After all, it would not be fair for customers in one area to consistently pay higher prices than others do simply because the system’s design prevented some customers from accessing the lowest-cost electricity.

For many years, some customers in the mid-Atlantic region, those in areas of Maryland, Northern Virginia and the District of Columbia, have had to pay comparatively higher prices than customers in other areas have, because bottlenecks in the interstate transmission system have not allowed an efficient flow of the lowest-cost power into the zone.

PJM recently completed its annual review of the Transource project. Our thorough analysis of the many factors that go into benefits and costs concluded that the benefits continue to justify the costs.

The analysis considered factors such as recent load and congestion forecasts, current cost estimates, power flow projections, topology, interregional modeling, future fuel prices and generation interconnections.

During our recent review, PJM found that the Transource project also will address significant reliability issues that are emerging on the regional transmission system, including the potential overload of a key high-voltage line that carries electricity across the Pennsylvania-Maryland border.

Without the additional transmission capacity provided by the Transource project, the system could face serious violations of federal reliability standards, which would require additional measures to address.

The interstate high-voltage transmission system is a shared resource, and consumers including homeowners, tenants, businesses and industrial plants throughout the PJM footprint benefit from a robust network that provides reliable and affordable electricity across the region.

The incidental‐benefits tail mustn’t be allowed to wag the primary‐benefits dog.

While it is the transmission developer’s responsibility to work with state and local planning authorities to identify a designated route that can balance the interests of all impacted parties, it is PJM’s responsibility to identify the need for such a project in the first instance. Understanding both the cost and societal impact a project may have, I assure you we do not embark on this responsibility lightly.

1.7 Obligation to Build. (a) Subject to the requirements of applicable law, government regulations and approvals, including, without limitation, requirements to obtain any necessary state or local siting, construction and operating permits, to the availability of required financing, to the ability to acquire necessary right-of-way, and to the right to recover, pursuant to appropriate financial arrangements and tariffs or contracts, all reasonably incurred costs, plus a reasonable return on investment, Transmission Owners or Designated Entities designated as the appropriate entities to construct, own and/or finance enhancements or expansions specified in the Regional Transmission Expansion Plan shall construct, own and/or finance such facilities or enter into appropriate contracts to fulfill such obligations.

Congestion is neither good nor bad, but is a direct measure of the extent to which there are multiple marginal generating units dispatched to serve load as a result of transmission constraints. Congestion occurs when available, least-cost energy cannot be delivered to all load because transmission facilities are not adequate to deliver that energy to one or more areas, and higher cost units in the constrained area(s) must be dispatched to meet the load. The result is that the price of energy in the constrained area(s) is higher than in the unconstrained area.

The MMU recommends the creation of a mechanism to permit a direct comparison, or competition, between transmission and generation alternatives, including which alternative is less costly and who bears the risks associated with each alternative.

For example, congestion across the AP South Interface means lower prices in western control zones and higher prices in eastern control zones. Load in western control zones will benefit from lower prices and receive a congestion credit (negative load congestion payment). Load in the eastern and southern control zones will incur a congestion charge (positive load congestion payment).

The AP South Interface was the largest contributor to congestion costs in 2014. With $486.8 million in total congestion costs, it accounted for 25.2 percent of the total PJM congestion costs in 2014.

The Braidwood - East Frankfort Line was the largest contributor to congestion costs in 2017. With $43.4 million in total congestion costs, it accounted for 6.2 percent of the total PJM congestion costs in 2017.

While we understand that PJM feels a responsibility to Transource to allow them to fail gracefully at the state level after a protracted review, the facts demand that PJM cancel this project immediately. Millions of taxpayer dollars are being spent to review this project in two states, and landowners are fighting the project with their own attorneys.

The merits of this project are dwindling, the costs of the project increasing, and the timeline is slipping. By now PJM is certainly aware that there is little chance of approval. Until now, landowners have considered Transource to be their opponent, but unless PJM soon exercises its right to withdraw the project, we will hold PJM responsible. PJM will become the target of our media outreach, our legislative efforts, and potentially, our legal efforts as we hold PJM responsible for the tremendous costs incurred by landowners who will ultimately emerge victorious. Further PJM support of this project will be viewed as an abuse of process.

A fiduciary duty is the highest standard of care.  The person who has a fiduciary duty is called the fiduciary, and the person to whom he owes the duty, is typically referred to as the principal or the beneficiary. If an individual breaches the fiduciary duties, he or she would need to account for the ill-gotten profit. His or her beneficiaries are entitled to damages, even if they suffered no harm.

Barnes, one of the administrative law judges, said the commission has an interest to "reduce the impact" on landowners, and she’s “hard pressed” to approve the currently proposed project. 

Not only did she mention that some of the existing transmission lines in Franklin and York counties are “underutilized” and “defunct,” but Barnes also emphasized that the cost of the $320 million market efficiency project is concerning.

During a second prehearing conference before the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Monday, July 9, a PPL Electric representative said the company's existing infrastructure could accommodate the goal of moving more power from the northern U.S. to the south.

In response to a question, PPL counsel Amy Hirakis told administrative law judges Elizabeth Barnes and Andrew Calvelli "it's feasible to use existing PPL right-of-way and facilities for the market efficiency project identified by the PJM Interconnection."

Joe Nixon, PPL strategic communications manager, also confirmed "our existing transmission lines in the York County area has the capacity to carry additional circuits." 
"PPL proposed an alternative market efficiency project to address the issue identified by PJM, but ours was not the selected solution," Nixon explained. "PJM awarded the project to Transource. We always look at the least impact to landowners in developing solutions."

State Rep. Kristin Phillips-Hill, R-York Township, said the project doesn't show that it will provide "long-term, significant benefits to our local Pennsylvania communities economically, nor preserve our tremendous agrarian heritage and scenic beauty."

She said, "York County is proud of its strong preservation heritage with nearly 42,000 acres and 282 farms."

Phillips-Hill said the question of why two existing high-voltage power transmission lines that run parallel to the proposed route and are not operating at full capacity aren't being utilized hasn't been satisfactorily answered.

AEP also did not want to discuss specific eminent domain cases. However, AEP spokesperson Melissa McHenry specified that as of this past spring, the company had more than 3,200 easements on projects, including more than 903 miles of transmission line. Out of the 3,200 easements, only 41, or 1.28%, required eminent domain filings, she said. In some of those cases, eminent domain was necessary “because the land was without clear title, and, therefore, condemnation by publication was necessary,” she said.

According to McHenry, when AEP constructs or upgrades a transmission line that requires the use of a landowner’s property, easement negotiations begin with property owners after state regulators have approved the project. The negotiations are based on the fair market value of the property needed for the ROW, she said. Appraisals and market data studies are conducted to determine market values and a basis for acquisition negotiations. Negotiations will continue “as long as practical” to reach a voluntary agreement.

If it becomes clear that a voluntary agreement between AEP and the property owner cannot be reached and other viable alternatives do not exist, the company will then exercise the right to eminent domain to secure required easements.