outstanding
issues
regarding
redactions.
In
an
effort
to
resolve
the
litigation
without
unnecessarily
burdening
the
court,
SACE
consents.
The
Court
orders
an
extension.
June
28,
2013:
DOE
explains
the
remaining
redactions,
and
DOE
and
SACE
agree
to
voluntarily
dismiss
the
case.
In
a
letter
to
SACEs
counsel,
DOEs
counsel
states:
I
am
delighted
we
have
resolved
this
case.
As
I
told
you
over
the
phone,
I
have
constantly
informed
DOE
of
your
flexibility
and
reasonable
nature
throughout
these
proceedings;
your
spirit
of
cooperation
is
one
reason
why
we
have
been
able
to
get
the
information
you
requested
to
you
quickly
and
with
as
few
redactions
as
possible.
Additionally,
I
have
informed
my
client
that,
in
this
spirit
of
cooperation,
you
have
elected
not
to
seek
attorneys
fees
in
this
case
despite
your
likelihood
of
an
award.
This
decision
allows
both
SACE
and
DOE
to
avoid
protracted
litigation
and
conserve
precious
resources.
Finally,
I
have
advised
DOE
that
this
spirit
of
cooperation
and
flexibility
should
guide
their
decision-making
in
any
future
interactions
between
SACE
and
DOE.
September
27,
2013:
SACE
sends
a
FOIA
request
to
DOE
for
records
related
to
any
increase
in
the
credit
subsidy
fee
estimates
since
those
estimates
were
initially
approved
in
January
of
2010
(excluding
any
records
already
produced
pursuant
to
a
previous
FOIA
Request).
In
light
of
the
Solyndra
default,
the
Fukushima
Daiichi
accident,
the
decrease
in
credit
ratings
of
the
applicants,
the
construction
delays
at
Plant
Vogtle,
and
the
substantial
construction
cost
overruns
among
other
things
such
an
increase
is
expected.
The
same
day,
SACE
sends
a
similar
request
to
OMB,
asking
for
records
related
to
any
increase
in
the
credit
subsidy
fee
estimates
since
May
31,
2012.
Pursuant
to
a
previous
FOIA
Request,
OMB
had
stated
it
had
no
records
regarding
the
credit
subsidy
fee
created
between
January
2010
(the
date
the
fees
were
initially
approved)
and
May
31,
2012
(the
date
of
the
FOIA
Request).
October
2,
2013:
DOE
sends
an
initial
response
acknowledging
receipt
of
the
FOIA
request
and
granting
SACE
a
waiver
of
search
and
duplication
fees.
October
10,
2013:
DOE
and
SACE
discuss
the
FOIA
request.
In
an
effort
to
assist
DOE
in
its
review,
SACE
agrees
to
narrow
the
scope
of
the
request
to:
(1)
records
of
communication
between
DOEs
credit
subsidy
team
and
the
applicants,
and
(2)
the
credit
subsidy
fee
that
DOE
sends
to
OMB
for
its
approval.
October
21,
2013:
OMB
sends
an
initial
response
acknowledging
receipt
of
the
FOIA
request.
November
11,
2013:
SACE
files
a
demand
for
document
production,
reminding
DOE
that
its
deadline
for
response
has
lapsed.
In
the
interest
of
avoiding
litigation,
SACE
requests
that
the
agency
respond
within
twenty
(20)
business
days.
SACE
also
files
a
demand
for
document
production
with
OMB,
reminding
the
agency
that
its
deadline
for
response
has
lapsed.
In
the
interest
of
avoiding
litigation,
SACE
requests
that
the
agency
respond
within
twenty
(20)
business
days.
December
18,
2013:
DOE
sends
a
final
response,
releasing
heavily
redacted
credit
subsidy
summary
matrices
for
Georgia
Power
and
Oglethorpe.
No
matrices
for
MEAG
were
released.
DOE
also
confirms
that
there
are
no
records
of
communication
between
the
Loan
Program
Office
and
the
applicants.
January
16,
2014:
SACE
files
an
administrative
appeal,
challenging
the
insufficiency
of
DOEs
response.
That
same
day,
DOE
acknowledges
receipt
of
the
appeal,
and
commits
to
issuing
a
decision
on
or
before
February
16,
2014.
February
3,
2014:
DOE
denies
the
FOIA
appeal,
claiming
that
it
would
not
be
in
the
public
interest
to
release
its
credit
subsidy
fee
estimates
for
Georgia
Power
and
Oglethorpe.
DOE
also
confirms
that
it
has
not
yet
prepared
a
credit
subsidy
summary
matrix
for
MEAG.
February
18,
2014:
SACE
sends
an
email
to
OMB,
again
requesting
a
response
to
its
FOIA
request.
February
19,
2014:
The
Department
of
Energy
announces
the
issuance
of
$6.5
billion
in
loan
guarantees
to
Georgia
Power
and
Oglethorpe.
That
same
day,
SACE
files
a
FOIA
request
with
DOE,
requesting
(1)
executed
copies
of
the
final
loan
guarantee
agreements
for
Georgia
Power
and
Oglethorpe,
and
(2)
the
final
credit
subsidy
fees
paid
by
Georgia
Power
and
Oglethorpe
in
connection
with
the
loan
guarantees.
March
6,
2014:
SACE
files
a
demand
for
document
production
with
DOE,
reminding
the
agency
that
its
deadline
for
response
has
lapsed
and
that
time
is
of
the
essence
with
regard
to
the
request.
In
the
interest
of
avoiding
agency,
SACE
requests
that
the
agency
respond
within
ten
(10)
business
days.
DOE
has
not
yet
responded.
April
21,
2014:
In
an
article
published
by
E&E
Wire,
it
was
revealed
that
DOE
assessed
a
zero
dollar
credit
subsidy
for
the
Georgia
Power
and
Oglethorpe
loan
guarantees.
August
27,
2014:
OMB
sends
a
partial
response
to
SACE,
releasing
the
zero
dollar
credit
subsidy
fee
letters
for
the
Georgia
Power
and
Oglethorpe
loan
guarantees.
September
10,
2014:
In
light
of
OMBs
partial
response,
SACE
agrees
to
narrow
its
FOIA
request
to
documents
related
to
the
MEAG
credit
subsidy
fee.