Category: Valley Link Transmission

The Facts About MARL are Clear

10/20/2025

Did you hear some rumors online from mysterious people with no energy knowledge saying that MARL and Valley Link will somehow "save" West Virginia?

It's complete and utter poppycock. A politically-fueled, hateful rant.

These are the actual facts about MARL and Valley Link, written by an experienced electric industry professional with decades of experience.

Question: Will MARL modernize the electric system here in West Virginia?

Modernize implies different technologies, however MARL is the same old technologies. MARL is not modernizing the electric system. It is robbing from the ratepayer to make the rich richer.

Question: Can MARL make West Virginia an energy leader?

Although transmission assets can help strengthen West Virginia’s role as an energy leader, cheaper non-West Virginia resources are planned to be connected to MARL to wheel their cheaper power, using MARL like an expensive extension cord. Without large loads coming to West Virginia, it is more likely that other states will strengthen as energy leaders and leave West Virginia holding the bag with electric costs and land obstructions

Question: Does MARL benefit West Virginia?

MARL only benefits Virginia data centers. MARL is a wolf in sheep's clothing. MARL won't benefit West Virginia first. MARL will not allow our West Virginia power plants, including Mount Storm, Harrison, Fort Martin, Longview, and others across the state to operate at full capacity. The regulations and PJM's 2025 Regional Transmission Expansion Plan shows many projects to transmit, or "wheel" power through MARL from other states like Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The regulations require PJM to wheel the cheapest power first. West Virginia's customer-serving utilities have a requirement to serve the West Virginia customers first. The rumored 435 megawatts of excess generation capacity (that may not be high enough) is sitting idle because cheaper power is required to be dispatched first, while considering line ratings. The Virginia load need is so great, that Virginia's load is causing system reliability issues that could be resolved with Virginia's generation policy matching Virginia's large load incentives.

MARL and Valley Link will NOT change that. In addition, MARL will be at the ratepayer's expense, including ratepayers in West Virginia and other PJM states, to build, maintain, and wheel power to unique large load customers. PJM is already talking about using load-shedding more operationally than in emergency with respect to large data center loads. Plus, when those large loads shift power use, that can cause automatic load shed. Thus, to keep our electric system reliable, it is best to site large loads near large generators with available capacity.

Question: What about new generation stations being built in West Virginia, such as Longview's 1,200 megawatt gas fired power plant in Maidsville, and FirstEnergy's plans for another 1,200 megawatt combined cycle facility?

The rumor that these multibillion dollar projects mean jobs for West Virginians in the gas fields, construction trades, and power generation is not true. Ditto the claim that those plants only make sense if the power they produce can reach consumers, and that requires MARL and Valley Link. The ratepayer needs to remember how FirstEnergy's coal-fired 1,710 net megawatt Hatfield's Ferry Power Station was replaced by gas generators of similar capacity that require only a handful of people to operate, if that (some gas plants are unmanned). This switch to gas plants causes about 200 plant jobs lost, along with the operational support business jobs. Thus, while the rumor may sound logical, it doesn't account for the big picture.

Question: Would MARL and Valley Link be critical to Governor Patrick Morrisey’s 50 by 50 plan to triple West Virginia’s power generation to 50 gigawatts by 2050?

The Governor's plan may work if West Virginia large generators fed large loads in West Virginia. Better yet, build large loads where power plants once existed to leverage the existing transmission and cooling water sources. That will bring the economic growth that West Virginia needs, keep a consistent tax basis, and help keep West Virginia-connected generators operating to lower transmission flow costs. Transmission assets depreciate over 40 years, data centers do not. Look how your home has appreciated over time. If we want taxes to help us long term, we need the load user to be in West Virginia.

Question: Will West Virginians will be charged for this project and pay higher rates?

MARL will make Virginia's electric system more stable and richer, not West Virginia's. Which, if Virginia wants power, Virginia needs to stop closing power plants, and start building them. West Virginia's grid is stable as is. When new large load comes to West Virginia that exceeds the grid's available capacity, then build what is needed.

The rumor monger needs to get educated on PJM cost allocation regulations and West Virginia state regulations. The West Virginia Public Service Commission has shielded West Virginians from some costs through West Virginia regulated generators, whose first task is to serve the West Virginia utility's customers. However, the West Virginia PSC cannot shield ratepayers from all costs since some costs come from PJM, including the multi-billion dollar costs of building MARL and Valley Link.

AGAIN, the best solution is to build large load where the generation is, right here in West Virginia. Then there is no need to build lines that do not serve West Virginia's needs or economic future.

Question: Will the project destroy family land and reduce property values?

Part truths are dangerous. Landowners get a one time payment that doesn't represent the total land devaluation, restrictions on land use, or the money flowing over the transmission lines. Those who sign too early do not get anywhere close to what they should get. The placement of transmission lines decreases property values. If you consider properties whose homes are islanded between transmission lines, that decreases that homes' value even more. It may sound admirable to spare the home, but if the home can 'see' both lines, it becomes a big burden to that home. Until you have lived beside a transmission line, you may not consider the audible noises and the emitted electric waves that can't be seen but are real. To picture this on a smaller scale, can you see how your wireless phone charges or how you get static in your hair?

Question: Are there long term jobs or benefits for West Virginians?

MARL will support construction jobs and occasional permanent maintenance positions, but those jobs are short term and require specialty workers that typically are contracted, often from out-of-state. As we have seen with the existing transmission lines, there is no daily staff to keep care of transmission lines. Transmission line operation and maintenance is done remotely and by batched jobs based on maintenance intervals and system monitoring. The only difference from the existing lines will be that MARL will be managed by Florida's NextEra.

The MARL line will not bring the long term West Virginia jobs that West Virginia needs. MARL cannot keep West Virginia coal and gas jobs alive or plants to stay open since MARL will be connected to resources outside of West Virginia. Longview's and FirstEnergy's 1200 megawatt plants (2400MW combined) are a response from the PJM capacity auction to serve load in Virginia through both MARL, and through the 138kV system, hence the proposed PJM breaker at the 500kV BlackOak Substation and the proposed PJM substation near Brandonville. PJM's plan is to ship power through West Virginia to Virginia via the 500kV and 138kV lines.

The 138kV lines are also connected to other states to send other states' power. In addition, the new PJM 2025 RTEP plan is calling for building two (2) MARL lines now.
Both Morgantown area announced gas plants are multibillion dollar plants that will depreciate to the ratepayer's electric bill to serve Virginia. This means that West Virginians will pay the entire cost to build those plants. Those plants will have very few jobs for West Virginians since gas plants have little to no staff and gas gets transmitted via an interstate transmission system.

These interstate gas transmission systems wheel gas from other states under the same least cost principles as electric is moved.

Again, those plants are being built at the ratepayers expense to serve unique Virginia large loads at West Virginia's expense. The electric rates will include costs to build, maintain, operate, and transmit power, including the cost of electric line losses that occur over distance. So, once a transmission line is needed, just know that electrons gets lost over distance, and that is passed to the ratepayer's bills too. Nothing like paying for something that is lost and can't be seen.

It would be best if West Virginia plants are serving West Virginia load to keep the money in West Virginia. It may even be best for West Virginia to leave PJM to preserve our generation, boost the West Virginia economy and stop the PJM rate hikes that are needed for areas that don't benefit West Virginia. If West Virgina has all this dependable coal power, then why not keep it to bring wealth and prosperity to West Virginia?

Question: Will the project hurt tourism and recreation?

MARL will destroy scenic areas and can hurt the state’s tourism industry. People come to West Virginia to enjoy the land and mother nature. Tourism is West Virginia's bread and butter. MARL will be hard to miss with its height and width traversing our West Virginia terrain.
MARL started as a 200 ft. wide right-of-way project and now is being extended to 400 ft. to add a second MARL line (see PJM 2025 RTEP plan). This project change goes to show that anything presented or discussed needs to be specific whether it's a single circuit MARL 500kV line, or what will be in that easement. Some land owners have reported that NextEra is now indicating that MARL needs 200 ft. plus 100 ft. on both sides. This NextEra tactic is just wrong. One 500kV line requires 200 ft. ground to sky clearance by regulations. That PJM 2025 RTEP plan is still out for bid. But NextEra is trying to position themselves to win the second MARL line bid by misleading landowners, which can lead to unjust landowner compensation.

Question: Are there are health risks from electromagnetic fields?

With no studies cited on electric magnetic frequency (EMF), it is hard to relate any "facts" to the MARL line. What is interesting is that the rumor mongers validate that EMF is real and that EMF has a harmful threshold. EMF increases with power flow. Not sure what the studies assessed, but the MARL line will island some homes and will interact with any other lines that it is near. It is not common to see homes islanded by extra high voltage lines. Thus, EMF is a valid concern with the MARL project, as even the rumors admit

Question: Do power lines make noise and interfere with cell phones?

NERC Reliability Standards do not address the "crackling sound during rain" or noise during high load transport days. The MARL lines, and even lower voltage lines, have and will interfere with communications equipment.

Question: What's the bigger picture?

Groups like West Virginians Against Transmission Line Injustice (WATI) are not just opposing MARL, but are looking for the best solution for the ratepayers, the landowners, and West Virginia overall.

If this group succeeds, West Virginians will maintain power reliability since West Virginia's transmission system and generator supply is robust and reliable with enough breakers between West Virginia and Virginia to open and stop any Virginia-caused power grid blackout. It is the Virginia system this is not reliable due to Virginia's changes in energy policy that forced plant closures that once fed that area, and blocked building new ones. So when you hear that MARL is needed for the region's electric reliability, just know that it is the PJM Region, a.k.a. Virginia, and not the West Virginia Region.

The unreliable PJM region is being caused by Virginia and should be paid for by Virginia. Why should West Virginia suffer? Governor Morrisey’s 50 by 50 plan to triple our energy production to 50 gigawatts by 2050 can succeed if large load customers flock to West Virginia. West Virginia large loads support West Virginia coal, gas, and West Virginia's economic growth. The shorter the electricity flows, the lesser costs due to electric line losses.

Here's Bottom Line:

- MARL and Valley Link are threats to West Virginia land, tourism, and cause expenses to West Virginia ratepayers. They bring economic growth to Virginia at West Virginia's expense.

- West Virginia's electric system is robust and reliable today. West Virginia has several extreme weather dependable coal generators, Virginia does not. West Virginia has a modern transmission system to deliver West Virginia generation to West Virginia customers. Makes one wonder why doesn't West Virginia leave PJM? PJM has not delivered cheaper rates as originally promised. Some of this has been caused by PJM approving generation retirements and causing an endless loop of costs to the rate payer.

- MARL is designed to take electric from other states. Sure, MARL may throw a bone to West Virginia coal on extreme weather days when cheaper generators can't operate due to their ambient weather designs, but that can't be counted on since there is so much multi-state, lower cost generation interconnected (now and planned) to MARL's starting point. There seems to be a lot of false hope that needs to be refocused on the bigger picture and state and federal regulations.

- A brighter future for West Virginia will surface with new West Virginia incentives for new load and large load to locate in West Virginia. The facts are clear.

0 Comments

Stand Up For West Virginia at FERC!

6/17/2025

3 Comments

Stand up for West Virginia at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission! FERC recently held a conference on the problem of “resource adequacy.” That’s just a fancy name for the fact that we don’t have enough electricity to power new data centers.

I sat through the entire first day of the conference, where PJM's resource adequacy was discussed, and took copious notes... so you didn't have to.

Now it's time to act!

Tell FERC that transmission extension cords across West Virginia are NOT the answer! It’s quick and easy to do with FERC’s online comment form!

Don’t know what to say? Here’s a little help.

Commenting on FERC Docket AD25-7

Existing generation is retiring and not enough new generation is being built.
Data centers, especially Artificial Intelligence, are creating skyrocketing load.
Transmission extension cords to import existing generation hundreds of miles to serve new data center load is inefficient, has devastating impacts, takes too long, and is the most expensive solution.
Transmission extension cords will take private property in West Virginia.
Transmission extension cords will cost West Virginians more than $440M and provide no benefit to West Virginia. Reference IEEFA study.
West Virginia is an electricity exporter.
Virginia is an electricity importer and wants transmission from West Virginia to increase imports to serve their data centers.
West Virginia’s Power Generation and Consumption Act allows companies seeking to build data centers in the state to create their own, independent energy grids to power them.
West Virginia’s Power Generation and Consumption Act requires data centers to pay for and build their own power on site. Does not require new transmission and does not shift costs of providing power to ratepayers.
Data centers are not just another electricity customer who must be served using existing rules that share burden among all consumers.
Data centers must be responsible for bringing and paying for their own power.
Resource adequacy cannot be solved by building more transmission.
Resource adequacy can be solved by building new generation at data centers.
Resource adequacy will be solved if data centers become the solution, and not the problem.

Need more inspiration? Here's what I just filed.

Comments of Keryn Newman
Docket No. AD25-7

“Breaking the internet” is a figurative phrase coined to describe an overwhelming surge in web traffic that impedes the operation of the World Wide Web. In an ironic twist, the internet is now breaking us, or more precisely our grid. The generators, transmission lines and distribution systems that make electricity available to everyone can no longer function in the same way they have for decades because they have been overwhelmed by new service requests from artificial intelligence data centers.

This enormous surge in electricity demand is breaking energy transition goals, bedrock regulatory principles, how we plan the energy system, and PJM’s capacity market, just to name a few. It is also breaking consumers ability to pay for the electricity they need. Soon it could even impede their ability to receive service at all as the amount of electric generation continues to shrink and the amount of electricity required by artificial intelligence skyrockets. We are sacrificing our real, human world for an artificial one that exists inside machines.

Our entire energy system and the way we regulate it needs to be torn down and rebuilt to efficiently and cost effectively serve today’s reality. Of course, that cannot happen. We no longer have the luxury of time. Elected officials and regulators have ignored the clear warning signs that were present for a number of years in favor of indulging in politicized industry fantasy. The fantasy is over. It’s now reality.

At FERC’s Resource Adequacy Technical Conference, Commissioner Christie asked whether states should require load-serving entities to acquire enough generation to cover their load forecasts in advance, requiring that they build or buy sufficient generation to meet load. That ought to be the first condition to be a member of a resource sharing organization such as PJM Interconnection, but it is not. PJM states such as Virginia are raking in the cash and benefits created by new data centers and leaning on other states to supply the power they need to enable those new data centers. As Commissioner Christie pointed out during the technical conference, when everybody leans on everybody else, everybody eventually falls down.

Importing more electricity from a neighboring state to serve increased demand is not smart energy policy. It’s a house of cards that cannot stand. PJM has become a group of “haves” and “have nots.” PJM’s State Import-Export Map shows a real time picture of which states are importing electricity, and which states are exporting it. West Virginia and Pennsylvania are consistent electricity exporters. Virginia, Maryland, Washington DC, Delaware and New Jersey are consistent energy importers. It is no longer an equitable sharing of resources among states. There are states that have energy, and states that have not. There are states that are givers, and states that are takers. Where’s the value of PJM membership for the states that are consistent exporters and perpetual givers? There is no value when one state is consistently taken advantage of over and over again. West Virginia has been treated as the east coast’s sacrifice zone, exploited by corporations to benefit wealthier states and treated like a dump that becomes the butt of rude jokes. But, perhaps artificial intelligence is also breaking West Virginia’s victimhood. This year West Virginia approved a new law called the Power Generation and Consumption Act, which allows companies seeking to build data centers in the state to create their own, independent energy grids to power them. West Virginia is getting into the data center game, trying to lure the industry here where energy is plentiful and data centers can bring their own generation and be part of the solution, not just the problem. It makes so much more economic and engineering sense to bring the load to the power than to try to bring the power to the load. West Virginia has found a way to accommodate data centers that does not create financial burden on other ratepayers, or land use burdens on private property.

Over the past several years, PJM Interconnection has planned and ordered more than $11B worth of new baseload transmission to import more and more electricity to Northern Virginia’s “data center alley” from West Virginia and Pennsylvania. These new transmission lines do not provide benefit to West Virginia and Pennsylvania. They are nothing more than gigantic extension cords for the purpose of exporting resources to “have not” taker states, mainly Virginia.

The resource adequacy crisis needs an immediate solution. Satisfying new data center demand can be done three different ways. The fastest and cheapest way is to restrict new data centers to locations with onsite or nearby available power. The second would be to build new generation near data center load, but that takes more time to permit and build and the price is steep. The last, most time consuming and expensive option would be to build transmission extension cords from existing generation to new data centers in other localities. Instead of selecting the fastest and cheapest option for the grid, PJM and the Commission have opted to rely on the slowest and most expensive way to power new data centers, building new transmission. This is not a viable solution and will take much too long to implement because new transmission is never a sure thing.

The impacts of Virginia’s skyrocketing data center load will be devastating to West Virginia, which is primarily bearing the brunt of the Commission’s broken regulatory system that no longer assists consumers in obtaining reliable, safe, secure, and economically efficient energy services at a reasonable cost through appropriate regulatory and market means, and collaborative efforts. West Virginians will pay more than $440M to construct and operate two new transmission extension cords for Virginia's data centers. The MidAtlantic Resiliency Link is a new 160-mile 500kV line that will take a new 200-foot wide right-of-way through private property. Valley Link is a new 261-mile 765kV transmission line that will take an additional 200 ft. wide right-of-way through private property. In Hampshire and Jefferson Counties, West Virginia, these two separate transmission lines will converge to create a transmission superhighway as wide as two football fields laid end to end. Hundreds of homes may be taken and demolished to make way for Virginia’s insatiable appetite for new data centers. There are no benefits for West Virginia, just impacts. Membership in PJM and the Commission’s transmission planning and cost allocation procedures no longer work to provide benefit to West Virginians. We’re being used to benefit other states.

The Commission has been constantly tinkering with interconnection queues, markets and other forms of regulation but has yet to find a solution to the growing problem of resource adequacy. There seems to be little the Commission can do in the face of rapidly increasing load from data centers. All its tools no longer work. What the system needs is more generation near data center load. Because Virginia refuses to build it, other states are being torn apart for new extension cords and consumers are quickly being priced out of being able to afford basic electric service. The system is broken.

Data centers are not just another electricity customer who must be accommodated using existing rules that share burden among all customers. The Commission should take a page from West Virginia’s book and require data centers to bring their own power to wherever they choose to locate, or locate where they may directly connect with generators with excess capacity. Those localities that will not allow data centers to build their own generation cannot continue to lean on the system to support their own economic development. It’s parasitic. Once data centers are separated from the host they have been feeding on and become self-reliant, the resiliency problem solves itself. We simply don’t have any more time to wait while the Commission slow rolls minor fixes here and there and hopes for results.

Stand up for West Virginia! It's not going to change until you do!

3 Comments

FERC Checks the Box

5/18/2025

0 Comments

Last week, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved financial incentives for the Valley Link "portfolio" and set its formula rate, return on equity, and hypothetical capital structure for settlement and hearing. That's exactly what I expected they would do, so no surprise there.

It was also no surprise that FERC Chairman Mark Christie wrote a scathing dissent to the approval of incentives. Financial incentives for transmission projects are so far out of whack that they border on usurious. No, scratch that, they're way past the border. FERC's generous award of financial incentives for the Valley Link projects will cost consumers hundreds of millions of dollars in increased transmission rates over Valley Link's expected 40 year life. Well, if it actually gets built that is. Even if it never puts a shovel in the ground, ratepayers are still on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars, thanks to the abandoned plant incentive. I just hope I'm around long enough to say... I told you so!

Chairman Christie's dissent is worth a read. He's grown increasingly critical of FERC's incentives policy and desperately wants to change it. But, he was outvoted 2-1 by two other Commissioners who are fairly recent additions to the Commission. The fourth Commissioner was MIA on this Order, like she is on many others. I'm not sure I understand why a sitting Commissioner doesn't participate in a lot of the Orders that are issued, but I'm sure there's a reason. If only she had participated, I'm sure consumers would have gotten a better deal.

Commissioner Christie compared Valley Link to its predecessor, PATH, and rightly so, since it's the exact same project, in the exact same place, owned by the exact same companies. Attention must be paid! However the other two Commissioners that were not around during PATH failed to pay attention, and therefore consumers are doomed to repeat the PATH experience that cost them $250M.

As Yogi Berra once said, “it’s like déjà vu all over again.” Once again, a transmission developer asks the Commission to put already hard-pressed consumers on the hook for a laundry list of “incentives.” And once again, the Commission approves almost all of the list. As I have said repeatedly over the past four years, it is long past time for this Commission to do its job of protecting consumers by cutting back on its unfair practice of handing out “FERC candy” without any serious consideration of the impact on consumers already struggling to pay monthly power bills. The statute simply does not mandate such lavish generosity to developer interests at the expense of consumers. As discussed in great detail below, this list of incentives is especially difficult to stomach for consumers in Virginia, Maryland, and West Virginia given the egregious history of the Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline (PATH) project, about which I have written many times.

No matter how much Chairman Christie tries to reform a regulatory agency gone amok, he just can't get any traction in today's politicized FERC. I'm fast running out of patience myself. Perhaps it's time for Congress to act, since FERC just can't manage to reform its 20 year old incentives policy to comport with the existing statute. Maybe FERC needs to be called in for a hearing so they can explain themselves to our elected representatives? Or perhaps we need to get rid of Sec. 219 of the Energy Policy Act in its entirety. Imagine if utilities could only earn cost plus return on new transmission projects, without any financial "candy" from the all-you-can-eat incentives buffet. I guarantee you that they would still eagerly line up to build new transmission. It's how they make money. Even without incentives, transmission rates are already incredibly generous. Are you earning 10.9% on your investments lately? Yeah, me neither. In fact, while I'm having this dream, how about if we simply eliminate investor owned utilities altogether and make all utilities public? No more fat cats, no more bonuses, no more investors, no more outrageous profits paid by Granny in her electric bill. Just a necessary service paid at cost by struggling consumers.

So, incentives granted. Water under the bridge. But, FERC also set the formula rate and its protocols, Valley Link's Return on Equity and its hypothetical capital structure for settlement and hearing. I will be participating in that so that's all I can say about it until it's over. See you on the other side.

0 Comments

West Virginia Public Service Commission Passes the Buck

5/14/2025

0 Comments

The West Virginia Public Service Commission's mission statement is:

The purpose of the Public Service Commission is to ensure fair and prompt regulation of public utilities; to provide for adequate, economical and reliable utility services throughout the state; and to appraise and balance the interests of current and future utility service customers with the general interest of the state's economy and the interests of the utilities.

However, when a customer filed a general comment with the PSC recently regarding the way FirstEnergy is shirking its duty to provide public information, this is the response she got:

Thank you for contacting the Public Service Commission of West Virginia regarding the transmission line project. We are aware of plans for the proposed transmission line, but have not yet received a filing in this matter. We expect the developer to apply to the PSC for a certificate of convenience and necessity (under code section 24-2-11a) before beginning any construction. Once the PSC receives the application, there will be a public notice (the law requires newspaper publication in counties where the line is proposed to be located) and an opportunity for the public to comment and to file protests and to ask for the PSC to hold a hearing. We encourage you to share your comments once a case has been opened and is available for public input.

The consumer corrected the PSC with this response:

This section of state code that got amended back in 2010. It is WV Code §24-2-11a(c) available at this link:

https://code.wvlegislature.gov/24-2-11A/

It says: At least thirty business days before the deadline set by the Public Service Commission to file a petition to intervene with regard to the application, the applicant shall serve notice by certified mail to all owners of surface real estate that lie within the preferred corridor of the proposed transmission line. Notice received by a named owner who is the recipient of record of the most recent tax bill that has been issued by the county sheriff's office for a parcel of land at the time of the filing of the application is sufficient notice regarding that parcel for purposes of this subsection.

I have the right to intervene as an impacted citizen. I also have a right to intervene and participate in the case, not just file a comment.

And then the PSC's Director of Communications responded by passing the buck and telling the consumer to go away.

You do have a right, as any citizen does, to ask to intervene in any case before the Commission.
However, in this case, there is no case before the Commission, so therefore we cannot take or act upon your request.
Until the company files a petition seeking our approval of the line, there is no case. That has not been filed by the company.
If such a request is filed, we will be happy to notify you and then you can petition to intervene.
In the meantime, I may suggest you file your protest with the company.
I hope this helps. Please feel free to call me at any time if I can be of assistance.

Aren't there any lawyers at the PSC that can acknowledge that the company has an obligation to notify impacted landowners via certified mail once an application is filed? That's what the customer was looking for. She filed a general comment seeking help with the fact that FirstEnergy is approaching landowners to seek Right of Entry on their properties without providing any information about their project. FirstEnergy has provided no information whatsoever about their project to the impacted communities. Do impacted landowners have to wait until an application is filed to get basic information about the project and what it intends to do to private property?

Furthermore, a different segment of the same transmission project has absolutely failed to provide effective engagement with other impacted landowners. NextEra has been holding "Open House" meetings in West Virginia that leave landowners confused and angry. The meeting setup is loud and confusing. The maps are not labeled. The comment cards cannot be filled out later and mailed in. Attendees cannot have normal conversation with project representatives because they cannot hear what they are saying and answers are non-responsive or misleading. The company's website is devoid of meaningful explanation or information about this project.

The 500kV MARL project is failing at public engagement on all fronts.

But yet when consumers go to the officials who are supposed to protect them from predatory and outrageous behavior by the public utilities it regulates, they get told their comments cannot be accepted.

In the case of FirstEnergy, impacted landowners and consumers do not even have a contact for the company in order to "file your protest with the company." Landowners are being preyed upon and nobody is stepping up to protect them.

Keep filing your general comments with the WV PSC, even though they claim they cannot accept them. And keep a record of your correspondence. Please forward any refusal of the PSC to accept your comment to your state delegates and senators and ask for their help. These public servants work for us!

To file a general comment with the WV PSC, go to this link and fill out the form. Maybe if they receive enough comments about the outrageous behavior of regulated public utilities they will have to do something?

Landowners are not just asking to intervene before an application is filed. They are commenting on the current process before the application is filed. Communities deserve an open and transparent process leading up to the filing of an application and they deserve to have their right to information protected by the Public Service Commission. After all, that is the PSC's mission!

Keep filing your comments with the PSC regarding your concerns with public engagement (or lack thereof). The PSC has rules that must be followed. The least it can do is accept and acknowledge your comments about these major transmission projects that have been proposed to cross our state. Let them know what you think about what's happening now, even if an application has not yet been filed. Don't let them pass the buck!

0 Comments

Just Say NO To Utility Representatives Sneaking Around Jefferson County

4/16/2025

1 Comment

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:

“People are trying to take approximately 5 acres of my property and giving me absolutely no information,” she said. “They’ve called me, and they want to do a survey, but they won’t give me any information.”

Sound familiar? Or, how about this?

“(PPL) was asking if (residents) would sign a document and if they didn’t sign the document, they couldn’t tell them about the project, I’m being told,” Walsh said. “Other people were being offered crazy low value for property.”
He said at least 10 people told him of instances like 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!

1 Comment

Valley Link Transmission Files for Incentives and Formula Rate at FERC

3/18/2025

0 Comments

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.

Applying for CPCN/CCNs from the Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia state commissions is a threshold step for Valley Link during the pre-construction phase, because obtaining CPCN/CCNs will improve Valley Link’s ability to secure the needed land rights to support the Project Portfolio. Because the PJM Board only recently approved the Valley Link Portfolio Project on February 26, 2025, Valley Link has not yet initiated the CPCN/CCN process. Valley Link faces significant time pressure to initiate the CPCN/CCN process within the next few months because CPCN/CCN proceedings in these states can be lengthy.

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.

Recovery of pre-commercial costs through establishment of a regulatory asset that will include all expenses, including expenses incurred prior to the filing of this application, that are incurred prior to the time costs first flow through to Valley Link customers under the PJM Tariff, including authorization to accrue monthly carrying charges (“Pre-Commercial Incentive”)

This means that Valley Link can put all its costs from its first idea to make a "joint project" through the time its formula rate is approved into a regulatory asset and collect them from customers in the future. It's a way to retroactively open the money spigots so that ratepayers pay Valley Link's costs to compete at PJM as well as their costs to create their fake shell company, and ask for incentives and a formula rate. It makes sure that the utility never has to spend a dime of its own money on this project.

Inclusion of a 50 basis point return on equity (“ROE”) adder for Valley Link’s participation as a new member in a Regional Transmission Organization (“RTO”) (“RTO Participation Adder”).

This means that Valley Link's Return on Equity (ROE) will be raised one half of one percent because its "joint venture" will be a separate new member of PJM. Keep in mind that each one of these three joint venture companies (FirstEnergy, Dominion, and Transource) is an existing member of PJM and collecting their own RTO Participation Adder. But because they formed a new fake shell company, they can pretend to be "new" and collect again. This is also outrageous. It's not a new entity, and it would only encourage utilities to keep creating new shell companies in order to receive financial reward.

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 is committed to collaborating with residents, local governments and other stakeholders in the project communities at every stage of the process. Community engagement is crucial for making informed decisions that reduce or prevent potential impacts while delivering for the public essential infrastructure necessary to address large-scale reliability needs that the PJM grid faces both in the short term and for years to come.

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.

0 Comments

The Facts About MARL are Clear

Stand Up For West Virginia at FERC!

FERC Checks the Box

West Virginia Public Service Commission Passes the Buck

Just Say NO To Utility Representatives Sneaking Around Jefferson County

Valley Link Transmission Files for Incentives and Formula Rate at FERC

About the Author

About
StopPATH Blog

Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
Email me

Archives

Categories

The Facts About MARL are Clear

Stand Up For West Virginia at FERC!

FERC Checks the Box

West Virginia Public Service Commission Passes the Buck

Just Say NO To Utility Representatives Sneaking Around Jefferson County

Valley Link Transmission Files for Incentives and Formula Rate at FERC

About the Author

AboutStopPATH Blog

Need help opposing unneeded transmission?Email me

Archives

Categories

About
StopPATH Blog

Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
Email me