StopPATH WV
  • News
  • StopPATH WV Blog
  • FAQ
  • Events
  • Fundraisers
  • Make a Donation
  • Landowner Resources
  • About PATH
  • Get Involved
  • Commercials
  • Links
  • About Us
  • Contact

Somebody Ought To Do Something About That...

5/29/2025

1 Comment

 
Picture
Marilyn O'Bannon and her family on their Missouri farm. Marilyn is in the back row just above the word "For".
Instead of waiting around for someone else to save you, sometimes you have to be that "someone" that steps up.  I met Marilyn more than than a decade ago, right around the time she tried to attend the information meeting at the ABB plant in her story below.  Since that time, Marilyn has become an informed and effective advocate for landowners impacted by the Grain Belt Express project (still unbuilt after more than a dozen years).  Not only has she lead the charge to battle the project on all fronts, she's also served a term as a County Commissioner for Monroe County, Missouri, along the way.

Marilyn is one of my heroes because she's dedicated and fearless.  Here's her story about how she stepped up to the job of leading a transmission opposition group simply because it was the right thing to do (and the only thing for her to do).

Don't wait for some other hero to come along.  The hero in your story is YOU!
This is the story of Marilyn O'Bannon from Monroe County, Missouri.  She didn't see herself as becoming an advocate.  She was just doing what needed to be done.  Here, in her own words, are her thoughts and feelings that guided her incredible journey.  Marilyn continues to fight on.
My story
by Marilyn O'Bannon

 
The day I was informed Grain Belt Express (GBE) merchant transmission had a proposed route to cross our family’s farms, it struck an emotion in me that I had never experienced.   I first thought if I’m just finding out about this project, then others need to know as well.  After searching for information on Google, my emotion immediately changed to anger as how could this happen in our county without people knowing about it?  Within minutes I called my US Representative, Sam Graves.  His legislative assistant informed me Rep. Graves was aware of project and there were constituents in favor of the project.  I was asked to get more information and call back.  I next called my State District Representative, Jim Hansen.  Rep. Hansen had more information on the project, informing me that Grain Belt representatives and lobbyists had been at the state Capitol asking for support of the project.  This was my first contact ever with Rep. Hansen, and he let me know he was not comfortable with the project and said he was willing to support Monroe County landowners.
 
After these initial calls, I felt overwhelmed realizing this was worse than I thought, especially after discovering the company, Clean Line, was planning to file an application with the PSC in March, and it was mid-December.  My younger son, said “Mom, you have to do something.”  I thought, what?  This actually motivated me—yes, do something!  I told my son, let’s visit the county commissioners as soon as possible.  A couple of days later, my son and I showed up unannounced to meet with the commissioners.  My thought previous to speaking with the three commissioners (men), was I need to let them know about this horrible project that is proposed to go through our county because they should do something.  As soon as I told them what I had learned, they smiled and said they had been meeting with Clean Line/GBE for almost two years, and that the county was going to receive a lot of tax revenue from the project.  I asked if they had verified that information, and they looked surprised and said well that is what project owner Clean Line's (CL) representatives told them.  I asked several more questions they couldn’t answer and then was told I should contact Adhar Johnson (from CL), she is really nice and good looking.  They gave me her number.  I reiterated that I could not believe I knew nothing about his project, and the commissioners told me, “you should have gone to the open house last summer.” I said what Open House?  CL had told commissioners all of the landowners were invited to the open house and the commissioners attended.  I asked if they saw any landowners on the proposed route at the open house, got a blank stare, then they recalled one landowner there and they thought he supported the project.  I said I can’t imagine why anyone would support a project like this.  Then one of the commissioners said, “you will get paid well for the easement.”  I replied it’s in the middle of our fields, no amount of money would be enough and asked, “would you want this line in the middle of your farm?”  The commissioner looked down and said no.   I told the commissioners it was evident more information was needed about the project, and I would be back the next week to see if they were able to verify the tax revenue and other project details.  I said I would try to call Adhar Johnson and report back.  

Following this meeting, I contacted several close neighbors and discovered no one was aware of the GB project.   I quickly became more motivated to get some answers and get all of the folks on the proposed route contacted.  My son recalled in a recent visit to his in-laws in northwest Missouri, he saw signs with words Block Grain Belt Express.  I contacted his in-laws to get contact information on Block Grain Belt Express.   I was able to get in contact with someone who was leading opposition of GBE for the past six months.  I returned to visit with the county commission, and discovered the commissioners were not able to verify the $800,000 tax revenue for the county that Clean Line representatives had told them.  Again, the commissioners seemed to think this project was good for the county and I stated there should have been a meeting organized by them in Paris, Missouri, the county seat.  I learned the commissioners had signed a letter giving support for the project.  
 
I knew at this point action must be taken.  I needed to rally support and get a meeting organized inviting all of the folks on the proposed route, neighbors nearby the route, county and state officials, and even our consolidated electric manager.  It’s now just after the first of January and I needed to get a meeting set up quickly.  After calling our local community center, I was informed they would not charge rent for the space.  Dividing the route in thirds, I contacted a landowner on the east end of the route and another landowner to the west, with myself taking the middle, to contact as many of the landowners as possible.  I sent information and the date of the meeting January 25th, to be distributed.  Local newspapers were contacted to inform of the meeting, and I started having conversations with Northwest Missouri opposition—what support!  They had signs and had already been working on lists of landowners to the south and east of them to begin informational meetings.  I think we both were overjoyed to connect the state.  Block GBE-Missouri had been getting advice and support from Block GBE-Illinois.  Joining this network gave the direction I was needing to focus efforts on opposition.  I invited Block GBE to our January meeting in Madison and they were happy to give a presentation and provide information for opposing such as how to contact Missouri PSC.  Prior to the meeting planned in January, I gathered about a dozen neighbors to meet with County Commissioners to let them know they were not aware of GBE, they were opposing the project, and asked the commissioners to rescind their support of the project.  The number in attendance made a huge difference in the attitude of the commissioners and they stated they would attend the meeting in Madison later in January, and also stated they would rescind their support of GBE. 
 
Prior to the meeting in January, I kept working to be more informed about the project to be able to have information for landowners planning to attend.   I was starting a contact list of landowners and folks interested in property rights, and emailing updates on a regular basis.  
 
The meeting was a huge success.  Close to a hundred in attendance.  Russ Pisciotta and his wife, (Block Grain Belt Express-Missouri) from northwest Missouri, gave an excellent presentation.  Strategies going forward were discussed and it was clear the opposition was growing as more people were getting informed and communicated with regularly by email and Facebook.  Two of the County Commissioners attended the meeting, and shared they were rescinding their support of the GBE project.   It was at this meeting that I was informed GBE was planning a media event in a few days in Jefferson City at the ABB plant.  This event was invitation only, but since the county clerk shared it with me, I decided to go and took three other volunteers with me.  Just to park, clearance was needed.  At the door, I was directed to a desk to check-in.  After I checked in, I was immediately swarmed by a few people who asked who I was and why was I there.  I learned quickly two of them were Mark Lawlor, GBE project manager and Adhar Johnson (the nice girl from CL).  Adhar threw her arms in front of me telling me to leave.  I stated I was there as a stakeholder and to learn, not to give any trouble.  Adhar yelled at me, stating you are a landowner and we are not ready to talk with you.  Immediately, this got the attention of the plant manager.  Adhar told him I should leave.  I explained it looked like a lot of people were in attendance, however most were senators and representatives.  He listened to GBE representatives complain about my attendance, and I said innocently, I’ve done nothing to these people.  The ABB manager apologized, telling me to leave.  At that point, I asked if could use the restroom before leaving. Adhar stated don’t let her.  Politely, the manager said he would escort me to restroom.  I was polite, as well, and as I was being escorted, I asked the manager if he did not notice their disrespect.  In fact, I got the manager’s business card and followed up with a letter of my appreciation for the bathroom break and the disrespect I received. 
 
Leaving that encounter with GBE, I was discouraged.  I called John Cauthorn (past state Senator), before leaving the parking lot and reported the treatment.  He asked me what I was going to do and I said, “go home.”   He said no, “go to the Capitol, stop anyone who will listen to you and tell them about GBE.”    
I’m thinking I’ve never done this before, I don’t know what I’m doing?  It’s 10 am, sure maybe we can stop by the Capitol and see how it goes.  This is when the activism kicked in gear.  We went from office to office, getting either appointments or catching a rep or senator to listen to us.  We were told to see office of Economic Development which we did and also see Senator Rupp who was scheduled for an appointment to the PSC in April.  One of the persons with me said his son hunts with Senator Rupp, so we had our connection.   Activism and Advocacy full force.  I think we left the Capitol around 4 or later that day.  My sister-in-law called me to ask how it was going and I said I think we need a lawyer.  Since she lived in Jefferson City, she said let me check into this.  Later that day, she called me with a name of an attorney, who by the way, just completed serving on PSC.  The next day, a meeting was scheduled with attorney.  We were just getting started.
Legislation was filed in next several weeks, and along with support of Block Grain Belt Express-Missouri, landowners were organized to make regular trips to the Capitol to promote the first House Bill which would not give the authority of eminent domain to a merchant transmission private, for-profit company.
 
Advice: Talk to your neighbors, relatives and friends.  Ask for help.  Organize an email list of contacts and follow-up with regular communication.  Work on leads.  People may know someone who will help, then accept any help they will give.  It’s a small world, someone always knows a person with background or expertise, and there are unknown connections you will find once you start reaching out.  As a point of contact, you can disseminate information to others.  Use social media.  
 
 
Become informed and connect with those who may have influence.  In our case, Missouri Farm Bureau, and other ag organizations:  Cattlemen’s, Corn Grower’s, Soybean Association, Pork and Sheep Producers.   Meet with legislators.  They may disagree with you, but keep them informed of your efforts.  
 
It doesn’t matter if you have never done anything like this before.  It’s your property, don’t let some company run over you. 
 
You don’t need a background in energy, find someone who does.  Be the communicator and stay in contact with those who want to help your cause.  You may be asked to be interviewed.  Step up.  If not you—who?   Reporters may edit your comments, but continue to speak out.
 
 
Focus on your constitutional rights!  
 
Be relentless, don’t give up.  It’s easy to find reasons to not get involved.  But for me, if I had to live with a project crossing my family, neighbors and friends’ farms, and chose to do nothing that was not an option.  
 
The base of my motivation has been my father saying, “work to do all you can, never give up until you know you have done everything possible.”  And, my close friend who said to me, “God does not call the equipped, He equips the called”
 
The journey may be long, like nearly 12 years and counting, but the connections with folks along the way, is a gift.  I still have a simple message from one I met early in 2014, “We will prevail!”
 
Find your motivation.  Are you like me?—I wondered for years how did something happen without my knowledge, then complained.   I would have never envisioned myself as an activist, but I could not stand by for this wrongdoing.  You can’t fight all the battles.  I’m passionate about my family, and want a world that is safe and secure for my grandchildren.  
 
My passion for property rights continues to grow, not waver.  At this point, it looks like we will never be done, but that only continues to motivate me.  I have been fortunate to work with some brilliant people, who I can call on for help.  Find your smart people, then do your work.  
 
These are some quotes that always lift my spirits:
 
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.”  -- Margaret Mead
 

"Try your best, then you can let that thing go and try something else. Just be sure to finish what you start. See it all the way through, and don't give up so easily.” ― Queen Latifah
1 Comment

Checking NextEra's Math

5/22/2025

0 Comments

 
Picture
NextEra Energy Transmission MidAtlantic, designated entity for the MidAtlantic Resiliency Link, or MARL, project recently announced its Actual Net Revenue Requirement and Annual True-up Meeting.  The meeting will be held on June 12 at 3:30 p.m. and probably won't last more than an hour (depending on how many questions you ask).   Interested parties can attend via Webex or telephone.  NextEra requests that you répondez s'il vous plaît, but it's not required.  See meeting notice linked above.

An interested party is defined in NextEra's Formula Rate Protocols (PJM OATT Attachment H-33-A). 
"For purposes of these protocols, the term Interested Party includes, but is not limited to, customers under the PJM Tariff, state utility regulatory commissions, consumer advocacy agencies, and state attorneys general."  If you pay an electric bill in the PJM region, NextEra's transmission costs are flowing through into your bill and therefore you are an interested party by definition.  This issue has been litigated before FERC many times and FERC has emphatically found every time that consumers are interested parties.

At the meeting, NextEra will be presenting its Formula Rate Update to true up its estimated 2024 revenue requirement with its actual expenditures.  It will also be presenting its estimate of its revenue requirement for 2025. 

What's a revenue requirement?  It's the total amount NextEra gets to collect from ratepayers in the PJM region for each year.  Once NextEra calculates its revenue requirement, PJM collects that amount from responsible load serving entities (LSE -- the company that actually sends you your bill).  The LSE in turn collects the transmission rate from you in your bill.  This is how the costs of new transmission get included in your monthly electric bill.

NextEra will NOT be discussing or entertaining any questions about its transmission projects.  This meeting is ONLY about NextEra's transmission formula rates.

What's a formula rate?  It's a series of mathematical calculations into which the utility plugs certain numbers.  It calculates the utility's annual revenue requirement.  Formula rates take the place of a stated rate, which is a set dollar amount that the utility would collect from its customers.  Instead of a set number, the regulator sets a formula for calculating yearly rates so that there doesn't need to be a full blown rate case every year.  The formula is the rate, not a fixed number.  The revenue requirement can therefore fluctuate from year to year.

Now take a deep breath.  

This is NextEra's formula rate, populated with numbers from 2024.

It's not as hard as it looks.  Each calculation names where the numbers it plugs in come from.  The numbers used come from NextEra's FERC Form No. 1.

The Form No. 1 is an accounting of NextEra Energy Transmission MidAtlantic's finances for 2024 that is organized into various accounts.  If you've ever worked in accounting, or taken an accounting course, you know that an entity's finances are organized into certain accounts that describe each general class of expense.  The list of descriptive accounts for an entity is called its Chart of Accounts.  All utilities regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission use FERC's Chart of Accounts, called the Uniform System of Accounts (USofA).  Each account listed on the Form No. 1 (and transferred to the formula rate) has a description and rules for its use.  Not every account in the USofA gets transferred to the formula rate template.  Only certain accounts are included in the formula rate.  Other accounts are not included in the rate.  For instance, FERC Account Number 426.4, Expenditures for certain civic, political and related activities, is not included in a formula rate.  That's because those kinds of expenses are not recoverable from ratepayers under FERC's accounting rules.  A utility that chooses to make those kind of expenditures pays for them out of its own funds. 
When a utility does not follow the descriptions and rules, this can happen.

Sometimes, utility accountants accidentally record expenses in an incorrect account.  Not a problem if both accounts are either recoverable or non-recoverable.  However if a non-recoverable expense is accidentally recorded in a recoverable account, it would get transferred to the formula rate and recovered from ratepayers in error.  In that case, the utility must refund that expense to ratepayers.

NextEra will also be discussing its projections for 2025.  These numbers are based on historic averages or company budgets.  The estimated revenue requirement is what will be recovered from ratepayers in 2025.  However, it is just an estimate.  This estimate will be compared with actual 2025 expenses in 2026 (called a true-up) and any overage will be refunded, or any under collection will be wrapped into the next year's rate.  This way, the utility only collects its actual expenditures from ratepayers.

As an interested party, you will be able to ask about specific numbers that are plugged into the formula rate, the accounts included in that line item, and how the actual expenses were classified for accounting purposes.  If the utility cannot provide detailed answers during the meeting, there is a process for interested parties to submit information requests to seek more details about the expenses and/or calculations to make sure that the rate was calculated correctly.  If you are not satisfied with the answer you receive to your question, feel free to ask them how to submit additional written information requests.

Yes, this is heady stuff, but it can be mastered by regular people.  Having an accounting background helps.

You might wonder why this process exists.  Doesn't FERC check NextEra's math when they file their annual revenue requirement?  The answer is NO.  No, they do not.  FERC relies on the entities that pay these rates to examine and question them.  Occasionally FERC may audit some of these utilities, but that's a random process that never looks at every one filed.  Because the formula rate has been determined to be just and reasonable, FERC assumes that the utility that uses it follows all the rules when it fills out the rate template every year.  Therefore, FERC doesn't need to even look at the filings.  They leave that job to you.  You might think that your LSE or your state regulator or other state office reviews these filings for accuracy.  NO.  No, they do not.  Your electric company just pays the bill to PJM and passes these costs on to you.  It doesn't care how much they are.  Your state offices usually don't have the skills or resources to review formula rate filings.  In a lot of cases, they don't understand them at all.  That leaves it up to you...

So, if you want to plunge into NextEra Energy Transmission MidAtlantic's annual transmission revenue requirement to check their math, don't miss the meeting.  It's your first step.
0 Comments

West Virginia Public Service Commission Passes the Buck

5/14/2025

0 Comments

 
Picture
The West Virginia Public Service Commission's mission statement is:
The purpose of the Public Service Commission is to ensure fair and prompt regulation of public utilities; to provide for adequate, economical and reliable utility services throughout the state; and to appraise and balance the interests of current and future utility service customers with the general interest of the state's economy and the interests of the utilities.
However, when a customer filed a general comment with the PSC recently regarding the way FirstEnergy is shirking its duty to provide public information, this is the response she got:
Thank you for contacting the Public Service Commission of West Virginia regarding the transmission line project. We are aware of plans for the proposed transmission line, but have not yet received a filing in this matter. We expect the developer to apply to the PSC for a certificate of convenience and necessity (under code section 24-2-11a) before beginning any construction. Once the PSC receives the application, there will be a public notice (the law requires newspaper publication in counties where the line is proposed to be located) and an opportunity for the public to comment and to file protests and to ask for the PSC to hold a hearing. We encourage you to share your comments once a case has been opened and is available for public input.
The consumer corrected the PSC with this response:
​This section of state code that got amended back in 2010.  It is WV Code §24-2-11a(c) available at this link:  

https://code.wvlegislature.gov/24-2-11A/


It says:  At least thirty business days before the deadline set by the Public Service Commission to file a petition to intervene with regard to the application, the applicant shall serve notice by certified mail to all owners of surface real estate that lie within the preferred corridor of the proposed transmission line. Notice received by a named owner who is the recipient of record of the most recent tax bill that has been issued by the county sheriff's office for a parcel of land at the time of the filing of the application is sufficient notice regarding that parcel for purposes of this subsection.

I have the right to intervene as an impacted citizen. I also have a right to intervene and participate in the case, not just file a comment.
And then the PSC's Director of Communications responded by passing the buck and telling the consumer to go away.
You do have a right, as any citizen does, to ask to intervene in any case before the Commission.
However, in this case, there is no case before the Commission, so therefore we cannot take or act upon your request.
Until the company files a petition seeking our approval of the line, there is no case. That has not been filed by the company.
If such a request is filed, we will be happy to notify you and then you can petition to intervene.
In the meantime, I may suggest you file your protest with the company.
I hope this helps. Please feel free to call me at any time if I can be of assistance.
Aren't there any lawyers at the PSC that can acknowledge that the company has an obligation to notify impacted landowners via certified mail once an application is filed?  That's what the customer was looking for.  She filed a general comment seeking help with the fact that FirstEnergy is approaching landowners to seek Right of Entry on their properties without providing any information about their project.  FirstEnergy has provided no information whatsoever about their project to the impacted communities.  Do impacted landowners have to wait until an application is filed to get basic information about the project and what it intends to do to private property?

Furthermore, a different segment of the same transmission project has absolutely failed to provide effective engagement with other impacted landowners.  NextEra has been holding "Open House" meetings in West Virginia that leave landowners confused and angry.  The meeting setup is loud and confusing.  The maps are not labeled.  The comment cards cannot be filled out later and mailed in.  Attendees cannot have normal conversation with project representatives because they cannot hear what they are saying and answers are non-responsive or misleading.  The company's website is devoid of meaningful explanation or information about this project.

The 500kV MARL project is failing at public engagement on all fronts.

But yet when consumers go to the officials who are supposed to protect them from predatory and outrageous behavior by the public utilities it regulates, they get told their comments cannot be accepted.

In the case of FirstEnergy, impacted landowners and consumers do not even have a contact for the company in order to "file your protest with the company."  Landowners are being preyed upon and nobody is stepping up to protect them.

Keep filing your general comments with the WV PSC, even though they claim they cannot accept them.  And keep a record of your correspondence.  Please forward any refusal of the PSC to accept your comment to your state delegates and senators and ask for their help.    These public servants work for us!

To file a general comment with the WV PSC, go to this link and fill out the form.  Maybe if they receive enough comments about the outrageous behavior of regulated public utilities they will have to do something?

Landowners are not just asking to intervene before an application is filed.  They are commenting on the current process before the application is filed.  Communities deserve an open and transparent process leading up to the filing of an application and they deserve to have their right to information protected by the Public Service Commission.  After all, that is the PSC's mission!

Keep filing your comments with the PSC regarding your concerns with public engagement (or lack thereof).  The PSC has rules that must be followed.  The least it can do is accept and acknowledge your comments about these major transmission projects that have been proposed to cross our state.  Let them know what you think about what's happening now, even if an application has not yet been filed.  Don't let them pass the buck!
0 Comments

Last Chance!  Attend PJM TEAC To Say No To More Transmission Lines in Jefferson County

11/14/2024

6 Comments

 
PJM's Transmission Expansion Advisory Committee (TEAC) meets next week during a special meeting devoted to new proposals to solve PJM's 2024 Window 1.  This may be your last opportunity to see the proposals and ask PJM questions about them.  It may also be your last opportunity to make comment to PJM before they make their selection.

Do you want more transmission in Jefferson County?  Window 1 is IN ADDITION TO the already ordered Window 3 project that proposes to widen the existing easement through southern Jefferson and build larger metal towers there that contain both the existing line and a new 500kV transmission line.
Picture
Window 3 is for the purpose of exporting coal-fired electricity from West Virginia to Virginia's out-of-control data center alley.  It's not for us.  We are simply fly over country.

Turns out Window 3 wasn't enough.  Virginia's data centers have exploded because they are all racing to deploy AI, and AI uses 10 times as much power as a regular data center.  Now PJM is looking for ANOTHER extension cord to power Virginia's data centers.

Here's some of the contenders...

A "new" PATH project (yes, the same project we defeated in 2011).  It begins at AEP's John Amos coal-fired generation station in Putnam Co., West Virginia and crosses through 14 counties in West Virginia (Putnam, Kanawha, Roane, Calhoun, Braxton, Lewis, Upshur, Barbour, Tucker, Preston, Grant, Hardy, Hampshire and Jefferson) before ending at a new substation in Frederick County, MD.  From there, it will be sent on a direct path to data center alley in Loudoun County, VA.   That project looks like this in PJM's plan:
Picture
The 765kV "new PATH" would also cross through southern Jefferson County on a new 200 foot wide easement next to the existing transmission corridor, taking another 200 feet of people's property, and in some instances their actual homes.  The towers will be 175' tall metal lattice with 4 guy wires holding up each one.

Another idea PJM is entertaining is building two new 500kV transmission lines from  the west that would cross Jefferson County in two places on a new parallel easement 200 ft. wide next to existing 500kV transmission lines.  This proposal would widen both these corridors by another 200 ft. and would gobble up homes.  One of these lines crosses the very northern portion of Jefferson in a subdivision called Leisure Acres, and the other one parallels the existing transmission corridor through southern Jefferson that has seen so many of these awful proposals over the past several years.  On a map, that proposal looks like this:
Picture
Why is Jefferson County always the target for new transmission extension cords for data center alley?  Because there are existing lines here already.  PJM and the utilities are under the impression that if you already live near a transmission line you would be eager to have another taking even more of your property, and possibly the very roof over your head.  PJM refuses to listen to the fact that expanding existing transmission corridors is more damaging to the communities than new lines that can be carefully sited to avoid homes and other development (or better yet buried on existing road and rail corridors).  Another reason that Jefferson is always a target is the two linear national parks that sit on our borders.  The C&O Canal follows the Potomac on the Maryland side.  The Appalachian Trail roughly follows our border with Virginia.  Both of these national parks should be protected from multiple infrastructure crossings, therefore the transmission companies try to simply widen existing crossings instead of creating new ones.  These parks that must be crossed to get to data center alley are one reason the same people are targeted over and over again.

There are other options PJM can select that don't involve Jefferson County this time.  It's up to us to convince them to look elsewhere.

So, what can you do?  This is your last chance to tell PJM what you think before they make their selections!  If you can, please attend PJM's TEAC meeting on Tuesday, November 19, 2024 from 1:00 - 3:00 PM.  You can attend over the telephone, or (recommended) via Webex on your computer.  Webex is recommended because you can view the presentation slides as they are discussed, and enter the question queue to ask a question or make a comment.  The meeting is open to everyone, and everyone is welcome to make a comment or ask a question.  However, you must sign up in advance to attend the meeting. 

You can sign up here.  Signing up requires you to create a PJM account.  Many people have had difficulty getting the account created.  If you experience issues, contact PJM by emailing [email protected] or calling (866) 400-8980.  These folks are very helpful and will get you fixed up in a jiffy.

What if you can't attend the meeting?  Please send an email to PJM and let them know what you think.  Download this document for the email addresses and suggested text.  If you don't tell PJM what you think, they're going to think Jefferson County doesn't care about becoming the electric transmission superhighway for Loudoun County's data centers.
pjm_email.pdf
File Size: 41 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

This is our LAST CHANCE to try to influence PJM's selection.  You silence will be interpreted as acceptance.
6 Comments

NIETCs Panned by Public

6/29/2024

4 Comments

 
Picture
Thousands of citizens across the country gave the U.S. DOE their thoughts and opinions about the potential designation of multiple National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETCs) across the country this week.  And it seems like nobody thought it was a good idea, except a handful of clueless congress critters playing politics.  I'm going to bet they didn't ask any of their constituents who would be impacted by NIETCs what they thought about it, and they suck up to the political teat at their own peril at the ballot box.

​This is probably my favorite line from all the comments I managed to read before they got sucked down into DOE's black hole.  This comment comes from the Inskeep family in Kansas.
​There hasn’t been a land grab and human expulsion to this degree since the Native Americans were slaughtered indiscriminately and herded off their land.
Congress, the U.S Department of Energy, and the DC political machine never considered the thousands of people impacted by their desire to turn rural America into energy slaves for their glistening cities, nor put it into the context of how it will be remembered by the history books.

The midwestern state farm bureaus submitted excellent comments, and the Missouri Farm Bureau wrote this opinion piece.

These are the Missouri Farm Bureau's comments.
mofb_comments_doe_nietc_phase_2_-_final_062424.pdf
File Size: 311 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

And these comments came from the Illinois Farm Bureau and a collection of impacted landowners in that state.
landowner_alliance_comments.pdf
File Size: 169 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

Further east, I submitted these comments on the designation of multiple NIETC segments in West Virginia for the purpose of shipping coal-fired power to Virginia's "data center alley" via new high-voltage extension cords.
Sacrificing West Virginia’s environment and imposing new costs on its struggling consumers for benefit of Virginia’s economy and the profits of the corporations who operate there is the epitome of environmental and economic injustice. Virginia ranks tenth in the list of average salaries by state, with an average annual salary of $65,590. West Virginia ranks 48th on the list, with an average annual salary of $49,170.13 West Virginia is never going to economically catch up with surrounding states if its citizens are forced to pay a significantly larger share of their income to support the economic development of surrounding states. 
Read the whole thing here:
nietc_phase_2_comments.pdf
File Size: 3212 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

A citizen asked DOE where they could read all the comments that were submitted.  DOE's response was
​Thank you for your inquiry. DOE will not be making comments received regarding the preliminary list of potential NIETCs publicly available.
This is not a transparent process.  DOE is most likely up to no good, but how can we know for sure when the public is shut out of a process that could take their land and destroy their economic well-being?  What happened to "transparency" and "public participation"?  It's out the window.

Nevertheless, you inserted yourself into a process where you were not welcome.  It's the only thing you can do when your government is holed up with special interests and planning to take what's yours.  The legal challenges will come later.  Thank you to everyone who participated!

What's next?  The DOE plans to issue its decision this fall with "draft" designation reports.  You'll be allowed to comment on these reports, but DOE will have already made its decision and you'll be in the position of trying to change their mind.  Where has democracy gone?

For each corridor that receives a draft designation, the DOE will have to undertake an Environmental Impact Study, which is a multi-year process where they are required to involve the public.  But we already know what DOE thinks of public comment, right?  They have made that plain.  They are in a real big hurry to railroad this process forward before the election in November.  Don't forget to vote!
4 Comments

Guidance For NIETC Comments for Midwest-Plains Corridor (GBE)

5/16/2024

2 Comments

 
Picture
Here's a little extra help planning your comments on the U.S. Department of Energy's preliminary Midwest-Plains corridor that follows the route of the Grain Belt Express across Kansas, Missouri, and Illinois.

Even though GBE's right-of-way is roughly 200 feet wide, DOE's National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor is 5 miles wide.  FIVE MILES!  It will engulf entire farms!

DOE says this corridor is needed for "clean energy" but it fails to even acknowledge Grain Belt Express.  Grain Belt Express claims to have all the approvals it needs to build the project already.  Why the corridor?  Are there going to be more projects routed in that corridor, slowly swallowing up farm after farm?  Or is the corridor somehow needed for GBE to get the taxpayer-guaranteed financing it has been seeking?

Designation of a NIETC in this corridor will require an enviromental impact statement for the entire corridor.  GBE already has an EIS in process for its federal loan application, but it's just for the narrow right-of-way needed for GBE.  A whole new EIS will be required for a 5-mile corridor.  Is this why GBE's EIS seems to have been forgotten?

At any rate, here's my advice on submitting effective comments.  It's very similar to the EIS comments you may have submitted several years ago.  Make sure you have also sent your extension request and letters to elected officials for Step 1.
National Interest Electric Transmission Midwest-Plains Corridor 

Guidance for Citizen Participation
DOE’s announcement of proposed corridors begins Phase 2 of its process.

DOE has not provided information about why it is considering a corridor for Grain Belt Express, since the project is claiming to have all the state approvals it needs. It is unclear whether this corridor is a requirement for Grain Belt’s approval of a government-guaranteed loan and how corridor designation would impact the ongoing Environmental Impact Statement process underway by DOE.

Phase 2 allows “information and recommendations” and comment from any interested party and you are urged to submit your comments.

DOE requests information submissions in Phase 2 by 5:00 pm on June 24, 2024. Interested parties may email comments as attachments to [email protected]. You are encouraged to request DOE acknowledge your submission by return email so that you know it was received by the deadline. DOE requests comments in Microsoft Word or PDF format, except for maps and geospatial submissions. The attachment size limit for submissions is roughly 75 MB and may require interested parties to send more than one email in the event attachments exceed this limit. There is no page limit on comments. DOE requests that comments include the name(s), phone number(s), and email address(es) for the principal point(s) of contact, as well as relevant institution and/or organization affiliation (if any) and postal address. Note that there is no prohibition on the number of information submissions from an interested party, though DOE encourages interested parties making multiple submissions to include an explanation of any relationship among those submissions.

DOE will grant party status to anyone who comments in response to the notice of the preliminary list of potential NIETC designations, in the manner and by the deadline indicated above.

Only those granted party status may request rehearing of the DOE’s decision, or appeal the NIETC in court. Protect your due process rights because you don’t know now whether you may want to request rehearing, or appeal an adverse decision. You are an interested party if: you are a person or entity, State, or Indian Tribe, concerned with DOE’s exercise of its discretion to designate a geographic area as a NIETC. Becoming a party does not obligate you to any further action, it only gives you the option of taking further action if you choose.

State in your comments that you are requesting interested party status in accordance with DOE’s NIETC Guidance at Pages 41-42 to preserve your right to request rehearing or appeal a corridor designation. Include comments that may become the basis for your appeal (where DOE is not following the statute). More information about the statute in the long version of this guidance that you may download at the end of this blog.

We are urging interested people to submit comments in two phases. RIGHT NOW and BEFORE THE JUNE 24 deadline.

RIGHT NOW:
To demand public notice and engagement from DOE and set a new comment deadline at least 45 days after the conclusion of the public engagement period. Ask for direct notification by mail of each impacted landowner within the corridor, as well as public notification, including posted notices in all local newspapers servicing the area of each proposed corridor. Request public information meetings, including an online meeting option for those who cannot attend in person. Ask that DOE share all available information on each corridor it is considering, including a narrative description of its boundaries, as well as identification of all transmission line(s) currently planned or proposed for the corridor.

We cannot comment on corridor requests submitted by utilities if we cannot read the requests! We cannot make effective comment on information DOE is keeping secret! It does little good to hold a public comment period for a project that has not provided notice to impacted landowners or disseminated adequate public information.

DOE states, “Early, meaningful engagement with interested parties should reduce opposition to NIETC designation and to eventual transmission project siting and permitting within NIETCs, meaning more timely deployment of essential transmission investments.” But the DOE has not provided any notice or public information about this process, or attempted to engage impacted communities. DOE needs to walk their talk.
Also consider writing to your U.S. Senators and Representatives and asking them to intervene on your behalf to ask DOE for public notice and engagement for the Phase 2 comment period.

See this link for a form letter and help contacting your representatives.

BEFORE JUNE 24:
At the end of Phase 2, DOE will identify which potential NIETCs it is continuing to consider, including the preliminary geographic boundaries of the potential NIETCs, the preliminary assessment of present or expected transmission capacity constraints or congestion that adversely affects consumers, and the list of discretionary factors in FPA section 216(a)(4) that DOE has preliminarily identified as relevant to the potential NIETCs.

DOE invites comments from the public on those potential NIETCs, including recommendations and alternatives.

​Phase 2 provides a high level explanation of why the potential NIETCs in the list are moving forward in the NIETC designation process, and you are encouraged to provide additional information on why DOE should or should not proceed with a certain corridor.

Your comments before June 24 should focus on the underlying need within the geographic area as well as “information and recommendations” from DOE’s 13 Resource Reports and other possible topics below in order to narrow the list of potential NIETC designations. DOE also requests information on potential impacts to environmental, community, and other resources within the proposed corridor.

DOE’s 13 Resource Reports: (1) geographic boundaries; (2) water use and quality; (3) fish, wildlife, and vegetation; (4) cultural resources; (5) socioeconomics; (6) Tribal resources; (7) communities of interest; (8) geological resources; (9) soils; (10) land use, recreation, and aesthetics; (11) air quality and environmental noise; (12) alternatives; and (13) reliability and safety.

DOE requests that interested parties provide in their Phase 2 comments the following resource information: concise descriptions of any known or potential environmental and cumulative effects resulting from a potential NIETC designation, including visual, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health effects thereof.

A list of potential topics includes:
  1. Width of proposed NIETC (5 miles for GBE). All properties within NIETC will have the perpetual cloud of potential eminent domain taking for new transmission. This lowers resale value.
  2. Area of NIETC not the right size or in the right place for alternatives or route changes you suggest, such as routing on existing highway or railroad easements.
  3. Federal authorizations needed to build across government land, including impacts to other state or federal land in the corridor.
  4. Need for the project – Do we need new transmission, or would it be a better idea to build generation near load rather than importing electricity thousands of miles from other states? Suggest other options to supply power such as in-state generation from natural gas, biomass, waste-to-energy, nuclear, small modular nuclear, other large scale power generation in close proximity to the need. The federal government can use corridors to force new transmission on states, but cannot force new electric generation on states. Something is wrong with this scenario.
  5. Diversification of electric supply.
  6. Energy independence and security. Defense and homeland security.
  7. National energy policy (not defined).
  8. Are there any customers for the transmission lines proposed for the corridor?
  9. How the corridor may enable for-profit merchant transmission that is not a public utility.
  10. Are there any transmission projects in the corridors that have been approved by a regional transmission organization? (SPP, MISO, PJM).
  11. Maximize use of existing rights-of-way without expanding them, including utility, railroad, highway easements. Reconductor existing lines instead of building new (new wires with increased capacity) without expanding the easement. Buried lines on existing highway or rail rights-of-way, including high-voltage direct current.
  12. Environmental and historic sites.
  13. Costs to consumers. Who will pay for new transmission in corridors? New transmission regionally allocated to consumers will increase electric costs for all consumers. Everyone pays to construct new regionally-planned transmission in these corridors, even if we don’t benefit.
  14. Water use and quality, wetlands.
  15. Fish, wildlife and vegetation impacts. Consider future vegetation management under the lines that includes the use of herbicides, weed killers or other substances toxic to humans, animals or cultivated plantings that are either sprayed on new easements from the air or by on the ground vehicles. Construction vehicles and equipment can spread undesirable, invasive vegetation along the corridor.
  16. Cultural resources – Historic, tribal, other. Socioeconomics – impacts on property, income, quality of life, use of eminent domain.
  17. “Communities of interest” – environmental justice, racial disparities, income disparities, energy burden.
  18. Energy equity and justice: Grain Belt Express has already taken property and disturbed agricultural and other businesses, now the federal government is coming back for 5 more miles of property. The impacts to farms will be devastating.
  19. Geologic – Sink holes, fault lines, abandoned mines.
  20. Soil – erosion, loss of topsoil, loss of vegetation, drainage, compaction, introduction of rock from blasting, destruction of prime or unique farmland, protected farmland, agricultural productivity.
  21. Land use, recreation and aesthetics – changes to land use, homes and farms, conservation easements, parks, churches, cemeteries, schools, airports, visual impacts, public health and safety.
  22. Environmental noise and air quality – construction noise, operational noise, impacts to air quality and emissions caused by project, both during construction and while in operation. 
DOE must consider alternatives and recommendations from interested parties. Feel free to suggest as many alternatives as you want in one or more submissions.

DOE will prioritize which potential NIETCs move to Phase 3 based on the available information on geographic boundaries and permitting and preliminary review of comments.
​
DOE must review public comments, consider recommendations and alternatives suggested. 

Want to read more suggestions and tips?  Download a longer version of these guidelines with additional information, quotes you can use, and more web resources to explore.
nietc_comment_instructions_gbe.docx
File Size: 180 kb
File Type: docx
Download File

2 Comments

Guidance For NIETC Comments for Mid-Atlantic Corridor

5/15/2024

1 Comment

 
Here's a little extra help planning your comments on the U.S. Department of Energy's preliminary Mid-Atlantic Corridor.  If you're concerned about a different corridor, such as the Midwest-Plains corridor that follows Grain Belt Express, there will be slightly different  guidance, coming soon.

The Mid-Atlantic Corridor roughly follows the path of the MidAtlantic Resiliency Link, or MARL, project that PJM ordered NextEra and FirstEnergy to build last December.  It begins at 502 Junction substation in southwestern Pennsylvania and traverses through West Virginia, Maryland, and Virginia on its way to bring coal-fired electricity from West Virginia to Northern Virginia's data centers.  It looks like this.  The lines on this map may be 200-400 feet wide.
Picture
DOE's National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor that corresponds with that project looks like this:
Picture
Each line on this map is 2 miles wide.

Here's my advice on submitting effective comments.  Make sure you have also sent your extension request and letters to elected officials for Step 1.
Quick Guide for Citizen Participation in Phase 2 Comments

DOE’s announcement of proposed corridors begins Phase 2 of its process. Phase 2 allows “information and recommendations” and comment from any interested party and you are urged to submit your comments. DOE requests information submissions in Phase 2 by 5:00 pm on June 24, 2024. Interested parties may email comments as attachments to [email protected]. You are encouraged to request DOE acknowledge your submission by return email so that you know it was received by the deadline. DOE requests comments in Microsoft Word or PDF format, except for maps and geospatial submissions. The attachment size limit for submissions is roughly 75 MB and may require interested parties to send more than one email in the event attachments exceed this limit. There is no page limit on comments. DOE requests that comments include the name(s), phone number(s), and email address(es) for the principal point(s) of contact, as well as relevant institution and/or organization affiliation (if any) and postal address. Note that there is no prohibition on the number of information submissions from an interested party, though DOE encourages interested parties making multiple submissions to include an explanation of any relationship among those submissions.

DOE will grant party status to anyone who comments in response to the notice of the preliminary list of potential NIETC designations, in the manner and by the deadline indicated above. Only those granted party status may request rehearing of the DOE’s decision, or appeal the NIETC in court. Protect your due process rights because you don’t know now whether you may want to request rehearing, or appeal an adverse decision. You are an interested party if: you are a person or entity, State, or Indian Tribe, concerned with DOE’s exercise of its discretion to designate a geographic area as a NIETC. Becoming a party does not obligate you to any further action, it only gives you the option of taking further action if you choose.

State in your comments that you are requesting interested party status in accordance with DOE’s NIETC Guidance at Pages 41-42 to preserve your right to request rehearing or appeal a corridor designation. Include comments that may become the basis for your appeal (where DOE is not following the statute). More information on the statute in the long version of this guidance that you can download at the bottom of this blog.

We are urging interested people to submit comments in two phases. RIGHT NOW and before the deadline.

RIGHT NOW:
To demand public notice and engagement from DOE and set a new comment deadline at least 45 days after the conclusion of the public engagement period. Ask for direct notification by mail of each impacted landowner within the corridor, as well as public notification, including posted notices in all local newspapers servicing the area of each proposed corridor. Request public information meetings, including an online meeting option for those who cannot attend in person. Ask that DOE share all available information on each corridor it is considering, including a narrative description of its boundaries, as well as identification of all transmission line(s) currently planned or proposed for the corridor.
We cannot comment on corridor requests submitted by utilities if we cannot read the requests! We cannot make effective comment on information DOE is keeping secret! It does little good to hold a public comment period for a project that has not provided notice to impacted landowners or disseminated adequate public information. DOE states, “Early, meaningful engagement with interested parties should reduce opposition to NIETC designation and to eventual transmission project siting and permitting within NIETCs, meaning more timely deployment of essential transmission investments.” But the DOE has not provided any notice or public information about this process, or attempted to engage impacted communities. DOE needs to walk their talk. Also consider writing to your U.S. Senators and Representatives and asking them to intervene on your behalf to ask DOE for public notice and engagement for the Phase 2 comment period.
See this link for a form letter and help contacting your representatives.

BEFORE JUNE 24:
At the end of Phase 2, DOE will identify which potential NIETCs it is continuing to consider, including the preliminary geographic boundaries of the potential NIETCs, the preliminary assessment of present or expected transmission capacity constraints or congestion that adversely affects consumers, and the list of discretionary factors in FPA section 216(a)(4) that DOE has preliminarily identified as relevant to the potential NIETCs.

DOE invites comments from the public on those potential NIETCs, including recommendations and alternatives.

Phase 2 provides a high level explanation of why the potential NIETCs in the list are moving forward in the NIETC designation process, and you are encouraged to provide additional information on why DOE should or should not proceed with a certain corridor.

Your comments before June 24 should focus on the underlying need within the geographic area as well as “information and recommendations” from DOE’s 13 Resource Reports and other possible topics below to narrow the list of potential NIETC designations. DOE also requests information on potential impacts to environmental, community, and other resources within the proposed corridor.

DOE’s 13 Resource Reports: (1) geographic boundaries; (2) water use and quality; (3) fish, wildlife, and vegetation; (4) cultural resources; (5) socioeconomics; (6) Tribal resources; (7) communities of interest; (8) geological resources; (9) soils; (10) land use,
recreation, and aesthetics; (11) air quality and environmental noise; (12) alternatives; and (13) reliability and safety.

DOE requests that interested parties provide in their Phase 2 comments the following resource information: concise descriptions of any known or potential environmental and cumulative effects resulting from a potential NIETC designation, including visual, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health effects thereof.

In addition to the above, a list of potential topics includes:
  1. Expansion of existing transmission easements to add new lines. Expansion will remove all existing buildings, lighting fixtures, signs, billboards, swimming pools, decks, flag posts, sheds, barns, garages, playgrounds, fences or other structures within the expanded easement area. Existing septic systems, leach beds, and/ or wells may not be permitted within the expanded easement area. This would seriously damage host properties or make them uninhabitable.
  2. Width of proposed NIETC (2 miles for MidAtlantic). All properties within the NIETC will have the perpetual cloud of potential eminent domain taking for new transmission. This lowers resale value.
  3. Area of NIETC not large enough or in the right place for alternatives or route changes you suggest, such as routing on existing highway or railroad easements. Federal authorizations needed (crossing Appalachian Trail, C&O Canal), along with impacts to other federal land in the corridor such as Harpers Ferry NHP, The National Conservation Training Center, Antietam Battlefield, to name a few examples.
  4. Need for the project – Do we need new transmission, or would it be a better idea to build generation near data centers instead of importing electricity from neighboring states? This new electric supply is only needed for data centers – suggest other options to supply power such as in-state generation from natural gas, biomass, waste-to-energy, nuclear, small modular nuclear, other large scale power generation in close proximity to the data center load. Building in-state gas generation is constrained by Virginia’s energy policy, which can be changed to avoid new transmission. The federal government can use corridors to force new transmission on states, but cannot force generation choices on states. Something is wrong with this scenario.
  5. Diversification of electric supply.
  6. Energy independence and security. Defense and homeland security.
  7. National energy policy (not defined).
  8. New transmission in the corridor will enhance the ability of coal-fired generators to connect additional capacity to the grid, resulting in increased emissions. Two plants slated for closure have already had their useful life extended (FirstEnergy’s Harrison and Ft. Martin). Imports constrain development of renewable generation in Northern Virginia by importing lower cost coal-fired electricity from other states.
  9. Maximize use of existing rights-of-way without expanding them, including utility, railroad, highway easements. Reconductor existing lines (new wires with increased capacity) without expanding the easement. Buried lines on existing highway or rail rights-of-way, including high-voltage direct current.
  10. Environmental and historic sites.
  11. Costs to consumers. Are the data centers a “consumer” or a beneficiary? New transmission to serve new data centers will increase electric costs for all consumers. Everyone pays to construct new transmission in these corridors, even if we don’t benefit.
  12. Water use and quality, wetlands.
  13. Fish, wildlife and vegetation impacts. Consider future vegetation management under the lines that includes the use of herbicides, weed killers or other substances toxic to humans, animals or cultivated plantings that are either sprayed on new easements from the air or by on the ground vehicles. Construction vehicles and equipment can spread undesirable, invasive vegetation along the corridor
  14. Cultural resources – Historic, tribal, other.
  15. Socioeconomics – impacts on property, income, quality of life, use of eminent domain.
  16. “Communities of interest” – environmental justice, racial disparities, income disparities, energy burden.
  17. Geologic – Karst, abandoned mines.
  18. Soil – erosion, loss of topsoil, loss of vegetation, drainage, compaction, introduction of rock from blasting, destruction of prime or unique farmland,
    protected farmland, agricultural productivity.
  19. Land use, recreation and aesthetics – changes to land use, homes and farms, conservation easements, parks, churches, cemeteries, schools, airports, visual impacts, public health and safety.
  20. Environmental noise and air quality – construction noise, operational noise, impacts to air quality and emissions caused by project (increased use of coal in WV to supply power to data centers – Mitchell, Harrison, Ft. Martin, Longview and Mt. Storm coal-fired power plants feed these corridors).
  21. Alternatives – suggest alternatives to this corridor, whether it is different design, different routing, or different power source.
  22. Public safety – hazards to community from weather or operational failure or terrorist attack, health hazards from electromagnetic fields and stray voltage.
  23. Your interaction (or lack thereof) with company applying for corridor. Lack of notice.

DOE must consider alternatives and recommendations from interested parties. Feel free to suggest as many alternatives as you want in one or more submissions.

DOE will prioritize which potential NIETCs move to Phase 3 based on the available information on geographic boundaries and permitting and preliminary review of comments. DOE must review public comments, consider recommendations and alternatives suggested. 
Want to read more suggestions and tips?  Download a longer version of these guidelines with additional information, quotes you can use, and more web resources to explore.
nietc_comment_instructions-1.docx
File Size: 187 kb
File Type: docx
Download File

1 Comment

Making Effective Comment on NIETCs

5/11/2024

4 Comments

 
The U.S. Department of Energy released its preliminary list of National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETCs) this week.

Interested persons have only 45-days to make comment on these corridors before DOE makes its selections to proceed to the next round.  DOE is not doing any notification for property owners within these corridors.  It is not doing any public education and engagement, aside from one "listen only" webinar with limited space (sign up now!)  There will be no public meetings.  DOE is not even sharing the information and recommendations it received from transmission owners (and others) in its Phase 1 information submission window.  Their maps are very generalized and have no details.  We're supposed to comment on something that we have very little information about within a very short time window.  It sort of sounds like DOE doesn't actually want us to comment.

But that only makes me want to comment more.  And spread the word like transmission's Paul Revere...
Picture
First of all, we absolutely must have more time and information in order to make effective comment on something that threatens to put a cloud on our property in perpetuity.  Being located in a NIETC is a designation that will stick with your property, making it the first choice for new transmission projects.  How can our government make these kinds of land-use planning decisions that affect literally millions of people without providing notice and giving us information and time to comment?

This is unacceptable!
The first order of business is to demand the notice and information we need.  Therefore, I am urging everyone to send a letter to the DOE asking for notice, information and extension of the comment deadline.  It's quick and easy... simply download this prepared letter, add your name and other info. and then email it as an attachment to:  [email protected].
extension_request.docx
File Size: 138 kb
File Type: docx
Download File

It is recommended that you include in your email a request for acknowledgement that DOE received your comment, since there is no automatic acknowledgement provided.

One brief explanation:  On the bottom of the letter it includes a request for full party status.  Being a party doesn't come with any additional duties or expense, it simply allows you to request rehearing or appeal any corridor that impacts you in the future.  It does not require you to do so, but it reserves your right to do so if you choose.  If you do not request that right, you will have to live with DOE's future decision and cannot take any legal action.  It's just a safety measure to protect your rights.

And one more thing... we cannot rely on DOE to act on our requests without a little encouragement, no matter how many we send.  Therefore, it is recommended that you also contact your U.S. Senators and Representatives and ask them to demand that DOE provide notice, public engagement and an extended comment deadline for their constituents who are impacted by these huge corridors.  Here's your quick and easy guide for getting that done with just a couple clicks:
contact_congress.pdf
File Size: 58 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

Everyone should get started on this RIGHT NOW so that these requests are in the works early in the comment process.  Of course we are also going to encourage everyone to make more substantive comment on the actual corridors that impact them, but that's a post for another day.  Stay tuned!
4 Comments

DOE Releases Preliminary List of NIETCs

5/11/2024

4 Comments

 
Picture
This week, the U.S. Department of Energy released its list of preliminary NIETCs.

You can read their list here.

There is also a larger map of each preliminary NIETC, and DOE's initial reasoning for including it on the list.

There are 10 potential corridors across the nation ranging in size up to 100 miles wide and 780 miles long.

I'm just going to concentrate on a couple for this blog.

The Mid-Atlantic corridor.  This corridor follows the path of the MidAtlantic Resiliency Link (MARL) project that PJM ordered to be built to act as a giant extension cord from West Virginia coal-fired power plants to Northern Virginia's data centers.  But this corridor isn't just for that project... it also includes corridors for the other two large 500kV transmission lines  that ship power to the east.
Picture
It's a virtual spiderweb of coal-fired extension cords to No. Va.  Each corridor line on this map is 2 miles wide.  TWO MILES!  That means that anything within that 2-mile corridor would be turned into a sacrifice zone for new transmission lines.

Another is the Midwest Plains corridor.  This NIETC is 5 miles wide and 780 miles long and roughly follows the proposed path of Grain Belt Express.
Picture
Since the purpose of an NIETC is to bump permitting to a federal level if a state denies a project, or to "unlock" government financing of a transmission project in a corridor, your guess is as good as mine why GBE applied for this corridor.  Do they expect that the Illinois Appeals Court will remand their Illinois permit back to the ICC for denial?  Or is this designation necessary to get government financing for GBE?  If it's the latter, maybe that explains why GBE's Environmental Impact Statement already in process for its government guaranteed loan seems to have stalled out.  A NIETC also requires a full environmental impact statement, and the NIETC corridor is much wider than what GBE originally proposed.  Perhaps it has to be re-done.

The last corridor I'm going to focus on is the Delta Plains.  This corridor begins in the Oklahoma panhandle and proceeds east across the state and on into Arkansas, where it forks north and south.  This corridor is 4-18 miles wide and 645 miles long.  It roughly follows the routes for the dearly departed Clean Line Plains and Eastern project and the WindCatcher project.  Although both of these projects were cancelled long ago, it seems that someone wants to bring the zombies back.
Picture
These three corridors alone will impact millions of landowners.  When you add in the other 7 corridors the amount of people impacted by DOE's corridors is astounding!

DOE has opened a 45-day comment period on these corridors before it will further narrow them down and select some or all of them to proceed to its next phase of the process.  That phase will open environmental impact reviews, provide public notice, and issue a draft designation report that you can comment on.  Of course, by the time these corridors get that far, DOE will have already made its decision.  It is imperative that we all get involved and comment now.

I will be publishing more guidance for impacted landowners to help them make timely and effective comment, so stay tuned!
4 Comments

FERC To Announce New Transmission Rules May 13

4/21/2024

2 Comments

 
Picture
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has announced an open meeting where it will present its new rules for transmission planning AND its new rules for transmission permitting in a National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor (NIETC).

Both of these rulemakings have taken years to get to this point.  As you may know, rulemakings are public participation proceedings where the agency proposes a new rule, accepts comments from the public, and then issues a final rule.  The transmission planning rulemaking began in 2019 -- 5 years ago!  Five years to get a new rule in place isn't uncommon... things move at a glacial pace at FERC.  In addition, FERC's commissioners have come and gone over that time period, making FERC flip-flop on several different new rule proposals.  The transmission permitting rulemaking hasn't been in the works for as long, but it is going to have a profound impact on landowners so unlucky as to be targeted for new transmission projects.

First, the transmission planning rulemaking.  This is all the media has been talking about.  Fans of doubling or tripling transmission lines to ostensibly connect remote wind and solar generators are chomping at the bit, convinced that it will finally make intermittent renewables viable.  That proposed rule contains, among other provisions, a plan to prospectively build new transmission to remote "zones" where some unnamed authority believes new wind and solar can be built.  This would shift the cost of transmission to connect renewables from the owner of the generator to ratepayers across the regions connected.  As it has been for years, the owner of a new generator must pay the costs of connecting its new generator.  These companies want to shift this cost burden to ratepayers.  If a generator has to pay for its own connection, it makes economic choices about where to site new generation in order to build at the most economic sites.  If we're paying, generators can build stuff anywhere, even if it doesn't make economic sense, and stick electric consumers with the bill.

Another thing the transmission planning rule is going to do is create some hypothetical list of "benefits" from new transmission in order to spread the cost allocation as wide as possible.  Even if you don't "need" transmission for reliability or economic reasons, if the transmission owner makes up some hypothetical "benefits" for you, then you're going to be charged for it.  The idea is to spread the trillions of dollars needed for new transmission as wide as possible in the hope that if everyone pays a little that nobody will notice how their money is being wasted building transmission that they don't need.

Finally, the transmission rule will require planning authorities, like PJM or MISO, to plan transmission on a rolling 20-year timeline.  What are you going to need 20 years from now?  You have no idea, and neither does the planner.  By planning so far into the future, the idea is to drive generation choices through transmission planning, and not to plan the transmission system based on need.  It will also attempt to roll state and federal "public policies" into transmission planning so that we all pay a share of other state energy policy choices.  Is Maryland shutting down all its gas-fired generation?  You're going to pay for new transmission to replace it, even though you don't live in Maryland and had no say in the creation of their energy policies. 

The transmission planning rule will be prospective only and will not affect any transmission already included in regional plans.   After this rule is issued, planners will have to submit what are known as compliance filings, which detail how the planner will adjust its rules to carry out the new transmission planning process FERC orders.  In addition, I fully expect that this rule will be litigated for several more years, which is going to hold the whole thing up.

Now onto the Transmission Permitting rule, which is something that is going to impact anyone currently battling unwanted transmission, and anyone doing so in the future.  As you probably know, the U.S. Department of Energy is poised to release its preliminary list of potential NIETCs at any time.  That's a whole battle unto itself that I'm not going to cover here, but if a corridor is designated in your area, it means that one or more proposed transmission projects may be built in that corridor.  A transmission project sited in a NIETC is subject to "backstop" permitting by FERC.  If a state has no authority to permit transmission, or denies a permit to a project in a NIETC, then it can be bumped to FERC for permitting.  FERC will require the transmission company to file an application and then will hold a full-blown permitting process very similar to the state process.  If FERC permits the project, then FERC has authority to say where it goes and to grant the utility building it federal eminent domain authority to take property for it.

In FERC's rulemaking on transmission permitting, it proposed that a utility could begin the FERC process as soon as an application is filed at the state level.  This would mean that there will be TWO simultaneous permitting processes going on at the same time.  Two permitting cases, two interventions, two sets of lawyers, double your time and double your money.  The drawback here is that the FERC process may not even be necessary if the state approves the project in its own permitting process.  If a state approves, FERC doesn't have jurisdiction to get involved.  FERC said that it needed to speed up this process by running its own permitting process at the same time as the state process.  It's foolish and a waste of our time and money.  Let's see what FERC does with this as it was widely panned by those who commented on this rulemaking.

​Another horrible idea in FERC's proposal is an "Applicant Code of Conduct" to meet the statutory requirement for "...good faith efforts to engage with landowners and other stakeholders early in the applicable permitting process."  FERC proposes a voluntary, generalized, unenforceable "Code" that does little to protect landowners.  The "Code" is merely an idea of how a company should behave, not how it will behave.  FERC does not plan to enforce it, or intervene when landowners report violations.  The landowner should report violations to the company!  Don't laugh... they're serious!  FERC's proposed "Code" advises that the company should "avoid" coercive tactics, but it doesn't prohibit them.  That does NOTHING to meet the statutory requirement.  It's a big joke!

The new transmission permitting rule will become operational once it is issued.  Many readers will be subject to this government-sponsored landowner abuse immediately.  This is one you should not ignore!

Over the years, I have worked with a large group of transmission opponents from across the country to file extensive comments on both of these rulemakings on behalf of impacted landowners.  In particular, you should read our comments about the transmission permitting rule to familiarize yourself with what's about to happen to landowners.
impacted_landowner_comments.pdf
File Size: 620 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

Please plan to (virtually) attend FERC's May 13 Open Meeting where they will release these two new rules and make comment and explanation.  The meeting is "listen only".  There is no opportunity to make comment or interact with the Commissioners.  This is an informational presentation, not a participatory event.  FERC's meeting begins at 11:00 a.m. and is expected to last about an hour.  You can watch it live on YouTube using a link that will appear on FERC's website the week before.  Later on that day (or the next day, remember FERC works at a snail's pace) the text of the rules will be released and then discussed over and over by lawyers and the media.  If you're impacted by a new transmission proposal, you can't miss this presentation!

You don't need to sign up in advance... simply click the link to view when the meeting starts.  You can find that link and minimal information about this special meeting at FERC's website.
2 Comments
<<Previous

    About the Author

    Keryn Newman blogs here at StopPATH WV about energy issues, transmission policy, misguided regulation, our greedy energy companies and their corporate spin.
    In 2008, AEP & Allegheny Energy's PATH joint venture used their transmission line routing etch-a-sketch to draw a 765kV line across the street from her house. Oooops! And the rest is history.

    About
    StopPATH Blog

    StopPATH Blog began as a forum for information and opinion about the PATH transmission project.  The PATH project was abandoned in 2012, however, this blog was not.

    StopPATH Blog continues to bring you energy policy news and opinion from a consumer's point of view.  If it's sometimes snarky and oftentimes irreverent, just remember that the truth isn't pretty.  People come here because they want the truth, instead of the usual dreadful lies this industry continues to tell itself.  If you keep reading, I'll keep writing.


    Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
    Email me


    Search This Site

    Got something to say?  Submit your own opinion for publication.

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010

    Categories

    All
    $$$$$$
    2023 PJM Transmission
    Aep Vs Firstenergy
    Arkansas
    Best Practices
    Best Practices
    Big Winds Big Lie
    Can Of Worms
    Carolinas
    Citizen Action
    Colorado
    Corporate Propaganda
    Data Centers
    Democracy Failures
    DOE Failure
    Emf
    Eminent Domain
    Events
    Ferc Action
    FERC Incentives Part Deux
    Ferc Transmission Noi
    Firstenergy Failure
    Good Ideas
    Illinois
    Iowa
    Kansas
    Land Agents
    Legislative Action
    Marketing To Mayberry
    MARL
    Missouri
    Mtstorm Doubs Rebuild
    Mtstormdoubs Rebuild
    New Jersey
    New Mexico
    Newslinks
    NIETC
    Opinion
    Path Alternatives
    Path Failures
    Path Intimidation Attempts
    Pay To Play
    Potomac Edison Investigation
    Power Company Propaganda
    Psc Failure
    Rates
    Regulatory Capture
    Skelly Fail
    The Pjm Cartel
    Top Ten Clean Line Mistakes
    Transource
    Valley Link Transmission
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wind Catcher
    Wisconsin

Copyright 2010 StopPATH WV, Inc.