Note to Readers

Mar 19, 2015

—

Late last night, I published a detailed accounting of the impact of SB 1349 on Dominion Virginia Power. I took that story down this morning when Dominion expressed concern about the accuracy of some of the numbers I used. I expect to get an update from Dominion officials this morning, and I will update the article, if justified, and put it back online later today.

This article provides the most detailed media accounting yet published on the legislation and it is imperative to make it as accurate as possible.

— JAB

Share this article

(comments below)

Comments

11 responses to “Note to Readers”

larryg

March 19, 2015

Wow. how did you get bad numbers?

the good news is that you did try to do a definitive report and someone at Dominion was paying attention – and perhaps this is an example where
Dominion did not readily provide the data in a concise and understandable form to begin with.

but I think it also points out that gathering data on the internet involves risks of gathering data not authoritatively vetted.

not lecturing here.. just saying that verifying credible information is more of a problem these days – an ironic casualty of the internet itself and the source of many disagreements sometimes… and ultimately – as we have seen – entire groups who do not trust the data.. no matter the source if they have other data that contradicts – even if that source is not particularly credible.

Dominion has always had the option of making their own case so that folks can go directly to them rather than rely on 3rd party “interpreters”.

Log in to Reply
1. James A. Bacon
  
  March 19, 2015
  
  Full disclosure: I vetted the numbers with Dominion. Some reporters might have shared their pre-publication copy with Dominion. I did not. It turns out there were *so many* numbers and the conversation covered so much ground that some of the numbers (including one very important one) fell between the cracks.
  
  I did notify Dominion when the story was published and asked them to check for accuracy so I could make timely corrections. They offered a number of minor corrections which did not affect the substance of the article, and added some information more specific than what I included in the original version. I could have made those changes without altering the thrust of the article. But Dominion also took objection to a couple of numbers I used that could affect my conclusions regarding the impact of the rate freeze on their earnings. Rather than allow potentially inaccurate information to disseminate on the Internet, I decided to take the story down — with Dominion’s promise that it would respond with alacrity.
  
  This is journalism in the Internet age. You make corrections on the fly, and notify readers to changes you have made.
  
  If I had been writing for a newspaper, I would have run the article through a painstaking fact-checking process with Dominion after I had written the article and before I published it. In hindsight, given the complexity of the article, I believe that is what I should have done anyway.
  
  I believe in transparency, and that includes transparency into the journalistic process. If readers have criticisms as to how I handled this story, you are welcome to voice your opinions here. If I’d been working for a newspaper, I’d have an editor to review my work product and kick my ass, if necessary. Flying solo on the Internet, I have only readers to do that.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. larryg
    
    March 19, 2015
    
    sounds like there was more than one person at Dominion – reviewing ..
    
    😉
    
    and I give credit – for correcting the record but .. it does feel a little bit
    like Dominion is driving the bus here.
    
    and if that is insulting to you – my apologies..
    
    perhaps.. this is an opportunity to have a more fruitful dialogue with Dominion or perhaps I’m being naive, eh?
    
    the bigger issue that I’d like to hear Dominion weigh in on – is as they close more plants – and in turn we see reliability issues as a result – what is Dominion’s overall plan for mitigating this?
    
    and of course – if they have had conversations with the EPA – aside from the SCC on the reliability issues – which I take pretty seriously and would think many others would also – as folks know that outages wreak havoc with electronics these days – which now includes appliances.. as more and more have digital controls.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Acbar
      
      March 19, 2015
      
      No, Dominion cannot “drive the bus” here, and I’m confident Jim won’t let that happen. But a serious attempt to describe the impact of Dominion’s plans on their future earnings is going to get a lot of media attention after-the-fact, so it might as well get up-front scrutiny to make darned sure it’s at least essentially accurate. Go, Jim!
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. larryg
        
        March 19, 2015
        
        I think Dominion had the option of making comments to correct the record rather than calling Jim up late and ultimately having the blog taken down per their wishes.
        
        I’d actually like the see the original post with the corrections.. myself.
        
        and Acbar – would you call up Jim late at night and demand that he pull a blog?
      2. larryg
        
        March 19, 2015
        
        Actually the more I think about this – the more I think Jim should have invited Dominion to make comments or write their own Post but not get Jim to take his down.
        
        A 3rd option would be for Jim to make corrections at the bottom.
        
        but to pull the article and re-write it .. I think that’s wrong and it reflects badly on Dominion – they did have options beyond the re-write.
        
        the more I think about it – the more it stinks.
      3. James A. Bacon
        
        March 19, 2015
        
        Larry, Dominion never asked me to pull the blog post. They asked to address mistakes in the blog. The decision to pull down the post was entirely mine because I did not want inaccurate information to disseminate over the Internet (and I did not want to hurt my credibility by authoring inaccurate information).
      4. larryg
        
        March 19, 2015
        
        That’s happened before though – and you’ve just updated… right?
        
        I still think Dominion should have made comment … you had a lot of data that you had in good faith tried to compile – INSTEAD of Dominion providing that info at the front so you could reference it – accurately.
        
        They were not forthcoming. You tried to compensate .. put a lot of time
        and effort into it – then they decide to show up.
        
        still has a bad taste.
        
        would have much preferred to have Dominion come out in front and really demonstrate a willingness to engage … on the issues…
        
        I still challenge the idea that shunting power is a real longer-term answer … or at least wonder why geographically distributed Nat Gas plants on the Peninsular are not also an option.. but also other crossing points – like Fort Eustace.
Peter Galuszka

March 19, 2015

Hang tough, Brother Bacon!

Log in to Reply
mindful

March 19, 2015

I tried to post a response to the original article earlier today?

Should I assume that it went into a black hole?

Log in to Reply
1. James A. Bacon
  
  March 19, 2015
  
  No, I’ll re-post the article later today. I just want to make sure the numbers are 100% accurate.
  
  Log in to Reply