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.

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:

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:

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.

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

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.

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.

And these comments came from the Illinois Farm Bureau and a collection of impacted landowners in that state.

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.

Read the whole thing here:

A citizen asked DOE where they could read all the comments that were submitted.  DOE's response was

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!

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.

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.

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.

DOE's National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor that corresponds with that project looks like this:

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.

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...

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].

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:

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!

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

Yesterday, PJM's Board of Managers quietly approved over $5B of new transmission designed to import electricity created by coal, gas, and nuclear to Virginia's data center alley and the Baltimore area, where thousands of megawatts of coal-fired power plants are set to close next year.  New industrial load and closure of dirty generators is being solved by importing dirty generation from other states to the DC-metro area, an area that likes to pretend it's embracing clean energy and lowering its carbon emissions.  Hardly.  Clean energy policy is all smoke and mirrors... literally.

First, let's look at PJM's announcement.

Well, that's a complete and total lie.  Apparently I have found the weak spot.  Paralleling existing transmission lines with new transmission lines on greenfield ROWs does NOTHING to reduce costs.  How so, PJM?  A new greenfield project would cost the same no matter where it is sited.  In addition, wreck and rebuild projects that expand existing ROW have additional costs of tearing down the existing line before a new one can be built.  As far as "minimizing impacts" that is also a huge lie.  Transmission lines are not like Lay's Potato Chips where you can't just have one.  Continuing to expand existing transmission corridors is the antithesis of environmental justice.  Nobody who lives with one (or more) transmission line across their property wants another one.  Impacts can actually be GREATER when paralleling existing ROWs because ROW expansion further intrudes into the host's land and gobbles up things built outside the current ROW, such as fences, barns, playsets, swimming pools, and water wells and septic fields.  Loss of water and sewer makes a property uninhabitable.  Expansion of existing corridors is like living next to an active volcano... they slowly expand until they overtake you altogether.  Just remember, if a utility builds transmission through your property, you are subject to another, and another, and another.  Not fair for you, not fair for anyone else.

That's right.  I've been saying this over and over, but here's one more for the road.  The next thing the transmission company assigned the project will do is a detailed routing study that attempts to avoid homes and other structures, parks, historic resources, public land and environmental constraints.  What comes out of that process is a collection of competing short route segments that can be pieced together to form the actual proposed route.  The transmission company expects you all to fight with each other over these route segments in order to push it out of your own backyard and into your neighbor's.  The company asks you to comment on individual segments with the hope of finding the ones with the least objections.  Tough luck for you if you live on one of them.  Once the proposed route is established, the transmission company will file an application with the jurisdictional state utility commission.  The company asks that the commission approve the route and issue a permit to build the project.  This is a long, court-like process in which impacted parties can participate, either with or without a lawyer.  It is recommended that you do participate, if nothing else simply to preserve your right to appeal a decision you don't agree with.

And take a look at those cost allocation tables in the attachments to PJM's announcement (Page 55). The lion's share (44%)  of the more than $5B cost will be paid for by Dominion's customers.  However, more than 10% will be paid for by customers in PJM's APS region, which includes not only portions of northwestern Virginia, but also more than half of West Virginia and big chunks of Pennsylvania.  Why are struggling communities in rural areas paying for a giant chunk of transmission that benefits some of the richest corporations in the world, such as Amazon, Google and Facebook?  West Virginia and Pennsylvania are not getting any benefit whatsoever, except what little bit of "reliability" leaks out from keeping the data centers and plant closures from crashing the grid altogether.  Why do others have to pay to shore up something that someone else broke?  This is not like historic load growth that came in small and widely dispersed increments and therefore affected the region at large.  This is like plunking a large city down all at once and plugging it in.  We can (and PJM has) point right to the cause of the new transmission.  Least they can do is pick up their own costs.  It is no longer just and reasonable to expect everyone to pay for the damage done by the few.  And if you think that's bad, check out the regional load ratio share allocations -- a portion of the costs that is allocated across the entire PJM region.

These are all the other utilities who have to pay a portion of the costs for new transmission to serve data centers.  You can locate these utility acronyms on this map.

Check out the ComEd region, for instance.  This utility in northern Illinois will pay for 13.39% of the shared costs, a larger load-ratio share than Dominion (13.32%).  Imagine how they feel about paying for transmission that supports new data centers in Northern Virginia and closing coal plants in Baltimore.

If you're totally confused by PJM's cost allocation system, just wait... there's bound to be some fireworks when PJM asks for FERC approval to allocate the cost this way.  More about that when it happens.  For now it's enough to know that PJM's historic cost allocation system does NOT work for these projects and therefore must be changed in order to remain just and reasonable.

PJM's White Paper (that they managed to hide until AFTER the Board meeting) pretends that your participation mattered.  Look what it said:

All your letters to the Board got filtered through the TEAC and summarized.  The Board didn't read any of them.  I'm thinking that muzzling of stakeholders is NOT in PJM's beloved Manual of procedures.  Therefore, it most likely violates the rules it is supposed to follow that have been approved by FERC.  Anyone can file a complaint about that.

So, despite our best efforts, the PJM Board has approved the Window 3 projects.  Now what?

The real battle is just beginning.  Buckle up... it's likely to last for years.  Delay is our friend.  The enemy of our enemy is also our friend.  All of this will become crystal clear in due time.

But what should you do right now?  Reach out to your neighbor, ask them to reach out to their neighbor.  Form neighborhood groups that coalesce into town groups that coalesce into county groups that coalesce into state groups that coalesce into multi-state groups.  We're all family now.  Gather your people.  

And then circle the wagons.  Transmission opposition is as much a strategy battle as any other.  Keep your strategy discussions private.  The transmission companies will be desperate to know what you're planning so they can try to beat you to the punch.  They will infiltrate your groups and stalk you online in the creepiest way possible.  But don't be so paranoid that you aren't accessible to new folks.  There are layers to transmission opposition information dissemination.  After you meet a few of the utility wonks at transmission company public meetings you may be able to recognize them for what they are when they manage to infiltrate meetings.  I think after 15 years, I can practically SMELL them when they sneak into the room.  Once, I was guest speaking at a public meeting for a group when I noticed a guy way in the back row that positively screamed "utility guy" to me.  It wasn't so much his look as it was his behavior.  After I was done speaking, I pointed him out to the host leader and she told me he did work for a utility, but that he was secretly on their side.  Lesson:  not all utility nerds are bad guys, but there are plenty that are going to frustrate you and try your patience.  Take a deep breath.  Find the humor in the situation.  It helps.

When you've got your group together, feel free to ask me, "What's next?"  However, let's keep that out of public social media groups and out of public blogs.  I'm always available to answer questions or provide advice.

WE CAN DO THIS!

​

PJM Interconnection has never been good at interacting with the regular people its projects impact.  Part of the problem is that the place is chock full of engineers and socially inept geeks, and the other part is that they think they don't have to explain themselves to you or anyone else.  Back around 2008, during the PATH transmission line fight, some public relations guy from PJM named Kerry Stroup told a local reporter here that "PJM answers to no one."  But PJM is NOT an omnipotent dictator.  PJM answers to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.  All the power PJM possesses comes courtesy of FERC.  If PJM doesn't follow its own FERC-approved planning rules, anyone can file a complaint at FERC.

After decades of digging a moat around itself in order to keep regular people out of its planning process, PJM's efforts have failed and they are now positively terrified of the ruckus you're about to cause.

Public relations has never been PJM's strong suit.  In fact, PJM's public relations effort has been almost non-existent.  PJM depends on the utilities it orders to build the projects to interact with the torches and pitchforks crowd later on, after there's no chance to influence the plan.  But now, because impacted people have found out about PJM's plans before the projects have been awarded, PJM has made a feeble attempt to inform you about its "role" in ordering the new transmission projects that concern you.

Here's PJM's recently released Role in Regional Planning/2022 RTEP Window 3 document.  You are supposed to read it and accept it, even though you may not agree, and even though PJM may have left out some important things.  Here's PJM again telling people that it answers to no one and that PJM must build these things ASAP or your lights are going to go out.  It's going to say the same things to your state utility commission when it appears as a witness for the utility that is assigned to build the project.

Think about that... PJM says it cannot deny service to a new customer (data centers) but if new transmission to serve these customers isn't built on PJM's timeline, then "load has to be dropped."  In other words, PJM will shut off service to certain customers.  You can bet it won't be the data centers.  So what PJM is really saying is that it is going to serve the new load and drop the old load.... unless you gladly welcome new transmission across your property, you selfish NIMBY.  Kind of makes your head hurt, right?  Remember, I said that PJM lacks public relations skill.

Here's the real answer that PJM isn't telling you... when a new customer asks the local utility for new service, the utility could certainly build new generators to produce the electricity for the new customers.  Building new generation is something that the state could require the utility to do.  Let's use Dominion as an example here because Dominion is the utility that serves the data centers.  Dominion could decide to build a new generator (or generators) near the data centers and ask the Virginia State Corporation Commission to approve it and assign costs to Dominion's customers.  But, with Virginia's "clean energy" goals enshrined into law, the chances that the VA SCC would approve a big, new baseload generator that could satisfy the data center's insatiable thirst for electricity are slim.  Nobody wants a new electric power plant in their neighborhood and solar, wind and other renewables can't supply the kind of on demand 24/7 power needed for data centers.  So Dominion and the Commonwealth of Virginia simply shrugged and passed the buck to PJM to find a solution to the reliability problem the new data centers have caused.  And this is the result.  You probably didn't envision this when Virginia passed its clean energy laws, but this is what happened because Virginia passed environmental goals that were NOT achievable when combined with the building of new energy-intensive data centers.  This is Virginia's problem and it's about time they own it, don't you think?

PJM handled the hot potato it received according to its existing rules.  PJM did not acknowledge that this is a new problem caused by state clean energy laws and out-of-control building.  PJM pretended that it was a transmission problem, not a generation problem.  Therefore, PJM sought out any usable generation in its region to solve Virginia's lack of power and designed new transmission line extension cords to plug it into the data center load.  PJM cannot order new generation to be built, it can only order transmission.  Therefore, when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.  Virginia could order new generation, but it chooses not to because new generation could make it impossible to achieve its clean energy goals.  Even the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission recently questioned whether new infrastructure caused by energy policies of certain states should be fully paid for by those states.  If Virginia had to pay for the entire $5B cost of this new transmission, perhaps building generation might be a cheaper alternative.  But Virginia thinks it can do it cheaper by choosing transmission that is cost allocated to other states that will not benefit from the data centers or clean energy laws.  

Ten years ago, PJM's independent Market Monitor suggested to PJM that it create a process by which new transmission is forced to compete with new generation to evaluate who would pay the costs and accept the risks of each alternative.  If PJM had only listened to the advice of its own expert, we'd be having a very different conversation right now.  It wouldn't sound like PJM's "Role" paper, it would sound more like this blog.

So, what can you do to change PJM's preferred plan?  The document gives you several options in the last couple of paragraphs.  The first is to participate in PJM's Transmission Expansion Advisory Committee meetings.  Been there, done that.  It's frustrating and exhausting.  At every turn, you are faced with the virtual moat PJM has constructed around its processes designed to keep regular people out.  PJM wants to make it really hard on you to participate.  If you do manage to get in, share your thoughts, and not give a damn what PJM thinks about you, prepare to be thwarted at every turn.  This is what many of us have experienced since August of this year.  The TEAC process for these projects is done.  PJM has made its recommendations despite everything that was said in its meetings.  Let's move along.

PJM's second suggestion is to send your comments to its Customer Service and Planning Departments.  Don't waste your time here, either.  PJM says it will "compile" these comments for the Board of Managers' perusal.  In other words, PJM will sanitize your comments so that they support its recommendations.  PJM only wants you to communicate with its Board of Managers through a filter it controls.  You might as well not even bother.

The third option is the one you should use.

Write directly to the Board.  Don't let PJM's TEAC filter your comments.  All that nonsense about "ex parte" communications is meant to scare you away from this option, but it doesn't mean anything.  So what if your comments are made public and posted on PJM's website?  SO WHAT?  Complete instructions for composing your letter to the Board of Managers can be found here.  Remember, you are writing to the Board -- Dave Anders is just the mailman.  Do not address your comments to Anders.

Deadline for comments to PJM's Board of Managers is Monday, December 4 (one week before the Board meets to consider approval of the projects on December 11).  PJM "forgot" to tell you about that in its "Role" paper.  Another Freudian slip that can derail your efforts.  It seems that PJM is more about trying to keep people out of its processes than it is about inclusion.  PJM doesn't care what you think and is going to do what it wants despite your best efforts.  If PJM is trying to steer you away from a letter to the Board of Managers, then you can bet that's your best option.  Maybe PJM is a little transparent after all... but not in a good way.

Yesterday, PJM Interconnection held its monthly Transmission Expansion Advisory Committee (TEAC) meeting.  At the meeting, PJM revealed its plan for massive transmission expansion around the Mid-Atlantic region to fix electric reliability issues caused by the closure of 11,000 megawatts of fossil fuel generation combined with 7,500 megawatts of increased demand from the out-of-control building of new data centers in Northern Virginia.  It doesn't take a mathematician to realize that these numbers add up to a need for increased electric generation close to 20,000 megawatts.  For reference, a good sized coal, nuclear or gas-fired electric generation station amounts to around 800-1000 megawatts.  We need 20,000 megawatts of what's known as "baseload" power, generation that can be counted on to generate when called and is not dependent upon weather or other factors to produce electricity.  Also for reference, a good sized solar farm may have the capacity to produce up to 100 megawatts, if it has the fuel (sunshine) necessary to generate.  We're going to need 20-25 new baseload generation plants, or 200 new large solar farms.  PJM does not order new generation to be built.  It can only order new transmission to move existing generation around.  And that is the purpose of PJM's new transmission plan.  PJM plans to import electric generation to Northern Virginia from West Virginia and Pennsylvania, the only two states in the PJM region that still produce excess electricity from fossil fuels.  In order to do so, PJM has planned numerous new extension cords from WV and PA that will connect with the "needy" areas in the DC - Baltimore metro areas.  On PJM's map, it looks like this:

As shown, much of the burden of importing generation into the DC - Baltimore area is placed on rural areas to the north and west, who are expected to sacrifice their homes, businesses, and communities to make way for these new transmission extension cords.  

One such project begins in WV's northern panhandle along the Ohio River at the Kammer substation and meanders southeast for hundreds of miles through 4 states before connecting to a new substation in Northern Virginia's "data center alley."  PJM's map of this project looks like this:

At the western end, the extension cord is surrounded by old coal and gas electric generators in WV and SW PA.  Look at them all!  That's where the power will be produced.  At the eastern end, the extension cord is surrounded by data centers.  That's where the power will be used.  This project proposes to build a new 500kV transmission line on new right-of-way adjacent to an existing line.  People who have one line on their property will now have two.  In some areas, it proposes to veer off the existing lines and create new rights-of-way in areas without transmission lines.  In Jefferson County, WV, the proposal is to demolish and rebuild an existing 138kV transmission line on an expanded right-of-way to create a double circuit 500/138kV transmission line on new lattice steel towers up to 200 feet tall.  In some areas of Jefferson, the project will veer off the right-of-way and create new right-of-way in areas that currently do not have transmission lines.  Once the project crosses the Appalachian Trail and enters Virginia, it proposes to veer sharply south/southeast and create a new 500kV transmission line through areas that currently do not have transmission lines, such as Waterford.  At its end point, it will connect with a new substation along the Dulles Greenway in Ashburn.

To the northeast, PJM proposes a new 500kV transmission line on new right-of-way in areas that currently don't have transmission lines in order to bring power from Pennsylvania produced by gas and nuclear to an existing substation in Frederick County, MD called Doubs.  From Doubs, the project will create two new 500kV lines into data center alley built mostly on existing transmission line routes.  On PJM's map, that project looks like this:

The major new lines that will require new transmission rights-of-way are in the west and north.  Worse yet, PJM has assigned these greenfield projects to competitive transmission builders from other states.  Much of the western line is assigned to NextEra, a company from Florida.  The northern line is assigned to PSE&G, a company from New Jersey.  These companies don't know our communities or how impossible it will be to plow through them with new transmission lines.  And at the end of the day, they may not care... they won't be seeing it from the windows of their own homes.

Only in Jefferson County will the west project be assigned to incumbent FirstEnergy/Potomac Edison because it is a expansion and rebuild of a line they already own.  These are the same guys who brought us the Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline, or PATH, project between 2008-2012.  Won't we have fun the second time around?

And with that rough description of the plan presented, here's my report of yesterday's TEAC meeting.

The meeting was kicked off with a brief speech from PJM's Vice President of Transmission, Ken Seiler, who read from some canned speech about how this transmission plan is the result of transitioning to clean energy.  You can read more about that here.  PJM's can also included that article.  But things didn't quite go as planned.  I spoke up to state that PJM's plan is nothing more than a giant extension cord importing fossil fuel power from WV and PA into Northern Virginia.  I asked how this comports with Virginia's "clean energy" laws.  Are Virginia's clean energy goals nothing but a sham they hide behind while actually importing more fossil fuels from surrounding states?

PJM personnel tried to push back that its plan would connect "new resources" but it was half-hearted at best.  There are no "new resources" anywhere near these lines.

PJM TEAC leaders explained how their plan would be read twice at TEAC meetings and then submitted to the PJM Board of Managers for approval.  Once approved (because *gasp* that can be the ONLY outcome!) the projects would be assigned and the utilities would take it from there.  PJM explained it would allow a whopping six, count 'em 6, days from second read to Board meeting.  Because being boxed into a time crunch isn't my favorite thing, I asked how we could contact PJM's Board of Managers right now.  PJM said it would send me the information, but that only poked the hornet's nest.  Many other attendees also wanted the information so they could contact the Board.  A gentleman from the Maryland Office of People's Counsel told PJM they should be running this more like a public hearing.  Bravo!  PJM's "transparency" with stakeholders leaves much to be desired.  Many people have tried to sign up for meetings and found themselves in an impossible maze.  Even if they finally do manage to sign up, they have to sit in the meeting for hours just to get an opportunity to comment on this plan, which is always the last item on the agenda.  Ain't nobody got time for that!  PJM offered up that it would take email comments, something I had to force them into months ago.  PJM tried to direct comments to some "customer service" email that is nothing but a black hole.   I know how to contact the Board directly and it was confirmed yesterday after much discussion.  More to come on that front, but get your pencils sharpened and be ready to send your comments!

I asked PJM what would happen if this plan and all its separate parts are not approved and built by the "in service" date selected (June 2027).  Will the lights go out?  Will the utilities in No. Va. have to tell the new data centers that they cannot supply them with electricity?  PJM's answer was long and winding about how much these new projects are "needed" but at its core I saw a glimmer of reality.  Yes, they would have to stop serving new load so the lights won't go out.  This is where PJM's reality diverges from the one the rest of us live in.  PJM thinks these projects (all of them) will be built on time and on budget.  PJM won't even entertain the reality that the vast majority of these projects won't be built on time, and several of them won't be built ever.

After the PATH failure, I've worked with landowner groups on at least a dozen other transmission projects around the country that were hotly opposed.  Not one of them has ever been built.  I know a transmission failure in the making when I see it, and I know how to push it off the possibility cliff.  PJM is not being realistic, despite losing a lot of major transmission battles in recent memory.

I asked why PJM changed its plan to allow FirstEnergy to build the west project in Jefferson County at the very last minute before yesterday's meeting.  It's because FirstEnergy owns the line that will be rebuilt.  That's something I questioned at the last TEAC meeting where PJM insisted that NextEra would be doing the rebuild.

And speaking of FirstEnergy and the project in Jefferson County, I also asked whether the new solar "farms" in Jefferson that are being built adjacent to the existing line that will be rebuilt will lose service for an extended period of time while the rebuild is happening.  These projects have waited years to interconnect to the existing line and now they may not have service after all until the project is completed.  It could be many months because the existing line has to be shut off and torn down before the replacement is built.  PJM's answer, if you can believe it, is that FirstEnergy did not come prepared to answer that question.  In other words, we don't know or care.  I thought PJM was a planner?

I asked what would happen if one of the segments of the West project was not approved by one of the 4 states that have siting authority.  Would changes be made or would the project be cancelled?  After all, if the little greenfield segment in Loudoun County is not approved, there's no need for the rest of it because it cannot connect to the data centers and we have no need for it here.  PJM's answer is that would be up to the utilities building it.  Another non-answer!  It's up to the state regulators to condition any approval on the entire project being approved before any building starts.

PJM announced that the cost of all these projects would be more than $5 Billion.  The cost would be added to the electric bills of every electric customer in the PJM region (that means you!).  I asked if that cost included financial incentives granted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which can increase costs significantly.  PJM said no.  The utilities building these projects can apply with FERC to increase their profits with higher returns (interest) and other accounting treatments that allow them to start charging ratepayers right away for projects that may or may not be built until later.  In addition, FERC can (and probably will) grant the abandonment incentive, which means ratepayers will pay for these projects WHETHER THEY ARE EVER CONSTRUCTED OR NOT.  This "plan" is going to cost us a lot more than $5B.

PJM did agree to share the "constructabilty report" it created before selecting these projects.  The report evaluates the risks and costs of each project, as well as the feasibility of actually constructing it when faced with opposition, and compares the projects to find the one with the greatest chance of success at the lowest price.  Last month, I asked PJM to make this report public and it flat out refused.  Now it says its report will be included in its recommendation paper to the Board of Managers.  Baby steps...

Yesterday's TEAC lasted 6 hours and 49 minutes, according to the timer on my WebEx.  It was a giant time suck that produced little new information, but we can't let them win because we don't show up.

PJM will recommend these awful transmission ideas to its Board of Managers on December 11.  It is up to all of us to convince the Board to reject this ill-conceived plan and demand that TEAC come up with something better.  How about something that will not place burden on communities that will receive no benefit?