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 

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.

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!

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?

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.

Our power appetite is bigger than our power supply.  The "renewable transition" isn't working.  We are losing large baseload power generators and not replacing them and we're adding too much load.  Our electric system is not sustainable.  It's a simple math equation.

Back in January I was contacted by a reporter from the Washington Post who had been writing about the proliferation of data centers in Northern Virginia and wanted to investigate how Virginia's out-of-control building was impacting people in surrounding states.  Virginia's data center problem is no longer just Virginia's problem.  It has now spread to the entire 14 state PJM Interconnection region.

​Here's his story that began back in January.

​For us, the story began last summer when we found out about PJM's transmission plan for multiple new high-voltage transmission lines to import more power to data center alley.  We followed it through PJM's planning process and though we protested and asked for other solutions, PJM approved three new 500kV transmission lines and a whole bunch of smaller segments and substations.  During PJM's TEAC meetings, I remarked several times that the new transmission was feeding from existing legacy coal plants in West Virginia and was actually increasing emissions and in no way helping the "renewable transition."  Every time I mentioned it, PJM was quick to claim that the new electric supply would come from "all resources, including renewables."  PJM seemed rather sensitive about the reality of its plan and vehemently denied it.  Deny this article, PJM.  It's all there in living color.

Virginia has renewable energy laws that prohibit the building of new fossil fuel generation (gas, coal).  But yet Virginia is building an incredible amount of new data centers that use outrageous amounts of power that is simply not available on the current system.  Virginia's renewable energy plan is a virtue signaling lie.  Instead of building the electric generation it needs, Virginia intends to IMPORT electricity from surrounding states, even coal-fired power from West Virginia.  ESPECIALLY coal-fired power from West Virginia.  How is Virginia's "renewable energy" law cleaning up the environment?  It's not.  It's making the situation worse.

After Tony started working on this story for the Washington Post, FirstEnergy made an announcement that bolstered what I had been saying... PJM's transmission plan is increasing the production of coal-fired electricity in West Virginia.  FirstEnergy announced it was abandoning its goal to decrease its carbon emissions by 2030 by throttling back its Ft. Martin and Harrison coal-fired power plants near Morgantown.  FirstEnergy said it was necessary to abandon that goal because those resources were necessary to provide reliability in PJM.   In other words, FirstEnergy will throttle up its electricity production at those plants in order to provide supply to PJM's new transmission line that begins at the nearby 502 Junction substation and ends at No. Va.'s data center alley in Loudoun County.  Ft. Martin and Harrison directly connect to 502 Junction via dedicated 500kV transmission lines.  Also connecting directly to 502 Junction is the Longview coal-fired power plant in Morgantown and AEP's Mitchell coal-fired power plant in West Virginia's northern panhandle.  It's more than 5,000 MW of hot and dirty coal-fired electricity and if the line is constructed it's heading right for Northern Virginia, along with some smog and air pollution.  Data Centers are filthy!  And PJM is a filthy liar.

Along the way to No. Va., PJM's new coal-by-wire extension cord will expand existing transmission rights-of-way closer to homes, schools, parks and businesses.  Expanding existing easements makes it impossible for the utility to avoid sensitive things like they could if they were siting a new corridor.  Anyone living along the existing corridor, like the Gee family, is going to be steamrolled right over. 

The "using existing rights-of-way" propaganda is another huge PJM lie I brought up over and over during TEAC meetings.  It's a new easement all the way because it cannot be constructed within the existing corridor.

And guess what?  Along with new pollution and new land acquisition using eminent domain, West Virginians will PAY for this destruction/construction in higher electric bills, along with every other ratepayer in the PJM region.

And we get NOTHING for our trouble.  Virginia gets new tax revenue building things they can't power while crowing about how "clean" Virginia is, and the rest of us get the impacts and the bill.  We're NOT your sacrifice zone.

Washington Post reporter Tony Olivo did a fantastic job investigating and reporting on this story.  He spent a day with us here in Jefferson County and drove from one end of the county to the other meeting people, and Washington Post photographer Sal got lots of photos and drone footage along the way.  Then these two guys drove all the way out to 502 Junction and Morgantown to do the same there.  They spent an enormous amount of time on this story and it shows.

One of my favorite images in the story is the new solar "farm" near Charles Town taken from the drone.  It shows how the company building it scraped off all the vegetation and top soil and left nothing but bare earth and erosion that is killing the Shenandoah River.  Clean energy ain't so clean, is it?

And let's talk about that "clean energy", shall we?  Wind and solar cannot create the amount of electricity needed for new data centers, even if they cover Virginia with turbines and panels from end to end.  The data centers need a plentiful and reliable supply they can only get from fossil fuels.  A few solar panels on the roof of the data center won't do a thing to cure this problem.  It may only keep the lights on in the restroom... during the day.  Renewables cannot power our energy intensive society.  We're not replacing the generation we're shutting down in the name of carbon reduction, and there's no chance that we can ever catch up at this point.  Data centers are too big a drain and Virginia can't stop building them.

If you have any doubts, check out the Generation Fuel Mix pie chart on PJM's website at any time.  Renewables provide only a tiny slice of PJM's power supply and it will never change as long as we keep increasing power load with new data centers.

Bravo to Washington Post for exposing Virginia's dirty data center reality!

​And let's get to work, Jefferson County.  We've got a power line to stop!

In our last episode of the FERC cost allocation soap opera, we saw a record number of intervenors for this kind of case, and were left breathlessly waiting for FERC to act.

FERC acted on April 8.  ​

As expected FERC approved PJM's cost allocation filing because projects necessary for reliability are allocated across the region, as PJM proposed.  An attack on the existing cost allocation formula for reliability projects is outside the scope of the proceeding because the formula was approved by FERC long ago.  The only thing FERC was considering here was whether PJM's cost allocations were in line with its approved formula.

Maryland's Office of People's Council tried to make the argument that PJM selected the wrong formula and that the projects were actually public policy projects that should be allocated 100% to the state whose public policy is causing the need for the projects.  FERC rebuffed that argument.

It's all over, save for the requests for rehearing or appeals.  This may happen, but that's a drama for another episode.

But all is not lost, avid followers.  Commissioner Mark Christie filed a delightful concurrence and opined 

However, the other two commissioners apparently weren't feeling it, with Commissioner Clements filing her own concurrence stating that she believes FERC should assign costs based on the allocation of reliability and economic (and perhaps other demonstrable) benefits.  In her world, it doesn't matter who causes the reliability issue or why... just that if one is created, everyone pays for it.

Commissioner Christie's concurrence is logical and thoughtful. 

But it's not just Virginia causing transmission projects that get allocated to other states, Maryland also gets called out for its "clean energy" policies and the costs for new transmission to take the place of closing coal-fired generators.

I agree with what Commissioner Christie didn't say... both Virginia and Maryland are hypocrites when it comes to cost allocation.  Neither one wants to accept the costs of transmission made necessary only by their state policies.  Instead, when it benefits them, they want to share the costs with other states whose residents had no part in creating the policies that cause new transmission, like approving more data centers than you can power, or shutting down all your baseload generation and relying on transmission imports from other states to keep your lights on.

Here's the cliffhanger for this episode... Will Commissioner Christie be successful in opening some sort of inquiry or investigation into cost allocation policies when reliability issues are caused by certain state policies?  He seems pretty determined to solve this issue.  Commissioner Christie's concern for ratepayers above all else is much appreciated, especially considering the political swamp he wades through every day to regulate in the public interest.  Regulation is an art, a skill, that comes with a huge learning curve.  We need more experienced state regulators like Commissioner Christie at FERC, and less political appointments.  FERC's work is too impactful to rest in the hands of political animals.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is due to release its preliminary list of National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETC) that it is considering any day now.  In order to understand what an NIETC is and how you can participate in the process of designation, let's take a look back at the history of NIETCs.

In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress passed legislation to give the DOE authority to study electric transmission congestion and designate NIETCs that would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) jurisdiction to site and permit an electric transmission line in the event that a state either did not have the authority to approve a transmission line or failed to act on an application for a transmission line for one year.  This became known as "Backstop Permitting."  States traditionally have authority and jurisdiction to regulate the siting and permitting of new transmission lines within their borders.  This hasn't changed, but now there was a backstop measure to prevent a state from holding up a needed transmission project.

The legislation tasked FERC with developing rules for its backstop permitting process and FERC did so.  FERC interpreted the statute to mean if a state denied an application for a transmission project then it bumped permitting to FERC.  But that's not what the statute said!  Piedmont Environmental Council and several states appealed FERC's rulemaking in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The Court found that state denial did not activate backstop permitting in PEC v. FERC.  This allowed states to deny a permit to build transmission and end the matter.

Meanwhile, DOE had performed its congestion study and designated two huge corridors, one in the southwest, and one along the east coast stretching from New York to Virginia.  The designation of those corridors was also appealed in the Ninth Circuit and the Court vacated the corridors due to DOE's failure to consult with states and its failure to perform an environmental assessment on the huge corridors it had designated.  That decision is California Wilderness Coalition v. DOE.

These two court decisions made DOE's NIETC program effectively worthless and the entire thing was put on a shelf and forgotten about.  But, in 2021, Congress passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that contained a section that is meant to cure the problems with NIETCs, reviving the program. In addition to broadening the reasons for designating a corridor, the new statute allows FERC to site and permit a transmission project in an NIETC that is denied by a state.  The law tells states -- either approve it or FERC will do it for you.  It does not take the place of state permitting, the states still have authority to site and permit, as long as they don't say "no."  Transmission projects cannot go directly to FERC without first applying at the state and going through the state permitting process.

DOE has been busy trying to revive its NIETC program ever since.  In May of 2023, DOE issued a Notice of Intent and Request for Information proposing a new procedure for designating transmission corridors.  DOE proposed that it accept applications from transmission builders to designate a NIETC that corresponded with transmission they wanted to build.  That's not what the statute says... it says

It says DOE must study and designate corridors, not farm it out for suggestions from for-profit transmission builders to come up projects that provide profits.  The DOE is supposed to be studying and designating corridors that accomplish the criteria in the study and benefit consumers.  There can be a huge difference between a project proposed simply for profit and one that is actually needed by consumers.  Designating corridors is supposed to be a government tool to incentivize the building of the right kind of beneficial projects.  If DOE thinks (all by itself) that a project is needed, then it designates a corridor that will attract transmission builders to propose a new project in the corridor.  Instead, DOE is, as I mentioned in my comments to the DOE, allowing the inmates to run the asylum.  And I wasn't the only one, DOE received more than 100 comments on its proposal for designating NIETCs.  Many commenters also thought allowing transmission builders to apply for NIETCs was a bad idea. Some thought DOE should perform a legal rulemaking to set parameters for its new program.

Meanwhile, DOE had been working on a National Transmission Needs Study required by the statute as the first step to designating NIETCs.  That study was published in October 2023.  The study found transmission congestion everywhere, meaning that NIETCs were needed everywhere.  Many comments were also submitted panning that study.  Mine are posted here.

In December 2023, DOE released a "Guidance" document on NIETCs, in lieu of the requested Rulemaking.  The Guidance says that it changed DOE's approach to allowing transmission builders to apply for NIETC corridors.  Instead, DOE opened a 60-day window for any person to submit a request for a corridor.  Supposedly this cured the DOE's problem with allowing transmission builders to control the process.  But it really doesn't.  Who else would submit a request for a corridor but a transmission builder?  It's a legal sleight of hand that is due a day of reckoning.  

Many blog readers got involved in NIETC at this point and attended DOE's webinar explaining its process in early January.  DOE was not really forthcoming about all the process that came before that webinar, but hopefully this blog will help you to understand that this didn't just drop out of the sky, but had been in process for more than a year.

DOE's 60-day window for submission of "information and recommendations" for corridors ended on February 2.  Many thought this was the one and only comment period for NIETCs, but it was actually designed for transmission builders to submit requests for DOE to study corridors to correspond with the projects they want to build.  After DOE's window closed, it began to take a preliminary look at the corridor recommendations it has received and promised to release a list of corridors it was considering within 60 days (which would be April 2).  DOE hasn't released anything yet, we are still waiting.

However, NextEra notified Piedmont Environmental Council that it had applied for a corridor in Western Loudoun for its MARL project.  I'm pretty sure that is not the extent of NextEra's corridor proposal... the corridor will cover the entire MARL transmission line, from 502 Junction substation in Pennsylvania to Data Center Alley.  It makes no sense to request a corridor for only part of a transmission project.  However, we will have to wait and see what DOE's list looks like before we proceed with our own response.

Our own response?  Oh yes, anyone can make comment on DOE's list for 45-days after it is released due to the way DOE expanded who may submit "recommendations."  I urge you to read DOE's Guidance, that separates the designation process into four phases.  Phase 1 began in December, when anyone (like NextEra) could submit recommendations for corridors.  Phase 2 begins when DOE releases its list of preliminary corridors to be studied.  In the 45-day Phase 2 window, any person may submit information and recommendations.  DOE is asking for specific information about each preliminary corridor.  It seems to be intended for transmission builders who submitted recommendations for corridors in Phase 1 to supplement their applications, err... "recommendations."  It does not seem to be intended for people concerned about the designation of an NIETC to submit their own information and recommendations, but we're going to crash this party and give DOE an earful about corridors that concern us.  More information about how to participate will be forthcoming after I see DOE's list.  After the 45-day Phase 2 process, DOE will decide which corridors will proceed to Phase 3.  Phase 3 opens the federal environmental study process required by NEPA.  DOE will also evaluate historical resources and endangered species.  During Phase 3, DOE will create a draft designation report and open it to public comment.  Phase 3 requires "robust" public engagement and notification.  This is where DOE wants you to join its NIETC party and make comment, and comes very late in the process, after DOE has already made up its mind in the draft designation report.  When all the studies and comment periods are complete, DOE will move onto Phase 4.  Phase 4 publishes a completed environmental study and DOE's Record of Decision and final Designation Report.  That's the end of the process.

However, a designation may be appealed, first through a Request for Rehearing at DOE, and afterwards through a formal appeal in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals (or other circuit where the transmission builder is headquartered).

Is it worth engaging in the NIETC process?  Absolutely!  Unfortunately it is just one more thing to deal with and will play out during the state permitting process for MARL.  If you do nothing on NIETC, you risk all your hard work opposing MARL at your state utility commission being for naught.  If your work in the state process causes the state to deny a permit, NIETC can bump it to FERC and start the permitting process all over again.

And speaking of FERC, it also needs to update its process for permitting transmission projects in a designated NIETC.  Back in 2005, FERC engaged in a rulemaking for a permitting process.  That rulemaking has to be updated for the new process.  FERC opened a rulemaking proceeding for siting and permitting transmission in a NIETC back in 2022.  The comment window closed way back in May of 2023.  However, FERC has not yet issued an order or taken any further action.  FERC cannot accept any applications for NIETC projects until it completes its rulemaking.  A group of nationwide transmission opponents submitted timely comments on FERC's rulemaking.  You can read their initial comments here, and their reply comments here.  This group was the only one to speak up for impacted landowners at FERC.  You can read other comments on the docket and monitor its progress by going to FERC's eLibrary and searching for Docket No. RM22-7.

As you can tell from the length of this blog post, NIETCs have been quietly in the works for a long time and there are a lot of moving parts.  I know it's a lot to understand all at once, that's why I will be publishing some guidelines for landowners who want to kick NIETCs to the curb just as soon as DOE releases its Phase 2 list.  

​Stay tuned!

Regional utility FirstEnergy announced on Friday that it was abandoning its  interim 2030 climate goal.

And why is that, exactly?  Well, here's as close to the truth as FirstEnergy wants to get:

The climate goal has been eliminated because FirstEnergy cannot reduce emissions at its Fort Martin and Harrison coal-fired power plants in West Virginia.  And why did FirstEnergy think it could reduce emissions in 2020, only to backpedal less than 4 years later and abandon its interim goal?  What changed in late 2023?  What are the PJM "resource adequacy" and "state energy policy initiatives" that made FirstEnergy abandon its 2030 goal?

​This!

PJM's new transmission project designed to help import 7,500 MW of energy to Loudoun County Virginia's "Data Center Alley."  Virginia keeps approving new data centers and local utilities do not have enough electricity available to power them.  PJM designed a new long-distance extension cord that plugs the data centers into new sources of power beginning at the 502 Junction substation in southwestern Pennsylvania.  

Of course, substations do not generate electricity.  They serve as traffic circles to direct energy in different directions via high-voltage transmission lines.  PJM's new transmission snarl, err I meant to say MARL (MidAtlantic Resiliency Link), begins at 502 Junction substation and ends at the new Aspen substation in Data Center Alley.  But what generation sources are connected to 502 Junction that can be directed to Data Center Alley?  I'll give you two guesses...

That's right... the two generators at which FirstEnergy can no longer reduce emissions are directly connected to 502 Junction.

The red lines on the map are existing 500kV transmission lines that connect Harrison and Ft. Martin directly to 502 Junction.  The new MARL project will take it from there, right to data centers in Loudoun County.

This is the reason FirstEnergy has abandoned its 2030 interim greenhouse gas goal.  In late 2023, PJM approved MARL.  PJM approved the project due to 7500 MW of new data center load and the retirement of 11,000 MW of fossil fuel generation in its eastern region.  Resource adequacy and state energy policy initiatives at work.

So, what does this mean?  It means that instead of reducing the greenhouse gas spewed into the West Virginia air from FirstEnergy's Ft. Martin and Harrison power stations, FirstEnergy is going to be increasing their carbon emissions.  All for benefit of No. Va.'s data centers and the selfish and destructive state energy policies of Virginia and its neighbors.

Northern Virginians who keep approving data centers despite knowing there is no way to power them without imports from West Virginia are directly responsible *COMPLICIT* in increased air pollution, health and environmental impacts caused by continued mining and burning of coal in West Virginia.

Why is this okay?

Don't turn away from this.  OWN IT.  Don't blame your elected officials or throw up your hands in despair.  Make your elected officials OWN IT.  Make them publicly say that it's okay to increase carbon emissions to power the data centers they approve.  Of course they won't.  FirstEnergy has just handed you a sledgehammer to stop data center sprawl.  Use it.

Every time you turn on a light switch in Northern Virginia, you are increasing carbon emissions.  That's right... the coal-fired power from West Virginia won't just power the data centers... it will power all of Northern Virginia.  Give your climate guilt a great big hug, it's going to be your constant companion for years.

PJM's new transmission plans to power data centers in Northern Virginia are going to increase carbon emissions.  End of story.