Category: MARL

Landowners Come Last

3/1/2025

Transmission companies use the same playbook every time. By now, I know it by heart.

Projects are planned by the regional grid operator that many people don't even know exists. Although the process is open to "stakeholders," those stakeholders have no idea that such an organization is planning a new transmission project that is going to cross their land and, perhaps, take their home. Once approved by the grid operator, the utilities conduct secret meetings and grease the right palms. They engage with your state agencies and elected officials to convince them that the project is a good idea. It's all one big, happy party... SECRET happy party. Your elected officials and your state agencies don't engage you or send notice. They leave that up to the utility, and the utility doesn't want you to know until it's so far into the routing process that you can't have any real impact on where it goes. You're supposed to remain dumb and happy until the last minute. Then the utility springs it on you as a fait accompli and conducts a farcical public information and notification process. At this point, they hope you're out of options and that you will jump into action to push the project off yourself and onto your neighbor. That's the first reaction of the vast majority of people, until someone finally figures out it's not about where it goes, it's about whether it goes.

But, until you finally receive notice, you should know that the utility has been very busy consulting with everyone except the landowner who would be forced to host the transmission line on his property. And don't you know it, NextEra has been very busy trying to schmooze a path for its portion of the MidAtlantic Resiliency Link (MARL). This presentation recently surfaced, although it's been common knowledge to a bunch of people who were hiding it from you for months.

marl_schmooze.pdf
File Size:	4634 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

Perhaps your most important take away from this little peek into what's been going on behind your back is this slide. Click to download the above file to see a larger version.

This is the roadmap of NextEra's routing process. The red box is where "we" are. It's a point called "Engage Counties and KEY STAKEHOLDER With Preliminary Route." Right... KEY STAKEHOLDER... but that doesn't include the most important KEY of all... the landowners who will be asked to host this project. When are impacted landowners notified? Three turns away at "Open Houses", which is nearly the last pit stop on this highway to hell. By that time, everyone else that won't see it from their house has been consulted about the route and brought on board. Landowners come last on this journey.

Landowners are presented with a couple of routing options and are expected to spend all their time fighting each other over where it goes, instead of joining forces against the real enemy. And they call this "community consultation"... when the decision has already been made.

DAD - Decide, Announce, Defend. DAD is a top-down, minimally participatory method of public management. You're sheep and they are the sheepdogs. This never works on a smart, engaged public because the last "D" never ends. People won't give up when their very home is on the line. And when the utilities are put on the defensive, they say and do the stupidest things, most of them dishonest. Nobody is buying it. We all know how to smell a rat. Propaganda is a useless waste of money.

So, what else is in that power point? Well, there's a full map of the MARL project, including FirstEnergy's portion. NextEra has been pretending that the eastern part of the project doesn't exist and that their project simply ends in Frederick County, Virginia.

But it's clearly shown on a map that the end of NextEra's MARL is simply the HANDOFF POINT. That's where their transmission line connects directly to FirstEnergy's transmission line.

We're all in this together, folks! Landowners and communities impacted by NextEra's MARL are in the same boat as landowners impacted by FirstEnergy's MARL. Neither one of these line sections can happen without the other. Kill one, kill them both.

Here's what the landowners impacted by NextEra's MARL are facing:

Landowners on FirstEnergy's portion are facing the tear down of an existing 138-kV transmission line, expansion of the existing easement at least 100 feet, and the building of a new 500kV line with a 138kV circuit on the same new towers.

Pay attention, people! It's coming! Although the most FirstEnergy has done is threaten to "survey" its existing easements on its part of this project, you should also know that they are working behind the scenes, much like NextEra, to schmooze KEY STAKEHOLDERS to accept the project before you even realize that they've decided on a route across your property. The announcement will come later, with Open Houses of our own. By that time, the route is set in stone. Be prepared to fight!

0 Comments

Loudoun Pushes Data Center Burden Onto Neighboring States

8/21/2024

0 Comments

Loudoun County, Virginia, has the largest concentration of data centers in the world. The world! It also has the nickname "Data Center Alley." Loudoun County has become gross with data centers, and continues building more. The data centers are Loudoun County's cash cow, providing a third of its annual budget. Loudoun County is also the wealthiest county in the nation. The entire nation! Loudoun County is home to the rich and, due to its proximity to Washington, D.C., the powerful as well. The rich and powerful thought nothing of Loudoun destroying its eastern regions, tossing them on the altar of the data center cash cow. After all, more data center tax revenue means less taxes for the rich and powerful in the western regions of Loudoun. Out of sight, out of mind! Living near nasty infrastructure was fine for the plebeians, as long as the benefits from hosting it flowed to the rich and powerful.

But then something happened... the data centers needed more resources than Loudoun County had. Now, normal people in that situation would begin building the resources needed to feed their cash cow, but that's not how things are done in Loudoun. Loudoun continued to build its data centers and expected the needed resources would come from neighboring states just like magic. Except importing those resources come with consequences, like new transmission extension cords. Perish the thought! Transmission lines are fine for those other states that still *gasp* burn coal to create electricity to power Loudoun's data centers, but they absolutely cannot happen in Loudoun! Loudoun is ruled by the rich and powerful, don't cha know, and they absolutely cannot be burdened with anything so ugly and gauche as an electric transmission line bringing power to their data centers.

So the rich and powerful grabbed their government servants by the scruff of their necks and demanded that the government make the bad stuff go away... or else!

The Loudoun County government and local elected officials began holding secret meetings with NextEra, other transmission companies, PJM, and Western Loudoun's Sacred Cows to find a way to push the transmission nasties out of Loudoun. After all, aren't those other states lesser trash cans in service of the rich and powerful in Loudoun? When other citizens who would be impacted by a transmission line re-route asked to be included in the meetings, they were purposely excluded. And wouldn't you know it... that's exactly where the MARL transmission line ended up... on the property of the landowners who tried to be included in the secret government meetings. Loudoun County met with and did the bidding of a handful of rich and powerful citizens to TAKE property from other citizens not as fortunate. Pepe' Le Pew tells me that kind of discrimination stinks to high heaven!

And so the MARL transmission line got pushed out of Loudoun County and over into Frederick and Montgomery Counties Maryland. Benefits for Loudoun, impacts for neighboring states.

The re-route will cost everyone in PJM an additional $167M to spare the sacred cows in Loudoun. Loudoun thought nothing of this, even though other towns who ask for transmission siting concessions are usually required to pay the difference.

I'm starting to understand why Loudoun is the wealthiest county in the U.S. -- it doesn't pay its own way. Loudoun County takes from neighboring states like a parasitic worm.

And now here they go again, with another transmission line that Loudoun County has demanded be buried for a short section that abuts another group of Sacred Cow homes. That's all fine and good, but the burial is going to cost an additional $423M, a project cost increase of 61%! Between these two transmission projects, saving Loudoun will cost electric consumers in other states more than half a billion dollars!

And who pays for that? Every last electric customer in the PJM region. Both of these projects that disturb Loudoun's delicate sensibilities are regional reliability projects that are charged 50% to all PJM consumers based on their load share ratio, and the other 50% is charged to the "users" of the project, which spreads to neighboring states like West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. Virginia is only paying a portion of the cost of the new transmission extension cords to serve their data centers. Any increase in costs will come out of the pockets of everyone in the PJM region.

So, how does Loudoun County think the burial of transmission lines near Landsdowne should be paid for?

As for the excess cost, the County believes that a special customer class, made up of high-wattage customers, would be proper for the Commission to consider. The increase in electrical demand can be directly traced to the connection of an identifiable class of such high-wattage users to the grid. It is in the public interest for the Commission to shift the cost of undergrounding some of these lines to the high-wattage customers creating the demand for them.

Well, that's a low-information expert for ya... Buddy Rizer doesn't know diddly about utility rates. While Virginia *could* create a new rate class, it absolutely will not do so within this docket. Asking for something like that is outside the bounds of this proceeding. Therefore, Loudoun is not providing any way to pay for the excess cost. And, even if Virginia created a new data center customer class to charge its share of the transmission extension cords to the data centers it hosts, that doesn't do a damned thing for the ratepayers in other states, who don't have any data centers (or data center classes) to charge their share of the excess cost of burying lines in Loudoun County in order to spare Loudoun any impacts. It's another selfish suggestion on the part of Loudoun County. And where was Loudoun County when we were arguing at FERC about whether Virginia's data centers should pick up the entire $5B cost of the Window 3 projects meant to serve them? Nowhere. It doesn't want to pay for the projects it has caused. It just wants all the benefits without any of the impacts.

It's all over Buddy Rizer's testimony. And for the rest of us who don't benefit from Loudoun's data centers, or keeping Loudoun free from invasive transmission projects, it's positively revolting!

buddy_rizer_testimony
File Size:	575 kb
File Type:	buddy rizer testimony

Download File

The citizens of Loudoun County are expressing significant concern about the impact that further above-ground transmission lines will have on their community. With hundreds of miles of these lines already crisscrossing the County, citizens are hoping for a thoughtful approach to future development. Numerous comments from the community reflect a growing movement to explore alternatives to traditional transmission lines. Organizations such as the Lansdowne Conservancy, Waterford Foundation, Loudoun Transmission Line Alliance, and Piedmont Environmental Council have organized public meetings to oppose these proposals, driven by a strong desire to prevent overhead transmission lines from dominating the landscape and causing irreparable harm to historic, economic, and natural resources in Loudoun. The community opposition was key in PJM’s decision to approve an alternate route for delivery.
WHAT MEASURES CAN BE TAKEN TO PROTECT LOUDOUN COUNTY’S SCENIC ASSETS FROM THE IMPACT OF HIGH-VOLTAGE POWER LINES?
Where appropriate and feasible, undergrounding may provide a reliable and long- lasting energy transmission solution that is less prone to outages with minimal disruption to the look and feel of the community at large. This approach will preserve the landscape for current and future residents and maintain the history and beauty of the County. Additionally, it supports a reliable and sustainable path forward as Virginia works to meet its energy production and transmission goals. By placing power lines underground, impact to scenic assets can be minimized while ensuring a resilient and efficient power infrastructure.

Don't get me wrong... I don't believe anybody should be impacted by transmission lines. And that's the difference between me and Loudoun County... Loudoun County seems to think that only its special residents should be free from the impacts of its data center extension cords. Loudoun County is perfectly okay with impacts to landowners in West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Maryland. Loudoun County isn't advocating for its extension cords to be buried in those other states. Those people simply don't matter to Loudoun County, except when they pay the extra cost of keeping Loudoun transmission line free.

It's about time that Loudoun started shouldering its own data center burden. The data center transmission problem is completely of Loudoun County's making. It could end it in a hot minute by putting a moratorium on data centers. It could also solve it by building some new electric generators in Loudoun near the data centers. Why don't you do these things instead of taking from neighboring states to fill your own coffers, Loudoun County? Solve your own problem! Your neighbors are quite sick of your hubris. Here's a little advice from one of your favorite people!

0 Comments

How PJM and FERC Caused Huge Spikes in Regional Power Bills and New Transmission

8/9/2024

2 Comments

PJM's recent capacity auction resulted in huge price spikes in the cost of supplying power to electric customers in the PJM region for the 2025-2026 year. It was directly caused by the actions of PJM and FERC. These entities aren't protecting ratepayers, they are harming them! Let me explain...

PJM holds annual capacity auctions to secure the provision of electricity three years in advance. A capacity auction is not actual electricity, it is a promise from a generator to supply a certain amount of energy at a future point in time. This is how PJM ensures that it will have enough electricity supply available three years from the auction. PJM is paying these generators to be available to produce energy when needed during the auction year. PJM starts by announcing a certain amount of electricity is needed for the auction year. Generators submit bids of how much it will cost to be standing by to produce that electricity during the auction year. PJM stacks the bids by price, and each bid is represented by an amount of electricity and a price. PJM then looks at its bid stack and finds the place where the capacity need is met. Whatever the price of that bid is the clearing price for all the capacity bids lower in the stack. Those bids that go over the capacity price are not accepted. At the end of the auction, PJM has a stable of committed generators sure to provide the power when needed 3 years from the auction date.

PJM does not order generation. Generation is a market construct, where generators build when the capacity prices are profitable. If the clearing price at auction is high, it would entice the development of new generation. If the clearing price is low, many generators may not have enough revenue to continue to operate at a profit. This is how PJM manages generation to make sure there is always enough, but not too much. The auction serves as an important warning bell... when clearing prices are high, it means more generation needs to be built. The auction sends a signal to generators to build more when the prices are high. More generators lowers prices because there is more competition in the supply. But what happens when the prices are high at the auction and no new generators get built? That's exactly what just happened... there is a dearth of needed generation in PJM so prices shot through the roof to record highs.

The problem here began with PJM making a proposal to change the parameters of its auction. In order to do so, it needed FERC's permission. A battle broke out at FERC, with many other parties objecting to the auction changes. FERC moves at a snail's pace and can take years to make a decision on a request. The more parties to a case, the longer it takes to resolve it.

Because of the battle going on at FERC, the auctions got put on hold. As Power magazine says,

BRA auctions are usually held three years in advance of the delivery year. While the 2025/2026 auction was originally scheduled to be held in May 2022, it was suspended while the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) considered the approval of new capacity market rules. The recent July 2024 auction stems from a compressed schedule that aims to return to the three-year forward basis. According to PJM, the next BRA—for the 2026/2027 delivery year—is scheduled for December 2024.

FERC suspended PJM's capacity auctions while it resolved the issue. That's like turning off the warning system. PJM's annual capacity auction couldn't send the market signal to build new generation because it wasn't being held.

During this time, an extreme change in the power needs of the PJM region was underway. Many baseload fossil fuel generators closed, either the result of the last auction's low capacity prices, or because they were "dirty" and no longer socially acceptable. The new generation that entered the market could not keep up with the amount of generation that was closing. As a result, we had less generation available. Also during this time, the building of new data centers and increasing power demands for AI shot through the roof. No new generation to supply power for these data centers was proposed or built because PJM's auction warning bell was not sounding due to the auctions being suspended.

PJM used the only tool it had available to meet regional need... transmission. PJM conducted a competitive transmission window to connect the remaining generators with the new data center load. Unfortunately, the majority of the available generators are located in WV and PA, and the data center load is in Northern Virginia. PJM asked for new transmission to connect the two, and it ended up with a whole bunch of new projects, including MARL and MPRP. PJM says they are "needed" to supply power to the data centers because no new generation has been built anywhere near the data centers.

Now that FERC has finally resolved the issue and PJM has its new market parameters, PJM recently began holding auctions again. The first new auction for the 2025-2026 year was held just 10 months before the auction year begins, instead of 3 years in advance. There's no way new generators can be built in 10 months, even if the prices are generous enough to support them economically. That's why the auction is always held 3 years in advance, in order to give time for new generation to be built to reduce auction prices.

Instead, we're looking at a transmission bandaid to keep the existing generation flowing to the places that need it. And PJM has opened another transmission planning window to add another 4,500MW of generation imports to Northern Virginia because there is no generation currently proposed to fill that need.

Eventually, if PJM's market signal works as intended, new generation will be built near the load. However, certain states like Virginia and Maryland have passed laws that prevent the building of new fossil fuel generation. That leaves only the nuclear option to supply the outrageous amount of power needed by the data centers. Can you imagine how long it would take to build a new nuclear plant in Northern Virginia? It would be completed on the 12th of Never. Meanwhile, transmission is the only viable option.

PJM's market system didn't work to get generation built in time to meet new need because PJM and FERC had turned it off and were asleep at the switch. Now we have a disaster of epic proportions on our hands.

What's going to happen first? The construction of hotly opposed transmission projects, or the building of new generation? And where will that generation be built? Continuing to build in PA and WV only perpetuates the transmission problem. We need new generation at load. It's probably cheaper than billions of dollars of new transmission, but it takes a willingness to sacrifice for its own benefit on the part of the data center loving states.

New generation is coming to market... and how much of it will obviate the need for new transmission? That's an unknown at this point, but it's going to happen. PJM's transmission project needs will change and fall apart. Let's hold the line, folks! This battle is far from over!

2 Comments

PJM Sets A Precedent

7/15/2024

0 Comments

At its July 9 Transmission Expansion Advisory Committee meeting, PJM proposed a re-route of the MidAtlantic Resiliency Link (MARL). MARL is a giant extension cord for importing West Virginia coal-fired electricity to Loudoun County's "data center alley."

Loudoun County just can't stop approving new data centers, even though it has no way to power them. Now Loudoun's data center addiction is impacting people in other states... people who will have their property taken using eminent domain so that Loudoun can have more electricity for its data centers. Loudoun County is not going to stop building data centers until its voters MAKE them stop building data centers. That would happen in a hot minute if Loudoun County's SACRED COWS were impacted by the data centers.

This is the Sacred Cow Zone. A look at an electric infrastructure map shows a pristine donut hole surrounded by high voltage transmission lines, substations, and generators on all sides. But there's nothing in the Sacred Cow Zone!

What's a Sacred Cow? A person with more money (and therefore more political influence) than you. Examples include Jackie Kennedy, who took umbrage at a proposal to run a power line through her pony club in the Sacred Cow Zone back in the 1960's. Legend has it that caused the line to end up in Jefferson County, West Virginia instead. It's the reason we have that 500kV transmission line right across the middle of our county today. Another example might be the movie stars and their wine-making friends who objected to a different 500kV high-voltage transmission line in the mid 2000s called TrAIL. That line got pushed south into Fauquier County instead of impacting the Sacred Cows.

If you want to nauseate yourself a bit you could read the fakeass "report" the Sacred Cows threw together to plead their case that they are much, much too sacred to be impacted by the MARL. They really think they are much more special than you. Their views! Their wine! Their horses! Their environment! They even claim to be DC's "central park", where harried rich and important people can go to escape the daily grind of grinding the less fortunate into the dirt. If they thought they were going to get some sympathy from that report, I suggest it's time to buy a mirror and take a really good look. Your arrogance is showing and people are laughing at your utter snobbery. Get over yourself!

Because of Jackie Kennedy's pony club and resident movie stars, PJM was also attuned to the history of the Sacred Cow Zone. It created a "work around" re-route up front, and now it has pulled the ejector button before even TRYING to propose a route through Loudoun. It went from this

to this

It's a miracle! The Sacred Cow Zone has been saved again! However, in doing so, other landowners who were not previously affected are now affected. In fact, those landowners in Northern Loudoun will have their property taken using eminent domain to widen the existing right of way, as confirmed by FirstEnergy's representative at the meeting. Those sacrificial lambs get no consideration because they are not rich or important.

You may find it surprising that the Sacred Cow Zone is more important than the C&O Canal National Historical Park! The re-route crosses the C&O twice whereas the original route didn't cross it at all. Let's trash a national historical park that regular people from all over the region visit to escape snobbery and selfishness... in favor of snobbery and selfishness. Is the Sacred Cow Zone really more important than a national park?

What is not really surprising is that the Sacred Cows didn't even think about using their Sacred status to actually help others. Maybe if they did, they wouldn't be sacred anymore? In exchange for continuing their Sacred status, the Cows proclaimed their mission:

To support the overall PJM Regional Transmission Expansion Plan (RTEP) to inter alia supply the rising power needs of the region’s data center industry

Keep that in mind... the Sacred Cows love PJM, transmission lines, and data centers... as long as they are Not In My Back Yard!

And the whole debacle is going to cost all ratepayers in the region $167 MILLION more! We're going to have to pay $167M to keep the Sacred Cows sacred and free from all that nasty infrastructure needed to power the data centers that keep their tax burden low. What a world!

The real irony here may be the fact that a transmission line necessary for Loudoun's data centers has been pushed out of Loudoun and onto landowners in other states.

PJM claims it is not setting a precedent by re-routing a transmission line to spare certain rich and powerful people and dump it on others without the resources to fight back.

How are you enjoying the email bombardment, PJM? The Sacred Cows just couldn't wait to strut their arrogance for the people impacted by the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project and assure them that if they, too, started having a tantrum at PJM that they could have the transmission line moved out of their community, also.

See? I'm already right about that. PJM IS setting a precedent that if you don't want a transmission line in your community you simply have to make some demands and pull the ejector button and you're spared, like magic! But if PJM is NOT setting a precedent, like Stu assured me they were not last week, then PJM is going to have to explain to those folks in Maryland why they are not Sacred Cows that deserve special treatment. What'll it be, PJM?

0 Comments

FirstEnergy Files For Incentives For MARL, Delays Project

7/3/2024

0 Comments

The MidAtlantic Resiliency Link, or MARL, transmission project has been assigned by PJM Interconnection to two different transmission builders. NextEra is assigned to build the majority of it, but FirstEnergy ended up with the portion that runs through Frederick County, VA and Jefferson County, WV.

Long ago, even before PJM ordered MARL, NextEra filed an application for transmission incentives with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. FERC approved them back in January. Nobody bothered to get involved and comment or protest.

Everyone's been treading water, waiting to get more information, but neither NextEra or FirstEnergy has held public meetings to share information with impacted communities. Seems like nobody is in a hurry at all.

Remember that when PJM ordered MARL, it said the project was needed to be operating by June 1, 2027 or else there would be darkness.

Back in May, FirstEnergy finally got around to requesting transmission incentives for its portion of the MARL. It asked FERC to grant it the abandoned plant incentive. Grant of the abandoned plant incentive begins the tally of project costs that can be recovered if the project is abandoned (cancelled) before being built. Anything FirstEnergy spends before receiving this incentive is only eligible to be recovered at 50%. That would mean that FirstEnergy could only collect half of the money it spends on MARL in the case of abandonment. The other half would come out of FirstEnergy's pocket. Fitting, don't you think, since FirstEnergy insisted on being assigned this portion that rebuilds and expands lines FirstEnergy already owns? However, that's not what FirstEnergy asked FERC for... it asked FERC to allow it to recover 100% of whatever it has spent (plus interest) if the project is abandoned.

FERC Commissioner Mark Christie is at war against certain transmission incentives. FERC opened a rulemaking to examine and revise its incentives more than 4 years ago, but has punted it to the side without action, allowing the overly generous incentives to continue.

I'm taking this opportunity to object to FirstEnergy's request for the abandoned plant incentive. Do they really need it, since they were so eager to have this project that they engineered some secret deal behind the scenes at PJM?

NextEra's cost cap for MARL (as crappy as it is) did not transfer to FirstEnergy when it took over this section of the project. FirstEnergy can and will spend however much it wants... currently estimated at $341M for a very short "rebuild" segment. How much will they actually spend, and how soon will they spend it? How much spending is planned *before* state approvals, which if denied can cause abandonment? FERC should place a limit on running up the spending before project approval.

These are the comments I submitted to FERC.

er2401998.pdf
File Size:	112 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

And here's the worst part! As part of their filing, FirstEnergy included a copy of its acceptance letter of PJM's designation of a portion of the MARL. In their acceptance, FirstEnergy has changed the in-service dates for its portion of the MARL. The Virginia portions (both in Frederick and Loudoun counties) are supposed to be in-service by June 1, 2028, delayed a year from the date PJM said they were needed. The in-service date for the West Virginia portion in Jefferson County is delayed until June 1, 2030. That's right... 2030! MARL is not planned to be completed and transmitting energy until 2030! That's six years from now! Are Virginia's data centers going to hang around waiting to build and be connected to the electric grid for another 6 years?

NO! They won't wait. They will go somewhere else where they can build a data center and get electric service before 2030. The bottom may be about to fall out of Virginia's data center craze.

Here's what FirstEnergy's acceptance letter looks like:

potomac_edison_designated_entity_acceptance_letter.pdf
File Size:	339 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

Once the in-service date for PJM's transmission projects starts slipping, it often keeps slipping... right off into oblivion. It can be delayed if expected load doesn't show up (but goes elsewhere). It can be delayed if the utilities run into permitting problems, such as taking a state denial in a NIETC to FERC for permitting. It can be delayed if the utilities have difficulty procuring project components; there is a huge supply chain issue for transmission components right now. It can be delayed if there are issues with land acquisition. It can (and will) be delayed even further. And, as I said in my comments...

MARL’s in-service date is already slipping. Why is that relevant? Because the electric grid abhors a vacuum. When a planned transmission (or generation) project fails to come online when needed, other projects will take its place. That’s exactly what happened with the PATH project, and what is likely to happen with the MARL project, including the Potomac Edison portion that is the subject of this filing.

Giving these transmission companies the greenlight to spend as much of our money as they want before they finally abandon MARL many years in the future is not just and reasonable.

This transmission project may never happen, but PJM and the utilities involved feel they should pursue it anyhow. Is that because there are no other options? Or is it because there’s no harm done to them if it fails. All the burden of failure falls on ratepayers, and this encourages the utilities to take more of a chance than they would it they had some skin in the game. Utilities shoulder no risk, while collecting all the rewards.

Consumers have zero control over the project’s risk factors, but they are the ones left holding the bag when it fails. As consumers, we simply cannot afford to continue to financially cover the failures of grid planners and transmission developers simply because we are the one entity without a voice in incentive awards.

FirstEnergy has asked FERC to approve its incentive request before July 15. Once consumers have thus insured the reimbursement of FirstEnergy's project spending, then maybe FirstEnergy can actually start working on MARL.

But what happens if FERC doesn't grant this incentive? Will FirstEnergy still want to build its part of the MARL? Or will it have to go back to PJM for revision?

Stay tuned...

0 Comments

New FERC Transmission Permitting Rules

5/18/2024

0 Comments

Let's move on to FERC's new rules for permitting transmission projects in a National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor. FERC also released this rule on Monday. It's another instance of FERC batting away any constructive criticism and doubling down on a bad idea. What's in the water down there anyhow?

If the U.S. Department of Energy designates a National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor, and a transmission project is planned for that corridor, first the transmission developer must attempt to get state permits for its project. In the event that a state denies a permit for a project, then the transmission developer can go to FERC, denial in hand, and ask that FERC overrule the state and site and permit the transmission project anyhow.

This may be the situation with MARL, and any other transmission project that DOE creates a corridor for.

FERC was given authority to site and permit transmission as a "backstop" to state inaction back in 2005. FERC subsequently created rules for its process to do so. When Congress changed the "backstop" law in 2021 to allow FERC to permit even when a state denied a project, FERC released a rulemaking to update its process. During the rulemaking, FERC received numerous comments on its proposed rule and suggestions to make it better. Across the board, FERC rejected most of these changes.

If you find yourself in a situation where the project you oppose ends up before FERC, you're going to need to know the rules for participating in that process.

FERC made only one useful concession between its proposed rule and the final rule issued on Monday. The proposed rule allowed a transmission developer to begin the pre-filing process at FERC at the same time it filed its applications with state commissions. That idea, which was widely panned by states and landowners, would have required landowners to participate in the FERC process at the same time as the state process. Two permitting processes, two sets of rules, two sets of lawyers, two sets of headache. All with the knowledge that the FERC process would become unnecessary if the state approved the project. A complete waste of time. However, FERC dumped that proposed rule and now says that a developer cannot begin its pre-filing until one year AFTER it files its state applications. This gives the state a year to complete its permitting before the FERC process begins. At least you won't be engaging in two permitting processes at the same time. However, FERC did not speak to landowners' question regarding whether the FERC process would proceed while state appeals are pending. For instance, if a state denies, the transmission developer could appeal that denial in state court, instead of engaging in the more expensive and lengthy FERC process. Conversely, if a state approved and the landowners appealed that decision, when would the FERC process begin? This means that this process is still subject to being shaped in practice.

The part of FERC's new rule that is truly awful is its insistence that an "Applicant Code of Conduct" will ensure that the transmission owner has "made good faith efforts to engage with landowners and other stakeholders early in the permitting process" as required by the statute.h

FERC has turned this into a box-checking exercise, not an actual determination of whether the transmission developer has complied with any "Code", as specious as it is. The "Code" is generalized garbage and anyone who has ever had to deal with a transmission developer land agent would be able to drive a truck through its many holes. It's not like any "Code of Conduct" you've ever seen used on any transmission project. In fact, it's so short and devoid of any landowner protections, I can copy the whole thing right here. Applications

Ensure that any representative acting on the applicant’s behalf states their full name, title, and employer, as well as the name of the applicant that they represent, and presents a photo identification badge at the beginning of any discussion with an affected landowner, and provides the representative’s and applicant’s contact information, including mailing address, telephone number, and electronic mail address, prior to the end of the discussion.

Ensure that all communications with affected landowners are factually correct. The applicant must correct any statements made by it or any representative acting on its behalf that it becomes aware were:
(i) Inaccurate when made; or
(ii) Have been rendered inaccurate based on subsequent events, within three business days of discovery of any such inaccuracy.

Ensure that communications with affected landowners do not misrepresent the status of the discussions or negotiations between the parties. Provide an affected landowner upon request a copy of any discussion log entries that pertain to that affected landowner’s property.

Provide affected landowners with updated contact information whenever an applicant’s contact information changes.

Communicate respectfully with affected landowners and avoid harassing, coercive, manipulative, or intimidating communications or high-pressure tactics.

Except as otherwise provided by State, Tribal, or local law, abide by an affected landowner’s request to end the communication or for the applicant or its representative to leave the affected landowner’s property.

Except as otherwise provided by State, Tribal, or local law, obtain an affected landowner’s permission prior to entering the property, including for survey or environmental assessment, and leave the property without argument or delay if the affected landowner revokes permission.

Refrain from discussing an affected landowner’s communications or negotiations status with any other affected landowner.

Provide the affected landowner with a copy of any appraisal that has been prepared by, or on behalf of, the applicant for that affected landowner’s property, if any, before discussing the value of the property in question.

That's all the "protection" you get. As long as a transmission developer files this and says it will follow it, then the box is checked and the transmission developer is "acting in good faith" no matter what it does. "Avoiding" certain behavior is not the same as prohibiting it.

Compare this crappy "protection" to what a group of experienced transmission opponents asked FERC to do in their comments.

impacted_landowner_comments.pdf
File Size:	620 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

You can expect to experience the same things landowners described in their comments, not FERC's rosy "landowner protections," which do little to actually protect landowners. FERC believes that its "success" permitting natural gas pipelines will ensure landowners are treated fairly in the process. If FERC's future permitting of electric transmission lines is anything like it's prior permitting for natural gas pipelines, we'd all better learn the words to this song:

FERC has chosen to become, in the words of Impacted Landowners, "...just another flashpoint that draws protestors to the Commission’s headquarters because the people understand they have been stripped of the last vestige of any fair process to defend their rights by a federal agency captured by the industry it is supposed to regulate."

See you at FERC, friends. Bring your singing voice!

0 Comments

Catalyzing Conflict

5/18/2024

0 Comments

Lots of people concerned about the U.S. Department of Energy's preliminary National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETC) attended DOE's webinar on Thursday afternoon. The DOE gals were just so enthusiastic and CHEERY about the whole thing, like little hens proudly showing off their chicks. Don't they realize what these enormous "corridors" represent to their audience? They represent appropriation and forced taking of private property. Nobody was buying the forced cheer. One person asked me if it was some sort of public relations stunt. I received a lot of comments afterwards, none of them good. Is DOE really that detached from the reality of their actions? The whole shebang was nothing but a clueless charade.

One of them said NIETCs were "likely to catalyze" new transmission, but the only thing being catalyzed on Thursday afternoon was confusion and anger. It was only DOE's hubris that made them think they could manipulate all the victims into advocacy, or at least acceptance.

Here's DOE's idea of the "impact" of designation.

Let's concentrate on the graphics they used. Profits (for transmission developers) are solved by making deals. The words weren't necessary. Clueless. Absolutely no thought about how their presentation may be perceived by the public.

These corridors are supposed to facilitate "national energy policy" which, at this time, is supposed to be carbon reduction. But then there was this:

One of these projects is NOT for clean energy... at all. In fact, it will increase carbon emissions by sourcing new energy for Northern Virginia's data centers from coal-fired generators in West Virginia. How did that get on the list? And where has DOE proven anything on this chart? Truth is that building this much transmission is only going to cause consumer costs to go up. Adding new costs does not result in lower prices. It's all made up.

And how about those not-to-scale, featureless maps?

Those lines are supposed to be two miles wide, but they're much, much bigger as shown on the maps. We need accurate maps or written descriptions of the corridors so we can figure out where exactly they are supposed to be. And where did all those new segments come from, exactly? This isn't one transmission project, it's many. How much coal power does DOE think data centers need? Who asked DOE to plan these additional routes that PJM rejected last year?

DOE says it received information from "the public" or maybe it was "interested parties" in Phase 1 of its process that created these corridors, but we're not allowed to see any of it. When your government is conspiring behind closed doors with corporations who stand to profit from these plans, what's the point of public consultation anyhow?

Here's a little reality for DOE.

DOE is not a grid planner. It doesn't have the knowledge, expertise, or authority. None of DOE's corridor plans have to be used for new transmission. It's just a corporate wish list.

DOE is not a transmission regulator. It has no authority to permit anything in these made up corridors. There is no guarantee that state utility commissions, or even FERC, will agree that these corridors are transmission that needs to be built.

DOE is not a transmission router. It has no knowledge, expertise or authority to site transmission projects. There's a lot more than drawing lines on a map that goes into routing transmission lines. It is likely that DOE made a bunch of huge and unrecoverable mistakes within these corridors that prevent transmission from ever being sited within.

The veneer of DOE's charade was pretty thin for me on Thursday. I wonder if they would be so cheery if they knew that there's little chance of their scheme surviving regulatory and judicial review? But pretending to be serious academics who have all the answers sure was fun, wasn't it?

0 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.

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:

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.
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.
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.
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.
Diversification of electric supply.
Energy independence and security. Defense and homeland security.
National energy policy (not defined).
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.
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.
Environmental and historic sites.
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.
Water use and quality, wetlands.
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
Cultural resources – Historic, tribal, other.
Socioeconomics – impacts on property, income, quality of life, use of eminent domain.
“Communities of interest” – environmental justice, racial disparities, income disparities, energy burden.
Geologic – Karst, abandoned mines.
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.
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.
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).
Alternatives – suggest alternatives to this corridor, whether it is different design, different routing, or different power source.
Public safety – hazards to community from weather or operational failure or terrorist attack, health hazards from electromagnetic fields and stray voltage.
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...

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

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!

4 Comments

<<Previous

Landowners Come Last

Loudoun Pushes Data Center Burden Onto Neighboring States

How PJM and FERC Caused Huge Spikes in Regional Power Bills and New Transmission

PJM Sets A Precedent

FirstEnergy Files For Incentives For MARL, Delays Project

New FERC Transmission Permitting Rules

Catalyzing Conflict

Guidance For NIETC Comments for Mid-Atlantic Corridor

Making Effective Comment on NIETCs

DOE Releases Preliminary List of NIETCs

About the Author

About
StopPATH Blog

Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
Email me

Archives

Categories

About the Author

AboutStopPATH Blog

Archives

Categories

About
StopPATH Blog