Misleading by omission. I point the court to page 295 of that decision where it said cloak of office phrase is not inherently novel or objectional way of describing the action. In this setting to consider criminal conduct both and describes conduct that was not potentially criminal. Did the trial court there cite the statute explain the statute to the jury or not. No your honor. First Circuit Decision wasnt turning on instruction, it was turning on whether the conduct alleged was illegal. The instruction could encompass lawful action it didnt. Here if you instruct the jury as your honor was saying that official action potentially includes everything under the sun, when it in fact does not potentially include everything under the sun. Thats not what it did. You have to tell them what it doesnt include. This is an area thats some black official action some white not official and some gray. The District Court only instructed on black, didnt instruct on any of the gray. Gave the good faith
Criminal conduct both and describes conduct that was not potentially criminal. Did the trial court there cite the statute explain the statute to the jury or not. No your honor. First Circuit Decision wasnt turning on instruction, it was turning on whether the conduct alleged was illegal. The instruction could encompass lawful action it didnt. Here if you instruct the jury as your honor was saying that official action potentially includes everything under the sun, when it in fact does not potentially include everything under the sun. Thats not what it did. You have to tell them what it doesnt include. This is an area thats some black official action some white not official and some gray. The District Court only instructed on black, didnt instruct on any of the gray. Gave the good faith instruction which wrapped it up, in good faith no criminal intent and no crime. If he does it in good faith theres no crime. And if good faith is what saves him. And you called all the character witnesses
Statement. First, for carl to respond. So you have noted that natural gas and leads to the displacement of coal in the power sector has what assumptions have you made about natural gas Going Forward the next 15 years, and what are the implications of that assumption for sailing up renewables and methane . We dont assume changes from those trajectories. Clearly, the four Building Blocks between the power plant will cause a mixture of both increases in natural gas use along with renewables in Energy Efficiency. Most of our projections assume that the state consistent with epas projections that the states will take advantage of all four Building Blocks. So we dont have we dont have explicit renewable additions beyond that in our coram business pathway. Rather the Clean Power Plant projections show significant increase in renewables and no disruptions or price pressure on the natural gas sector. Could i add something on this point, with respect to natural gas . I think one of the stories a
Envision Chaffee County invited the public to its annual Community Rec Update on May 29, featuring a panel discussion with representatives from the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management,