Ever feel like the filling in a tuna sandwich?  The "stuff" inside an Oreo?  Well, that's exactly what you are if you're on the Jefferson County section of PJM's 502 Junction to Goose Creek transmission project.  We're being sandwiched between NextEra's MARL on the western side, and FirstEnergy's Gore-Doubs-Goose Creek project on the eastern side.  We're the one remaining area without any maps or information.  Apparently we're being saved for last because we're the ones FirstEnergy is most worried about.  We're the ones who are supposed to remain compliant and in the dark because FirstEnergy has not given us any notice.  Well, wake up folks, this is your notice!

FirstEnergy has finally emerged from their bat cave to disseminate public information about the eastern half of the project.  As I told you several weeks ago, FirstEnergy is calling the eastern half of MARL the melodious Gore-Doubs-Goose Creek project.  You can continue to call it MARL if you like.  It doesn't matter what you call it, as long as you don't call it late for the financial incentives buffet (haw, haw, haw).

But, FirstEnergy is only willing to share information about the Maryland part of its project, and says it wants to file an application with the Maryland PSC by the end of the year.

Despite PJM's empty promises about "using existing rights of way" for eastern MARL, FirstEnergy is planning to expand existing easements and acquire more property.

Fact sheet?  What fact sheet?  Maybe it's on their website?  What website?  The only information you're going to get is going to be in person at the ONE and ONLY "Open House" FirstEnergy is holding for this project.

A public information session on the project is scheduled for June 11 from 6 to 8 p.m. at the Upper Montgomery County Volunteer Fire Department in Beallsville.

This is your only chance to get information.  Be there.

Meanwhile FirstEnergy continues to slink around, approaching landowners with predatory proposals before giving them complete information about the project.

Don't just sit there.  Do something!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now take a deep breath.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We've had multiple reports recently that FirstEnergy (possibly masquerading as your local electric company, Potomac Edison) has been sneaking around Jefferson County, knocking on doors and trying to get landowners to sign permission forms allowing the utility to perform its "surveys" outside the existing easement, on the landowner's property instead.  It has also been reported that people are being approached by telephone.

One person even reported that the utility representative said the company would be seeking to expand its easement and he would be delivering an offer soon.

Just say NO!

You are not required to permit the company on your property... and that is why they need your permission to do it.  Don't give away your property rights like that!

What's a survey?  In addition to the normal metes and bounds survey you're probably thinking about, transmission developers also want to do environmental, historic, cultural, and geotechnical surveys.  The environmental surveys are looking for the presence of certain bats, or turtles, or other endangered species.  They are also looking for wetlands and other land features.  They are looking for historic resources.  They want to dig and perform archeological surveys.  And they want to bring large equipment on your property and drill core samples to see if it's possible to anchor a giant transmission tower foundation 30 feet down.  Sometimes, they need to cut trees and vegetation to get a line of sight (or so they've told the landowner).  If you want to open your property up to a parade of people using it for transmission development surveys, then go ahead and sign their form.  Otherwise, tell them to get lost and come back when they have a permit from the West Virginia Public Service Commission (WV PSC) in their hand.

FirstEnergy does NOT have a permit from the WV PSC at this time.  In fact, FirstEnergy has not yet even applied for a permit.  In order to apply for a permit, the company is required to undertake community engagement (dissemination of project information to the public such as meetings, routes and maps, newspaper articles, a website, informational mailers).  FirstEnergy hasn't even done that yet.  Instead, it wants to divide and conquer landowners, keep them isolated and uninformed, and get them to sign away their rights for pennies on the dollar.

Why is FirstEnergy so afraid of us?  Because last time they tried to build an unneeded transmission line here, they lost!  There's power in numbers and information sharing between neighbors.  There's power in grassroots community opposition, and we need to circle the wagons to keep our community safe.  Don't let FirstEnergy's representatives cut you from the herd and isolate you from your neighbors.  Tell them to stop calling and/or get off your property until they have a permit to build their transmission line from the WV PSC.

There's a rhythm to planning and building a new (or even re-built) transmission project.  The FIRST thing the utility usually does in your local community is schmooze your local elected officials and try to get them on their side.  That ship has sailed here in Jefferson -- we beat them to the County Commission and FirstEnergy has provided absolutely ZERO information to our local government. 

​The SECOND thing the utility usually does is to schedule what it calls "Open House" public information "meetings."  They really think one trip around this room is all it takes to turn you from transmission skeptic to transmission advocate!

FirstEnergy has not announced any public meetings yet.  In fact, there's no indication that it ever will happen at all. It seems FirstEnergy has skipped some steps because contacting landowners and asking for permission to survey typically comes AFTER these meetings, the publication of a website, news articles, and community notification through postcards or other mailers.

What kind of dirty deeds and misinformation is FirstEnergy spreading in our community that can't stand the sunlight of public scrutiny?

Over the years, I've assisted communities on so many transmission projects that I've come to know the "utility playbook" for ramming a new transmission project through a resistant community by heart.  However, it seems the utility has updated their playbook lately, and I'm gonna call it "Utility Playbook - Desperation Volume 2.0".  The new volume dispenses with public information and preys on landowners (that's right, I said PREYS) to get then to sign away their rights before they have necessary information to make a reasoned decision.

There's another community to our north in Pennsylvania that seems to be experiencing an identical transmission project information desert populated by the same shady characters approaching landowners and saying the most outrageous things, such as:

Sound familiar?  Or, how about this?

Enticement to sign away your rights to get information?  That's plainly criminal.

FirstEnergy needs to pull its camel nose out from under the wall of Jefferson County's tent.  We're not stupid, and we're not for sale.  Creating an information desert is about the stupidest stunt they could perform.  They must have signed with Charles Ryan again to get such stellar advice!  I know how much FirstEnergy loves to read my blog, so here's a word to the wise.  GET BUSY WITH THE INFORMATION.  THE LONGER YOU WAIT, THE WORSE IT'S GOING TO BE.

And while we're waiting... let's hold our own informational meeting for the community!  Everyone is welcome to join us on April 29 at 7:00 p.m.!  FirstEnergy spies at the meeting will be separated from the herd and given last year's Halloween candy and bottled water from Jefferson County's underground pollution plume.  I can spot you guys a mile away.  Dork has a certain fashion sense that's impossible to hide.   See you there, everyone!

On Friday, Valley Link Transmission filed at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for approval of a formula rate to collect their costs from ratepayers, along with a request to set a Return on Equity (ROE) and additional financial incentives.  They're wasting no time trying to ram their transmission projects through and make a ton of money doing it.

That's right, Valley Link wants to file its state permitting applications within the next few months, even though we've been waiting 18 months for FirstEnergy to take any interest whatsoever in building their section of the 500kV MARL project in Jefferson County.  They're in an awful hurry on Valley Link and landowners and communities are going to be mowed down if they can't keep up.

"Valley Link is committed to collaborating with residents, local governments and other stakeholders in the project communities at every stage of the process."

Well, except this stage.  Valley Link doesn't want you to "collaborate" on their request for FERC incentives or in their rate process.  All the more reason to do it!

Your first task?  Valley Link's 1500 page rate/incentive filing.  Go ahead, take a look.  I hope you understand FERCish.  You don't?  Fortunately, I do so here's a summary of the important points included in this filing.  You are encouraged to intervene and/or file a comment on this proceeding.  Deadline to do so is April 4.

Valley Link is a 765kV transmission project proposed to connect the John Amos coal-fired power station in Putnam County, WV to Loudoun County's "data center alley."  It will cross 14 counties in West Virginia on its way, including Jefferson.  It will require a new 200-foot wide right-of-way for its entire length.  In Jefferson County it is proposed to expand the existing transmission line corridor through the southern part of the county and add a third transmission line to the existing configuration that is surrounded by hundreds of existing homes, schools, businesses, parks, historic resources and even our national parks!

Valley Link's filing asks FERC to grant financial incentives to the project and set up the rate it will use to collect its costs from captive electric customers across the PJM region.  

First, let's examine the incentives Valley Link has requested.  In order to qualify for incentives, the transmission line must be the product of a fair and open transmission planning process.  Competition is an important and required part of this process so that consumer costs may be reduced through competitive cost concessions.  Except there were no such concessions for Valley Link.  They not only bid their projects in at full price, they also did not include any cost caps.  Consumers will pay whatever it costs to build these projects, even though the initial "competitive" bid may have been much lower.  The sky's the limit!  The idea of competitive transmission is that it allows incumbents and non-incumbents to compete on a level playing field to construct the most cost-effective project.  Incumbents hate it because they'd rather not compete at all, and instead be awarded all new transmission in their territory at whatever price they want to charge.  For years after FERC's Order 1000 required competitive transmission windows, incumbents simply declined to participate in region-wide competitive planning, preferring instead to concentrate on smaller projects in their own territory.  PJM's 2022 Window 3 competitive planning process actually allowed several non-incumbent companies to offer cost caps and financial concessions that actually saved ratepayers money, and those projects were selected, much to the chagrin of the incumbents.  But they weren't about to be fooled again, so they created an incumbent cartel and agreed not to compete with each other so that none of them had to make any financial concessions.  If they didn't compete with each other, they could create ostensibly "joint" projects that shut out all competitors and took control of PJM's Planning Process.  And that's how we got Valley Link's $3B project portfolio, with no limit on how much these projects might eventually cost.  Who does that?  PJM ought to be ashamed of itself!  Valley Link Transmission was not the result of a fair, open and competitive planning process.

Financial incentives for transmission must be rationally tailored to a project's risks and challenges.  "Rational" has long ago left the incentives building... it's nothing but a free buffet where utilities gorge themselves on ratepayer cash.  That's right, ratepayers fund all these financial "extras" that encourage transmission developers to build "much needed" projects.  Except if you attended any of the PJM meetings, you know that these developers are beating each other down to get awarded these projects.  And that's precisely because they want to gorge on the unnecessary incentives.  Even if FERC stopped offering these incentives tomorrow, these companies would *still* be falling all over themselves to build new projects.  Incentives are a give away that is not needed to encourage new transmission.

These are the individual incentives Valley Link has requested, with a brief explanation of each:

• Recovery of 100% of prudently incurred costs in the event that all or part of the Project Portfolio must be abandoned for reasons outside the control of Valley Link (“Abandoned Plant Incentive”)

This means that Valley Link is guaranteed to be able to collect ALL its prudent project costs from ratepayers if the project is cancelled.  Essentially, ratepayers are providing insurance for the project's success.  If it fails, then the utilities can't lose.  Only ratepayers can lose.  In the case of the failed Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline (PATH) project, ratepayers ended up spending more than $250M on a cancelled project that never put a shovel to the ground.  This is outrageous!  Utilities must have some skin in the game and accept some of the risk that they are being rewarded for through incentives.​

• Inclusion of 100% of construction work in progress (“CWIP”) in rate base during the development and construction of the Project Portfolio (“CWIP Incentive”)

This means that Valley Link will be able to collect a return (interest) on the amount of money it has spent to construct the project while it is building the project.  It begins collecting money from ratepayers as soon as FERC approves the incentive, although the project may not actually be built and serving ratepayers for many years.  It makes ratepayers responsible for paying for projects that are not being used, and haven't even been finished yet.  Ratepayers are being used as the utility's "bank" to pay the companies while they are building.

Valley Link says it needs incentives to reduce "risk" for its project.  What risk is that?  Valley Link speaks out of both sides of its mouth.  First they say this: "Valley Link Transmission’s joint venture structure allows the Participants to combine their diverse experience and knowledge to successfully develop projects of significant size and scope, while sharing the risks of such projects. The geographic and financial scale of new competitive transmission projects sought by PJM in the RTEP process in recent years lends itself to this structure to adequately manage the risks associated with infrastructure projects of this scale."  Somehow the joint non-competitive project was able to "manage risk" but yet on the other hand, the project is just so risky that it needs a bunch of financial incentives.  "​Valley Link will
face significant permitting, siting, construction, procurement, and financial risks that present challenges to developing and constructing the Project Portfolio."  So, which is it?  Is Valley Link risky or not?  It can't be both!

Of course, Valley Link plans to lower its risk that you're going to go all torches and pitchforks on them by "collaborating" with you.  Of course, that "collaborating" doesn't mean they will make any adjustments to their plan or anything like that... they just want to pretend they're considering your ideas while they laugh at you behind your back.

Valley Link also requests three identical new formula rates, one for each of its state-specific sub-companies (it's like Russian nesting dolls).  A formula rate is a set of calculations that devise a yearly revenue requirement for each company.  It includes O&M, A&G, taxes, and return (interest) on capital expenses that are paid for over the project's useful life (approximately 40 years) as these assets slowly depreciate because we pay for them.  I've long since given up trying to explain formula rates to people who don't understand them, but let's just say it's extremely complicated.  If you don't believe me, take a look at the proposed formula rates in the filing.  I will sum it up by sharing that we pay for transmission much the same way we pay for a home using a 30 year mortgage.  While the bank loans us the cash to purchase the home, we will pay much more than we ever borrowed over that 30 years because the interest is calculated monthly.  We slowly pay the bank back, and they earn a huge profit over 30 years.  It works the same way with transmission, except the utility is "the bank" and the transmission line is our house that we have to pay for over 40 years, with interest calculated every year on the remaining unpaid balance.

And speaking of interest... Valley Link has requested a base ROE of 10.9%.  But they're not stopping there... they are also requesting .5% for their new membership in PJM (see above).  Total Return on Equity for this project is proposed at 11.4%.  That means Valley Link would earn 11.4% on the unpaid project balance every year for 40 years.  Do you earn 11.4% on your investments?  Probably not.  Transmission ROEs are already incredibly generous.

The important thing to think about with the formula rate is transparency so that we can check the utility's math from time to time to make sure they are doing it correctly.  Valley Link's formula rate is not transparent and leaves certain terms undefined.  That's probably because of this.  However, lack of transparency is not just and reasonable and FERC cannot approve a formula rate that is not just and reasonable.

And I think I'll stop there.  If you have any additional questions after reading the filing, I'd be happy to help.

So, let's sum it up:

FERC should not grant transmission incentives to Valley Link because Valley Link was not part of a transparent and competitive transmission planning process.

FERC should not grant the costly transmission abandonment incentive to Valley Link because the project has not been found needed by any state where the public may actually participate in the decision making.

FERC should not grant the CWIP in Ratebase incentive because that starts the money flowing out of ratepayer pockets before any state has approved it.

FERC should not grant the RTO Participation incentive to Valley Link because it is a shell company managed by incumbent utilities that have already been granted this incentive.   The "joint venture" is a charade.

FERC must ensure that Valley Link's formula rate is transparent and allows any person to participate in annual updates, seek information, and file challenges.

And keep this in mind when you file your comments at FERC. (File on Docket No. ER25-1633).  FERC Chairman Mark Christie had this to say about the cancelled PATH project just over a year ago.  (Begin at minute 13:48 and watch for about 5 minutes until he's finished).  Attention must be paid!  Valley Link is a second attempt to build the PATH project, but it also presents FERC with a second chance to correct all the things Christie said they got wrong with the original project.

Yesterday, the Jefferson County Commission passed a Resolution that nobody seemed to understand, maybe not even the Commissioners themselves.

I made public comment at the Commission meeting yesterday morning, completely oblivious to the Jefferson County First Resolution that was added to the packet after it was originally posted on Monday.  Unfortunately, nobody involved in the power line battle saw it ahead of time and I left the meeting for other adventures before it was discussed.  My bad.  It sure would have been nice if the Commissioners had been more upfront about their Resolution that will impact hundreds of county residents.  Even when asked before the meeting what the mysteriously-named Resolution was about, a Commissioner professed ignorance.

I addressed the Commissioners yesterday morning before the meeting specifically because I had heard a rumor being spread by state legislators that Jefferson County had no power over the transmission lines and that there was federal authority to approve it if West Virginia rejected it.  It seems this untrue rumor came from Del. Linville, who misspoke about the transmission lines at the February 20 meeting.

Jefferson County has enormous power over the fate of the transmission lines, although it has no direct permitting authority.  Jefferson County's power comes from its ability to influence the future decision about the power lines from the West Virginia Public Service Commission.  The County Commission speaks with a louder voice and can advocate for the county and its people as a whole.  We need and appreciate their support!

THERE IS NO FEDERAL BACKSTOP ON PERMITTING FOR THESE LINES!  I told the Commission that yesterday.  No wonder I got such odd looks.  I do understand the prohibition of having direct dialogue with a public commenter so I can't fault them for not saying anything.  However, you'd think that if they were doing something great for the citizens of the County who will be personally impacted by the transmission lines, they would have wanted to spread the word so we could be there to cheer them on.  It's sad that we can't have that relationship.  We're on the same page, but we're not reading from the same book.  I have been working in both the state and federal transmission planning and permitting realm for nearly two decades now.  I have a wealth of experience and knowledge that I can share with you until your eyes roll back in your head and your brain shuts down.  It is incredibly complicated with a lot of moving parts that need to be fully understood before decisions are made.

Transmission siting and permitting is completely under state jurisdiction, except in the event that a line is sited in a designated National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor (NIETC).  A NIETC was proposed for Jefferson County (and other parts of the tri-state area) last year, however, that potential corridor was ABANDONED by the DOE in December 2024.  There is currently NO NIETC, and therefore no federal authority over the two proposed transmission lines in Jefferson County.  There is no other federal mechanism to usurp the jurisdiction of the West Virginia Public Service Commission.  The two transmission lines will live or die by the decision of the West Virginia Public Service Commission, which is a process where Jefferson County (and its citizens) can participate to influence the outcome.

This morning, we woke up to this.

The County Commission discussed their Resolution and unanimously supported its passage.  Unfortunately, the story doesn't say where the Resolution was sent.  It's not a bad Resolution, until it gets to the end where Jefferson County appears to give up and beg for a transmission owner lobbyist to simply whisper the magic words... "this transmission line will attract data centers to Jefferson County", even though that's not true at all.

How DO data centers get power?  Data centers use enormous amounts of power, equalling the power load of small cities in some instances.  When a county has attracted a data center customer (more on that later), the customer will request power service from the local distribution utility.  In our case, it's Potomac Edison.  The customer estimates how much power it will need, often beginning with a baseline amount that ramps up over time as the data center is built out.  Potomac Edison considers this request and determines if it can serve the load from its local system.  If not, it gets added to Potomac Edison's future load forecast that is subsequently relayed to PJM Interconnection  for planning purposes.  If the local utility cannot meet load requests, then it asks PJM to add it to its planning.  Remember, PJM's only tool is transmission.  It cannot order new generation, which is perhaps the better solution to large new load requests.  PJM uses these local load forecasts to create a regional load forecast.  Once PJM has its regional load forecast, it plugs that into its transmission planning and determines how much new transmission might be needed to meet the load requests (because it can't order new generation).  PJM opens a competitive transmission window to solve load (think RFP) and selects the transmission projects that it believes will meet the load.

This is a multi-year, multi-tiered process.  The two transmission lines through Jefferson County are the product of load forecasts and planning that occurred in 2022 and 2024.  The load that was forecast for PJM in those years is slated to occur in Loudoun and Prince William Counties, Virginia.  It's not for load requests from Jefferson County.  The power that these transmission lines will export is already spoken for by load requests that were made in earlier years by new data centers locating in Virginia.  Just because a new line will travel through Jefferson County doesn't mean it will serve new growth here.  

Attracting data centers to your locality is about much more than welcoming new transmission extension cords designed to serve data centers in other states.  It's about offering the data center companies incentives to locate here and providing the infrastructure they may need.  Just as crucial as a local supply of electricity, data centers need a fiber connection.  When Frederick County, Maryland, wanted to attract new data centers to a local campus, they arranged for a fiber backbone connected to Virginia's data center alley.  Jefferson County doesn't have this kind of infrastructure.  Data centers also need a vast supply of water for cooling.  If Jefferson County is going to allow a California company to come in here and pump and sell our water supply to outsiders, we won't have enough left for data centers.  Frederick County located its data center campus at the site of a former aluminum smelter.  Aluminum smelters use a lot of power (but nothing approaching data center proportions) so the site already had a 230kV transmission connection and substation.  Frederick County is using the existing lines to power its campus, not building new ones.  Frederick County maintains that its data center campus is not the reason for new transmission lines.  However, it is curious that both the new transmission lines proposed through Jefferson County land at substations in Frederick County before routing south along the river to make connections in Virginia's data center alley.

If Jefferson County wants to have data centers here, it needs to create a realistic plan, not just throw wide the doors for transmission extension cords for data centers in other states and hope that data centers develop through osmosis.

However, Jefferson County should also spend a great deal of time investigating how data centers have changed other communities that initially welcomed them for economic development purposes.  People are migrating here to live precisely because Jefferson County doesn't have data centers.  Citizens in Virginia hate living with them and can't wait to get out of the hellscape they have created under the guise of economic development.  Jefferson County is the peaceful, rural environment that has disappeared from Northern Virginia.  A good and affordable place to buy a home and raise a family.  Jefferson County needs to be very careful and deliberate with planning for new data centers so it doesn't turn itself into Loudoun County West.  Attracting data centers is something the West Virginia legislature should be studying as well.  State incentives are needed to attract data centers, not just local economic development efforts.

Does Jefferson County currently have any interest from companies wanting to locate new data centers here?  Have those companies developed their plans enough to make a request for service from Potomac Edison?  Or is this Resolution simply a blind expression of hope?  If so, it is unlikely to get to the right place.

Jefferson County is going to need a new slogan for roadside signs soon.  I suggest the above, maybe bolstered by some fine print... "All the electricity that makes Loudoun the wealthiest county in the nation comes through here first!"  What is Jefferson County getting from all this?  Homes and businesses taken using eminent domain, multiple huge new transmission lines of the highest voltage built in the U.S. in close proximity to our homes and schools, and higher electric bills.  What does Loudoun County get?  Data centers, lots and lots of new "economic development" data centers.  Loudoun County ended 2024 with a budget surplus of over $250M, thanks to all the data centers it has approved and built.  Loudoun County gets the gold, and West Virginia gets the shaft.  Again.

When are West Virginia lawmakers going to *wake up* and realize that we don't have to export the electricity generated here using our coal and gas resources?  We could use it right here to increase our own economic development!  Instead, we've been shipping the excess power we generate out of state so other areas can get rich using it to attract economic development like data centers.  Why not create incentives for data centers to locate here in West Virginia, right next to our existing generators?  West Virginia could finally start growing its own tech industry and use its plentiful resources to attract new business.  Data centers are hungry, hungry, hungry for steady, dispatchable electricity and promoting West Virginia as the ideal location for new data centers is win-win for West Virginia.  Exporting our electricity to Loudoun County over huge new high-voltage extension cords is lose-lose for West Virginia.

Yesterday, PJM Interconnection's Transmission Expansion Advisory Committee met for more than 4 hours.  A handful of intrepid electric ratepayers and citizens attended to make comment and ask questions.  At the end of the day, PJM stuck with its previous recommendation to order and build another new transmission line through Jefferson County.  Last year, PJM ordered the building of a different transmission line through our county.  Over the past two years, PJM has ordered two new major transmission lines crossing through Jefferson County on their way from West Virginia coal-fired generation stations to Loudoun County's data centers.  Yesterday, PJM informed us that it will be opening two more bidding windows in mid-2025 to solicit even more power lines for Virginia's data centers.  PJM is having trouble keeping up with Virginia's data center demand, and the only place with available power left is West Virginia.  Funny that Virginia hates our coal-fired power stations, and Virginia is on target to meet its VCEA requirement to reduce its carbon emissions to zero by 2045, but Virginia has no problem at all importing more and more coal-fired electricity to use in its data centers and pretending they're still meeting their environmental goals because it is not generated in Virginia.

The project PJM will be recommending to its Board of Managers for approval is a new 765kV transmission line beginning at the John Amos coal-fired power station in Putnam County, and crossing 14 West Virginia counties on its way to data center alley (Putnam, Kanawha, Roane, Calhoun, Braxton, Lewis, Upshur, Barbour, Tucker, Preston, Grant, Hardy, Hampshire and Jefferson) 3 counties in Virginia (Clarke, Frederick and Loudoun) and end in Frederick County, Maryland at a new substation south of Point of Rocks. If you want to see maps of where this project will be routed in Jefferson, find them here.  Here's PJM's awful maps and listing of the project's components.
​

PJM's awful maps are insisting that the "new PATH" project will be constructed on "existing ROW or parallel to existing ROW" indicated by the pink line on the map.  Elsewhere in PJM's presentation was the statement that the new 765kV development would require 100% new right-of-way.  That's right... the new PATH will require a completely new 200 ft. wide right-of-way (ROW).  PJM and the new PATH sponsors are trying to pretend that they can create a new 200 ft. wide ROW directly adjacent and parallel with the existing transmission line corridor in Jefferson County.  PJM believes there is value and risk reduction in a parallel line siting.  That might be true, if there was actually land available parallel to the existing ROW, but there's not.  The existing ROW is lined with homes, schools, businesses and even new solar farms.  A new 200 ft. parallel ROW will destroy everything in its path.  For this reason, I insisted that PJM at least draw its "new PATH" correctly on its awful, out of proportion map as a new greenfield corridor.  PJM refused.   We can't even get a little honesty.

Who is PJM fooling?  Not us!  PJM is trying to fool its Board of Managers by telling them that nobody will mind this new 765kV transmission line and that it won't be taking any new land.  PJM thinks this will make the Board more likely to approve this project as non-controversial.  We're not going to let that happen, but that's another blog post coming soon -- writing to PJM's Board of Managers to insist they deal with the truth about this project.

As part of its creation of its new transmission plan, PJM is required to create a "Constructability and Financial Analysis Report" for the proposed projects to present to their Board when seeking approval.  PJM's Constructability Analysis is a complete joke!  The report starts out by detailing the "Approach", or method, of performing this study.

The approach calls for PJM to do an "in-depth" review of each project's ROW acquisition, land acquisition, and siting and permitting requirements, among others.  As part of this, PJM is required to do a "desk top" investigation of each project's land use mapping (using actual maps!) to include:

These are just a few of the things that must be studied as part of this Constructability study.  Did PJM do that?  No, they didn't.  PJM simply copied the narrative written by the project sponsor in its bid for the project and turned a blind eye to the actual impacts of this "new PATH" 765kV transmission line.

Here's what PJM's Constructability Study concluded about the project:

There's absolutely nothing in there about any of the development bordering the existing corridor they want to expand.  Perhaps if it doesn't have to acknowledge the destruction of Jefferson County's built community, then PJM can continue to believe that a parallel siting is somehow less risky than a new line somewhere else.

PJM negligence becomes even more glaring if you read the analyses of the other projects that were not selected.  Some of these other projects have very detailed narratives of how they will affect the built community.  Read it for yourself (full report).

Here's just a couple examples that caught my eye:

PJM also evaluated these projects based on the proposer's experience building similar lines.  In its report, PJM said that FirstEnergy (proposed owner of new PATH) passed this test.  When I questioned PJM about what 765kV lines FirstEnergy has ever owned or built, PJM said they were actually using the experience of another company, Transource (an AEP affiliate).  When asked how many 765kV lines Transource has ever owned or built, PJM again came up empty.  Ditto on Dominion.  The ONLY utility with this experience in the country is American Electric Power (AEP), parent company of Transource.  PJM's constructability analysis is not based on reality and has enough holes in it to drive a truck through.  The truth is that PJM simply FAKED this report based on biased information it was given by the project sponsors and didn't perform any analysis at all.  If this isn't true, then PJM is encouraged to produce the desktop study with all the required data and make a liar out of me.  PJM's Constructability Report is pure, unadulterated CRAP.

I also questioned PJM about whether the "new PATH" project was actually competitively bid.  Since 2011, FERC has required regional grid planners like PJM to open competitive bidding windows when it needs new transmission projects.  The idea is that utilities will compete with each other to create the best project at the least cost.  Bidders often include "cost caps" and other financial considerations that limit the costs to consumers.  PJM has been running these bidding windows for around 10 years now.  The big investor owned utilities did not like these windows because they don't want to have their profits limited by having to compete for projects.  So, the utilities started building smaller, local, supplemental projects that did not have to be approved by PJM as a way to avoid competition.  Because of this, there were pretty much no opportunities to build new transmission using competitive windows.  Therefore the utilities did not have to compete.  If you try to thwart the deep rooted greed of investor owned utilities, they will eventually find a way around whatever roadblock you construct. And now they have figured out a way around PJM's competitive bidding window.  The three biggest utilities in PJM got together ahead of time and came up with a scheme to limit competition and increase profits with their joint bid into this window.  FirstEnergy, AEP's Transource, and Dominion submitted "joint proposals" that did not have any cost caps or financial considerations for ratepayers.  If they didn't have to compete with each other, then they could score a project with an unlimited price tag.  Of course, this kind of behavior to limit competition and fix prices is what's known as a cartel.  Once the three utilities had their project selected, they have now decided to create a shell company "joint partnership" to own the projects because PJM cannot award a project submitted as a joint proposal to individual companies (that would violate FERC's rules!)  Reality is that this "competitive" window was illegally controlled by a cartel.

Last month, I sent an email requesting that PJM come to Jefferson County and give us a presentation about what it is they do so we can find out about their processes.  This was in response to a disparaging comment one of the PJM staff made to a Jefferson County citizen, telling her to "get a basic education" before asking questions at the TEAC.

This month, PJM came prepared with a long list of online "resources" that we can use to educate ourselves.

Last year, regional grid planner PJM Interconnection approved a new 500kV transmission line from a cluster of coal-fired power plants in northern West Virginia to Virginia's data center alley.  That line is assigned to Florida-based NextEra Transmission (Greene County PA, Mon, Preston, Mineral and Hampshire Counties WV, Garrett and Allegheny Counties, MD portions) and Ohio-based FirstEnergy (Frederick, Clarke, and Loudoun Counties, VA, Frederick County, MD, and Jefferson County, WV portions).  On a map, that combined project looks like this:

Locally here in Jefferson County, the project is proposed to tear down the existing 138kV transmission line and replace it with a combined 500kV line with 138kV underbuild (double circuit) on an expanded right-of-way.  The current line configuration across southern Jefferson looks like this:

The big metal towers will stay the same.  The smaller wooden towers will be torn down and replaced with a big metal tower that has the two new circuits on it.  It will be 30-50 ft. taller than the existing one it parallels.  The end result will be two big metal towers on an expanded right-of-way.

Now PJM needs another transmission extension cord for Virginia's data centers.  The first one just wasn't enough power because Virginia just can't stop building the data centers.  PJM's latest proposal is a 765kV transmission line (the largest AC transmission line in the country) from the John Amos coal-fired power station in Putnam County, WV to Virginia's data center alley.  On PJM's map, the project looks like this:

This new 765kV is proposed by a joint partnership between FirstEnergy, American Electric Power and Dominion Energy.  It is proposed to cross 14 counties in West Virginia (Putnam, Kanawha, Roane, Calhoun, Braxton, Lewis, Upshur, Barbour, Tucker, Preston, Grant, Hardy, Hampshire and Jefferson) 3 counties in Virginia (Clarke, Frederick and Loudoun) and end in Frederick County, Maryland at a new substation north of Point of Rocks.  It is proposed to be built on a new 200 ft. wide right-of-way on towers that look like this:

In Jefferson County, it has been proposed that the new transmission line run parallel to the existing 500/138kV right-of-way that is already slated to be expanded with the addition of a second 500kV line that was approved last year.  If approved, this would expand that existing right-of-way another 200 ft. and add a third transmission tower bigger than the other two.

PJM is still discussing this proposal in its Transmission Expansion Advisory Committee.  The next meeting (and final opportunity for the public to comment) is scheduled for January 7, beginning at 11:15 a.m.  Anyone who is concerned about this proposal is invited to participate, either over the phone, via Webex, or in person at PJM's office in Valley Forge, PA.  Participation requires that you register in advance.  You can sign up for the meeting here.

After the meeting, PJM's committee will recommend that the PJM Board of Managers approve the project and add it to the regional plan.  At that time, we can write to the Board of Managers to ask that they not approve it (but that's a task for another day).  If the project is approved by the Board of Managers, then it is assigned to the responsible utilities who will finalize a route and submit applications to the three state public utility commissions for approval to build it.  If the state commissions approve it, then the utility will have eminent domain authority to take property for its new right-of-way.  This whole process is going to take years, so let's stay focused on the PJM process for the moment.

So, many are asking themselves... am I impacted?  PJM's maps are purposefully vague because PJM is not a transmission line router.  It simply approves a transmission line between two substations... where the route actually goes is a function of the utility assigned to build it, and that route must be approved by the state commissions.  So, we don't know for certain at this time where the new 765kV project will be routed.

What we do know, however, is that this new 765kV project appears in all proposals to be identical to the failed Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline (PATH) project that was proposed back in 2008.  That project was subsequently cancelled in 2012, before any state approved a final route.  However, the PATH legacy lives on in the memories of the folks who battled it last time.

I still have the detailed Jefferson County maps from the PATH project.  On these maps, you can zoom in to see an aerial photo of your area and where the existing transmission lines run, along with the proposed location of the PATH project.  Sorry it doesn't have any of the newer fancy GPS features like typing your address into a finder, but we're dealing with something circa 2009 here.  The map tiles should give you a general idea of how the new 765k line may impact your property.  

Couple of notes before you look at the maps.  There is one overview tile (above) and 11 other map tiles that trace the route across Jefferson County, tile by tile.  You'll have to find the tile with your property on it, then you can zoom in to take a closer look.

The PATH route is the yellow dotted line.  In some places, it deviated from the existing transmission corridor due to space constraints.  In some cases, the deviation took it miles away from the existing lines, so keep in mind that this line could be routed anywhere and will not necessarily stay parallel to the existing transmission lines.  In some places, there's a black dotted line that says "rebuild of existing 500kV line".  This was a way PATH planned to snake through narrow areas, however that rebuild can no longer happen due to the new 500kV/138kV line that was approved last year.  FirstEnergy is already using the space that the 138kV line currently sits on for its new 500kV line.  It cannot also use that same space for the 765kV line.  While it is possible to double-circuit a 138kV line with a 500 or 765kV line, it is not possible to double circuit 500 or 765kV lines with each other.  The new 765kV transmission line will have to be routed on a new 200 ft. wide right-of-way.  If you live in one of those dotted black line areas, it is likely that the new 765kV transmission line will take your home.  There's simply no where else to put it unless they deviate miles away from the existing transmission corridor.  It is virtually impossible to avoid everything and everyone.  It is a certainty that homes in Jefferson will be lost.  Yours may be one of them... sacrificed to the data center Gods in Virginia.

Also keep in mind that these aerial maps are 15 years old and cover a portion of Jefferson County that has seen enormous growth over the past several years.  Much of what was once farmland is now solar farms and new housing developments (and the building continues!). If you live in a newer development, your home might be represented in an old photo that shows the farms that were there before.  The true extent of the horror of how this line will impact Jefferson County isn't shown.

Now, the maps.  You may need to open several to find the one where your property is shown.  The tiles begin at the western edge of Jefferson and proceed east.

If your property is anywhere near the route for the failed PATH project, you should be concerned.  PATH is going to have a much harder time routing through Jefferson this time around and some properties will be sacrificed.

It's time to step up and get involved!  It's never too early to oppose new transmission needed only to serve Virginia's data centers.

A delicate balance between State and Federal authority over transmission lines has existed for decades.  It is what has kept the peace between federal transmission planning and state permitting authority.  The Third Circuit Court of Appeals stands poised to destroy it in a case that has so far escaped the notice of the hundreds of millions of people who will be profoundly impacted by its outcome.

Transource Pennsylvania LLC v. Steven M. Defrank, et.al asks the court to determine that a state permitting a new transmission project has no authority to second guess the findings of PJM Interconnection regarding need for a new transmission project.  

Transource was selected to build a market efficiency project nearly 10 years ago that, according to PJM, would reduce transmission congestion and make electricity cheaper in Washington DC and Baltimore.  The project was to be built connecting transmission lines in Pennsylvania with transmission lines in Maryland.  It needed permission from the Maryland PSC and the Pennsylvania PUC.  Maryland approved the project after PJM agreed that the eastern portion of the project could be built on existing easements.  Pennsylvania denied the project altogether on the basis of PJM's congestion forecast and cost/benefit analysis being proven wrong during the permitting process in that state.

Transource didn't like that outcome and filed several appeals.  The appeal to the federal district court struck paydirt and that judge opined that Pennsylvania had no authority to second guess PJM's findings regarding need.  The only role for Pennsylvania was to determine where to put the project and it was prohibited from denying a permit.

Pennsylvania appealed and the case has just been heard by the Third Circuit this month.  The oral argument was a disaster for the State -- its attorney couldn't get a word in edgewise as the panel of judges asked questions that only they seemed to know the correct answers to.  The writing is on the wall.  Next stop... SCOTUS.

States have laws in place that determine how an application for a new transmission project must be adjudicated.  The state is required to make several findings under state law.  While the findings may be different from state to state, most of them include a directive to determine if the project is needed.  This is why the permit issued is called a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (or other variations on this theme).  The state evaluates the case for need presented by the utility.  The utility presents its witnesses who say the project is needed, including witnesses from regional transmission organizations like PJM.  The state evaluates the evidence and makes its findings.  Never before in history has a state been required to accept the need findings of the regional grid operator without question.  In most cases, however, the state finds the regional transmission authority witnesses to be credible and adopts their determination of need in its determination.  However, in rare cases, the state has not found the regional transmission to be credible and has denied the permit.  It happened in New Jersey a few years ago in the Monmouth County Reliability Project case.  The utility in that case accepted the result and the project was not built.  Apparently we didn't need it anyhow.

And that's just the case with the Transource project.  The Pennsylvania PUC was right... the project was not needed.  PJM has recently revealed that the cost benefit ratio for the project has fallen below break even and that, if built, the project would cause uncontrolled congestion on the transmission system.  But when the lawyer for the State tried to bring that up during oral argument, the judges cut him right off.  They didn't want to hear it.

The Court's position would saddle electric ratepayers with huge costs for transmission projects that don't deliver more benefits than their cost to build.  Perhaps the Court would see it differently if they attended a couple of PJM meetings where these projects are evaluated and added to the plan.  PJM meetings are one-sided information sessions.  Although meeting participants can ask questions, PJM dismisses any arguments against its findings.  PJM is a utility member organization.  It always sides with the utilities.  There is no independent evaluator who looks at all the evidence before deciding the project is needed.  Compare to a state's evaluation of need, where all parties can present evidence to be decided by an impartial judge or panel of commissioners.  There is no give and take, or independent thought, at PJM... it is an authoritative dictatorship.

If states are prohibited from determining if a transmission project is needed under state law, what happens with merchant transmission projects or those planned by utilities outside a regional planning process?  Must the state also take the utility's determination of need without question?

The Court is prepared to open a can of worms that will ensure transmission is delayed or denied for other reasons.  Nobody likes being told that they have to accept the word of a dictator without question, states included.  The Court has suggested that a state who doesn't think a transmission line found needed in the regional planning process is actually needed should file a complaint against the grid operator at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.  If that is the only avenue open to states, prepare for a deluge of complaints at FERC.  Since FERC moves at a snail's pace (on a good day) this is going to tie up regional transmission planning for years and ensure that nothing gets built until need for it has completely evaporated, as it did in the case of the Transource project.  A state that may have agreed with PJM that a project is needed is now required to file a complaint at FERC to get a determination on whether it is actually needed.  Instead of states, grid operators, and federal regulators cooperating to keep the transmission system reliable, we're going to have nothing but litigation and delays while the lights go out.

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

Do you want more transmission in Jefferson County?  Window 1 is IN ADDITION TO the already ordered Window 3 project that proposes to widen the existing easement through southern Jefferson and build larger metal towers there that contain both the existing line and a new 500kV transmission line.

Window 3 is for the purpose of exporting coal-fired electricity from West Virginia to Virginia's out-of-control data center alley.  It's not for us.  We are simply fly over country.

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

Here's some of the contenders...

A "new" PATH project (yes, the same project we defeated in 2011).  It begins at AEP's John Amos coal-fired generation station in Putnam Co., West Virginia and crosses through 14 counties in West Virginia (Putnam, Kanawha, Roane, Calhoun, Braxton, Lewis, Upshur, Barbour, Tucker, Preston, Grant, Hardy, Hampshire and Jefferson) before ending at a new substation in Frederick County, MD.  From there, it will be sent on a direct path to data center alley in Loudoun County, VA.   That project looks like this in PJM's plan:

The 765kV "new PATH" would also cross through southern Jefferson County on a new 200 foot wide easement next to the existing transmission corridor, taking another 200 feet of people's property, and in some instances their actual homes.  The towers will be 175' tall metal lattice with 4 guy wires holding up each one.

Another idea PJM is entertaining is building two new 500kV transmission lines from  the west that would cross Jefferson County in two places on a new parallel easement 200 ft. wide next to existing 500kV transmission lines.  This proposal would widen both these corridors by another 200 ft. and would gobble up homes.  One of these lines crosses the very northern portion of Jefferson in a subdivision called Leisure Acres, and the other one parallels the existing transmission corridor through southern Jefferson that has seen so many of these awful proposals over the past several years.  On a map, that proposal looks like this:

Why is Jefferson County always the target for new transmission extension cords for data center alley?  Because there are existing lines here already.  PJM and the utilities are under the impression that if you already live near a transmission line you would be eager to have another taking even more of your property, and possibly the very roof over your head.  PJM refuses to listen to the fact that expanding existing transmission corridors is more damaging to the communities than new lines that can be carefully sited to avoid homes and other development (or better yet buried on existing road and rail corridors).  Another reason that Jefferson is always a target is the two linear national parks that sit on our borders.  The C&O Canal follows the Potomac on the Maryland side.  The Appalachian Trail roughly follows our border with Virginia.  Both of these national parks should be protected from multiple infrastructure crossings, therefore the transmission companies try to simply widen existing crossings instead of creating new ones.  These parks that must be crossed to get to data center alley are one reason the same people are targeted over and over again.

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

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

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

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

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