Project title:  Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway (MAPP)

Project description:  Exelon is proposing a 230 mile, 500 kV AC / 400 kV DC high-voltage transmission line originating in Northern Virginia, crossing Maryland, traveling up the Delmarva Peninsula and terminating in southern New Jersey.

When four representatives of National Grid came before Concord City Council on Monday to start the long process of expanding a power line through the state bringing electricity from HydroQuebec, they soon encountered a ghost.

“Our community still suffers from PTSD with regard to Northern Pass,” Councilor Jennifer Kretovic told them. “When you mention the words HydroQuebec, that will automatically raise concern.”

The four representatives nodded glumly.

Component title:  Fort Martin - Doubs 500 kV #1 Line

Project description:  Construct ~158 miles of new 500 kV line from Fort Martin Substation to Doubs Substation.Terminate the new transmission line and revise relay settings at Doubs and Fort Martin substations.Install fiber OPGW along the new line route. The construction of this new line will require the acquisition of 158 miles of new right-of-way, forestry clearing, permitting, and access road construction. Re-terminate the Bismark 500 kV Line at Doubs Substation. Aerial LiDAR will be required. This new transmission line will require Proposal Components 1 (Doubs Substation - Install500 kV Breaker), 2 (Doubs Substation - Expand 500 kV), and 4 (Fort Martin Substation - Install 500kV Breaker) to be completed.

This new 500 kV line will be constructed in West Virginia, Virginia, and Maryland. Full Applications will be required in each state. - It is assumed that the new 500 kV line will parallel existing ROW for approximately (85.6) miles and require (74.4) miles of new ROW not adjacent to existing ROW. It is assumed that no existing lines will be overbuilt with double circuit structures, but existing line rebuilds will be considered where applicable. - Approximately (695) parcels will be affected by the line route. Assumed 5% condemnation (35 parcels).

The right-of-way width is assumed to be 200 ft. This width is based on the widest ROW needed for 500 kV and does not account for structure configuration or span lengths. Widths needed may vary upon final design.

The new Fort Martin-Doubs #1 500 kV Line will be constructed on double circuit 500 kV tubular steel monopole and two-Pole structures. The second 500 kV circuit is to be left vacant and installed at a future date. - The average span length is 1200 ft. - It is assumed that the new double circuit monopole structures will have an average height of 180 ft. Final structure heights will need to be determined during project development. FAA filing and application may be required. - The new structures will utilize custom 500 kV V-string and double I-string suspension and dead-end insulator assemblies.

This new 500 kV line provides a direct connection from the west side of the system to the east side. - This new line provides the ability to install a second Fort Martin - Doubs 500 kV Line on the same structures, without additional right-of-way acquisition. - This new line route will provide the opportunity to loop the Fort Martin - Doubs 500 kV Line into Bedington and/or Black Oak substations in the future, if necessary for reliability or resiliency. - Greenfield construction is assumed due to outage constraints, but existing rights-of-way and corridors to rebuild lower voltage lines will be considered where applicable.

Component title:  Meadow Brook - Doubs 500 kV Line

Project description:  Construct 55.3 miles of new 500 kV line from Meadow Brook Substation to Doubs Substation.Terminate the new transmission line and revise relay settings at Doubs and Meadow Brook substations. Install fiber along the new line route. The construction of this new line will require the acquisition of 55.3 miles of new right-of-way, forestry clearing, permitting, and access road construction. Re-terminate the Meadow Brook - Loudon & Meadow Brook - Front Royal 500 kV lines at Meadow Brook Substation. Aerial LiDAR will be required. This new transmission line wil lrequire Proposal Components 1 (Doubs Substation - Install 500 kV Breaker), Component 2 (Doubs Substation - Expand 500 kV), and Component 3 (Meadow Brook Substation - Expand 500 kV) to be completed.

This new 500 kV line will be constructed in Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland. Full Applications will be required in each state. - It is assumed that the new line will parallel existing ROW for approximately (22.8) miles and require (32.5) miles of new ROW not adjacent to existing ROW. It is assumed that no existing lines will be overbuilt with double circuit structures, but existing line rebuilds will be considered where applicable. - Approximately (146) parcels will be affected by thel ine route. Assumed 5% condemnation (7 parcels).

The right-of-way width is assumed to be 200 ft. This width is based on the widest ROW needed for 500 kV and does not account for structure configuration or span lengths. Widths needed can vary upon final design.

This new line will be constructed on single circuit 500 kV tubular steel monopole structures with an average span length of 1200 ft. - The new structures will utilize custom 500 kV V-string and double I-string suspension and dead-end insulator assemblies. - New single circuit structures will have an average height of 150 ft.

This new 500 kV Line will provide an additional and much shorter electrical path between Meadow Brook and Doubs linking the Black Oak-Bedington corridor with the 'AP South' corridor. - Greenfield construction is assumed due to outage constraints, but existing rights-of-way and corridors to rebuild lower voltage lines will be considered where applicable.

On January 24, 2020, the Commission issued Opinion No. 554-A, its Order On Rehearing, Directing Briefs, And Accepting In Part And Rejecting In Part Compliance Filings in this proceeding. The Commission arbitrarily and capriciously ruled that Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline (“PATH”) should re-recover its costs for its civic and political expenditures and General Advertising, completely reversing and contradicting its own
findings in Opinion No. 554 issued on January 19, 2017, and in violation of PATH’s approved
Formula Rate.  Opinion No. 554-A erroneously interprets the Commission’s existing accounting regulations, specifically exempting PATH’s expenses from Account 426.4 based on unstated and unwritten requirements, and introduces regulatory uncertainty. It also unduly intrudes into state jurisdiction by encouraging transmission owners to compromise the integrity of the state regulatory process at ratepayer expense. Opinion 554-A is based on substantial legal error, not supported by substantial record evidence, and is not the product of reasoned decision making for benefit of the ratepayers that the Commission serves. The Opinion is an extremely belated action that harms consumers and can only be deemed arbitrary and capricious and not the product of reasoned decision-making.

The Commission issued a well-reasoned and well-supported accounting determination in this proceeding in 2017. It followed that Opinion with further written guidance on calculating refunds (even going so far as to create spreadsheets for PATH to fill out), and an additional Order on compliance filings that required PATH to make additional refunds of advertising costs, or explain them in accordance with its Formula Rate. We note that the three Commissioners sitting today concurred in that Order. The refunds have been accomplished and the matter was headed for closure. If the Commission had concerns about its Opinion No. 554, it was not
evident during that time period. The Commission spent plenty of time making sure the refunds ordered were carried out, but could not find the time to consider PATH’s Request for Rehearing until after the refunds were accomplished.

What changed? The expenditures did not change. The Commission’s accounting regulations did not change. The Commission’s precedent did not change. The Commission’s
opinion is the only thing that changed. The Commission did not choose to clarify its previous opinion. It did not choose to modify its previous opinion. It did not choose to change its regulations to effect new policy in a separate proceeding. It chose to completely flip-flop on its prior opinion in a poorly supported new opinion, reverse its findings, and deem the expenditures recoverable using arguments and precedent that it initially rejected in Opinion No. 554. This is the epitome of an arbitrary and capricious action. The Commission appears to be fighting itself
here, not making well-reasoned decisions in the interest of the consumers it serves.

Therefore, in accordance with Rule 713 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 C.F.R. § 385.713 (2016), Keryn Newman and Alison Haverty, parties pro se, submit this Request for Rehearing. The Commission should reverse Opinion No. 554-A and restore its findings in Opinion No. 554, approve compliance filings for amounts already refunded to ratepayers, and reestablish the regulatory certainty it once provided to the entities it regulates through long-standing precedent and guidance provided by its accounting regulations.

We began by wondering what had changed in the intervening years between Opinion No. 554 and Opinion No. 554-A. The only answer we can find is a clear instance of confirmation
bias where limited examination of the record, regulations, and precedent was performed to
support granting PATH’s Request for Rehearing. It’s almost like the Commission made the decision to grant PATH’s request in isolation, and then went on a futile search to find (or simply invent) support for its decision later. Opinion No. 554-A is an arbitrary and capricious decision by the Commission, completely unhinged from evidence, regulations, or precedent. This is a hallmark of a captured regulatory agency making arbitrary decisions in favor of those it regulates, and not based upon an impartial evaluation of the law for the benefit of the consumers it exists to serve. This is not regulation in the public interest.

We hereby request that the Commission set this matter for rehearing and restore its findings made in Opinion No. 554.