Category:

Just Say NO To Utility Representatives Sneaking Around Jefferson County

4/16/2025

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

How DO You Get Power For New Data Centers?

3/7/2025

1 Comment

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

jefferson_first_resolution.pdf
File Size:	266 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

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.

1 Comment

Guidance For NIETC Comments for Mid-Atlantic Corridor

5/15/2024

1 Comment

Here's a little extra help planning your comments on the U.S. Department of Energy's preliminary Mid-Atlantic Corridor. If you're concerned about a different corridor, such as the Midwest-Plains corridor that follows Grain Belt Express, there will be slightly different guidance, coming soon.

The Mid-Atlantic Corridor roughly follows the path of the MidAtlantic Resiliency Link, or MARL, project that PJM ordered NextEra and FirstEnergy to build last December. It begins at 502 Junction substation in southwestern Pennsylvania and traverses through West Virginia, Maryland, and Virginia on its way to bring coal-fired electricity from West Virginia to Northern Virginia's data centers. It looks like this. The lines on this map may be 200-400 feet wide.

DOE's National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor that corresponds with that project looks like this:

Each line on this map is 2 miles wide.

Here's my advice on submitting effective comments. Make sure you have also sent your extension request and letters to elected officials for Step 1.

Quick Guide for Citizen Participation in Phase 2 Comments

DOE’s announcement of proposed corridors begins Phase 2 of its process. Phase 2 allows “information and recommendations” and comment from any interested party and you are urged to submit your comments. DOE requests information submissions in Phase 2 by 5:00 pm on June 24, 2024. Interested parties may email comments as attachments to [email protected]. You are encouraged to request DOE acknowledge your submission by return email so that you know it was received by the deadline. DOE requests comments in Microsoft Word or PDF format, except for maps and geospatial submissions. The attachment size limit for submissions is roughly 75 MB and may require interested parties to send more than one email in the event attachments exceed this limit. There is no page limit on comments. DOE requests that comments include the name(s), phone number(s), and email address(es) for the principal point(s) of contact, as well as relevant institution and/or organization affiliation (if any) and postal address. Note that there is no prohibition on the number of information submissions from an interested party, though DOE encourages interested parties making multiple submissions to include an explanation of any relationship among those submissions.

DOE will grant party status to anyone who comments in response to the notice of the preliminary list of potential NIETC designations, in the manner and by the deadline indicated above. Only those granted party status may request rehearing of the DOE’s decision, or appeal the NIETC in court. Protect your due process rights because you don’t know now whether you may want to request rehearing, or appeal an adverse decision. You are an interested party if: you are a person or entity, State, or Indian Tribe, concerned with DOE’s exercise of its discretion to designate a geographic area as a NIETC. Becoming a party does not obligate you to any further action, it only gives you the option of taking further action if you choose.

State in your comments that you are requesting interested party status in accordance with DOE’s NIETC Guidance at Pages 41-42 to preserve your right to request rehearing or appeal a corridor designation. Include comments that may become the basis for your appeal (where DOE is not following the statute). More information on the statute in the long version of this guidance that you can download at the bottom of this blog.

We are urging interested people to submit comments in two phases. RIGHT NOW and before the deadline.

RIGHT NOW:
To demand public notice and engagement from DOE and set a new comment deadline at least 45 days after the conclusion of the public engagement period. Ask for direct notification by mail of each impacted landowner within the corridor, as well as public notification, including posted notices in all local newspapers servicing the area of each proposed corridor. Request public information meetings, including an online meeting option for those who cannot attend in person. Ask that DOE share all available information on each corridor it is considering, including a narrative description of its boundaries, as well as identification of all transmission line(s) currently planned or proposed for the corridor.
We cannot comment on corridor requests submitted by utilities if we cannot read the requests! We cannot make effective comment on information DOE is keeping secret! It does little good to hold a public comment period for a project that has not provided notice to impacted landowners or disseminated adequate public information. DOE states, “Early, meaningful engagement with interested parties should reduce opposition to NIETC designation and to eventual transmission project siting and permitting within NIETCs, meaning more timely deployment of essential transmission investments.” But the DOE has not provided any notice or public information about this process, or attempted to engage impacted communities. DOE needs to walk their talk. Also consider writing to your U.S. Senators and Representatives and asking them to intervene on your behalf to ask DOE for public notice and engagement for the Phase 2 comment period.
See this link for a form letter and help contacting your representatives.

BEFORE JUNE 24:
At the end of Phase 2, DOE will identify which potential NIETCs it is continuing to consider, including the preliminary geographic boundaries of the potential NIETCs, the preliminary assessment of present or expected transmission capacity constraints or congestion that adversely affects consumers, and the list of discretionary factors in FPA section 216(a)(4) that DOE has preliminarily identified as relevant to the potential NIETCs.

DOE invites comments from the public on those potential NIETCs, including recommendations and alternatives.

Phase 2 provides a high level explanation of why the potential NIETCs in the list are moving forward in the NIETC designation process, and you are encouraged to provide additional information on why DOE should or should not proceed with a certain corridor.

Your comments before June 24 should focus on the underlying need within the geographic area as well as “information and recommendations” from DOE’s 13 Resource Reports and other possible topics below to narrow the list of potential NIETC designations. DOE also requests information on potential impacts to environmental, community, and other resources within the proposed corridor.

DOE’s 13 Resource Reports: (1) geographic boundaries; (2) water use and quality; (3) fish, wildlife, and vegetation; (4) cultural resources; (5) socioeconomics; (6) Tribal resources; (7) communities of interest; (8) geological resources; (9) soils; (10) land use,
recreation, and aesthetics; (11) air quality and environmental noise; (12) alternatives; and (13) reliability and safety.

DOE requests that interested parties provide in their Phase 2 comments the following resource information: concise descriptions of any known or potential environmental and cumulative effects resulting from a potential NIETC designation, including visual, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health effects thereof.

In addition to the above, a list of potential topics includes:

Expansion of existing transmission easements to add new lines. Expansion will remove all existing buildings, lighting fixtures, signs, billboards, swimming pools, decks, flag posts, sheds, barns, garages, playgrounds, fences or other structures within the expanded easement area. Existing septic systems, leach beds, and/ or wells may not be permitted within the expanded easement area. This would seriously damage host properties or make them uninhabitable.
Width of proposed NIETC (2 miles for MidAtlantic). All properties within the NIETC will have the perpetual cloud of potential eminent domain taking for new transmission. This lowers resale value.
Area of NIETC not large enough or in the right place for alternatives or route changes you suggest, such as routing on existing highway or railroad easements. Federal authorizations needed (crossing Appalachian Trail, C&O Canal), along with impacts to other federal land in the corridor such as Harpers Ferry NHP, The National Conservation Training Center, Antietam Battlefield, to name a few examples.
Need for the project – Do we need new transmission, or would it be a better idea to build generation near data centers instead of importing electricity from neighboring states? This new electric supply is only needed for data centers – suggest other options to supply power such as in-state generation from natural gas, biomass, waste-to-energy, nuclear, small modular nuclear, other large scale power generation in close proximity to the data center load. Building in-state gas generation is constrained by Virginia’s energy policy, which can be changed to avoid new transmission. The federal government can use corridors to force new transmission on states, but cannot force generation choices on states. Something is wrong with this scenario.
Diversification of electric supply.
Energy independence and security. Defense and homeland security.
National energy policy (not defined).
New transmission in the corridor will enhance the ability of coal-fired generators to connect additional capacity to the grid, resulting in increased emissions. Two plants slated for closure have already had their useful life extended (FirstEnergy’s Harrison and Ft. Martin). Imports constrain development of renewable generation in Northern Virginia by importing lower cost coal-fired electricity from other states.
Maximize use of existing rights-of-way without expanding them, including utility, railroad, highway easements. Reconductor existing lines (new wires with increased capacity) without expanding the easement. Buried lines on existing highway or rail rights-of-way, including high-voltage direct current.
Environmental and historic sites.
Costs to consumers. Are the data centers a “consumer” or a beneficiary? New transmission to serve new data centers will increase electric costs for all consumers. Everyone pays to construct new transmission in these corridors, even if we don’t benefit.
Water use and quality, wetlands.
Fish, wildlife and vegetation impacts. Consider future vegetation management under the lines that includes the use of herbicides, weed killers or other substances toxic to humans, animals or cultivated plantings that are either sprayed on new easements from the air or by on the ground vehicles. Construction vehicles and equipment can spread undesirable, invasive vegetation along the corridor
Cultural resources – Historic, tribal, other.
Socioeconomics – impacts on property, income, quality of life, use of eminent domain.
“Communities of interest” – environmental justice, racial disparities, income disparities, energy burden.
Geologic – Karst, abandoned mines.
Soil – erosion, loss of topsoil, loss of vegetation, drainage, compaction, introduction of rock from blasting, destruction of prime or unique farmland,
protected farmland, agricultural productivity.
Land use, recreation and aesthetics – changes to land use, homes and farms, conservation easements, parks, churches, cemeteries, schools, airports, visual impacts, public health and safety.
Environmental noise and air quality – construction noise, operational noise, impacts to air quality and emissions caused by project (increased use of coal in WV to supply power to data centers – Mitchell, Harrison, Ft. Martin, Longview and Mt. Storm coal-fired power plants feed these corridors).
Alternatives – suggest alternatives to this corridor, whether it is different design, different routing, or different power source.
Public safety – hazards to community from weather or operational failure or terrorist attack, health hazards from electromagnetic fields and stray voltage.
Your interaction (or lack thereof) with company applying for corridor. Lack of notice.

DOE must consider alternatives and recommendations from interested parties. Feel free to suggest as many alternatives as you want in one or more submissions.

DOE will prioritize which potential NIETCs move to Phase 3 based on the available information on geographic boundaries and permitting and preliminary review of comments. DOE must review public comments, consider recommendations and alternatives suggested.

Want to read more suggestions and tips? Download a longer version of these guidelines with additional information, quotes you can use, and more web resources to explore.

nietc_comment_instructions-1.docx
File Size:	187 kb
File Type:	docx

Download File

1 Comment

Making Effective Comment on NIETCs

5/11/2024

4 Comments

The U.S. Department of Energy released its preliminary list of National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETCs) this week.

Interested persons have only 45-days to make comment on these corridors before DOE makes its selections to proceed to the next round. DOE is not doing any notification for property owners within these corridors. It is not doing any public education and engagement, aside from one "listen only" webinar with limited space (sign up now!) There will be no public meetings. DOE is not even sharing the information and recommendations it received from transmission owners (and others) in its Phase 1 information submission window. Their maps are very generalized and have no details. We're supposed to comment on something that we have very little information about within a very short time window. It sort of sounds like DOE doesn't actually want us to comment.

But that only makes me want to comment more. And spread the word like transmission's Paul Revere...

First of all, we absolutely must have more time and information in order to make effective comment on something that threatens to put a cloud on our property in perpetuity. Being located in a NIETC is a designation that will stick with your property, making it the first choice for new transmission projects. How can our government make these kinds of land-use planning decisions that affect literally millions of people without providing notice and giving us information and time to comment?

This is unacceptable!

The first order of business is to demand the notice and information we need. Therefore, I am urging everyone to send a letter to the DOE asking for notice, information and extension of the comment deadline. It's quick and easy... simply download this prepared letter, add your name and other info. and then email it as an attachment to: [email protected].

extension_request.docx
File Size:	138 kb
File Type:	docx

Download File

It is recommended that you include in your email a request for acknowledgement that DOE received your comment, since there is no automatic acknowledgement provided.

One brief explanation: On the bottom of the letter it includes a request for full party status. Being a party doesn't come with any additional duties or expense, it simply allows you to request rehearing or appeal any corridor that impacts you in the future. It does not require you to do so, but it reserves your right to do so if you choose. If you do not request that right, you will have to live with DOE's future decision and cannot take any legal action. It's just a safety measure to protect your rights.

And one more thing... we cannot rely on DOE to act on our requests without a little encouragement, no matter how many we send. Therefore, it is recommended that you also contact your U.S. Senators and Representatives and ask them to demand that DOE provide notice, public engagement and an extended comment deadline for their constituents who are impacted by these huge corridors. Here's your quick and easy guide for getting that done with just a couple clicks:

contact_congress.pdf
File Size:	58 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

Everyone should get started on this RIGHT NOW so that these requests are in the works early in the comment process. Of course we are also going to encourage everyone to make more substantive comment on the actual corridors that impact them, but that's a post for another day. Stay tuned!

4 Comments

DOE Releases Preliminary List of NIETCs

5/11/2024

4 Comments

This week, the U.S. Department of Energy released its list of preliminary NIETCs.

You can read their list here.

There is also a larger map of each preliminary NIETC, and DOE's initial reasoning for including it on the list.

There are 10 potential corridors across the nation ranging in size up to 100 miles wide and 780 miles long.

I'm just going to concentrate on a couple for this blog.

The Mid-Atlantic corridor. This corridor follows the path of the MidAtlantic Resiliency Link (MARL) project that PJM ordered to be built to act as a giant extension cord from West Virginia coal-fired power plants to Northern Virginia's data centers. But this corridor isn't just for that project... it also includes corridors for the other two large 500kV transmission lines that ship power to the east.

It's a virtual spiderweb of coal-fired extension cords to No. Va. Each corridor line on this map is 2 miles wide. TWO MILES! That means that anything within that 2-mile corridor would be turned into a sacrifice zone for new transmission lines.

Another is the Midwest Plains corridor. This NIETC is 5 miles wide and 780 miles long and roughly follows the proposed path of Grain Belt Express.

Since the purpose of an NIETC is to bump permitting to a federal level if a state denies a project, or to "unlock" government financing of a transmission project in a corridor, your guess is as good as mine why GBE applied for this corridor. Do they expect that the Illinois Appeals Court will remand their Illinois permit back to the ICC for denial? Or is this designation necessary to get government financing for GBE? If it's the latter, maybe that explains why GBE's Environmental Impact Statement already in process for its government guaranteed loan seems to have stalled out. A NIETC also requires a full environmental impact statement, and the NIETC corridor is much wider than what GBE originally proposed. Perhaps it has to be re-done.

The last corridor I'm going to focus on is the Delta Plains. This corridor begins in the Oklahoma panhandle and proceeds east across the state and on into Arkansas, where it forks north and south. This corridor is 4-18 miles wide and 645 miles long. It roughly follows the routes for the dearly departed Clean Line Plains and Eastern project and the WindCatcher project. Although both of these projects were cancelled long ago, it seems that someone wants to bring the zombies back.

These three corridors alone will impact millions of landowners. When you add in the other 7 corridors the amount of people impacted by DOE's corridors is astounding!

DOE has opened a 45-day comment period on these corridors before it will further narrow them down and select some or all of them to proceed to its next phase of the process. That phase will open environmental impact reviews, provide public notice, and issue a draft designation report that you can comment on. Of course, by the time these corridors get that far, DOE will have already made its decision. It is imperative that we all get involved and comment now.

I will be publishing more guidance for impacted landowners to help them make timely and effective comment, so stay tuned!

4 Comments

The Big Transmission Lie

1/16/2024

1 Comment

As part of the "energy transition" big green, big government, and the electric industry have been promoting an overwhelming need for new high-voltage electric transmission. The message goes like this: we need more transmission to move electricity from new renewable energy generators (solar and wind) to big cities that "demand" more renewable energy.

That message is pure propaganda.

The "energy transition" is squeezing existing fossil fuel generators financially and many are shutting down. This phenomenon is caused by federal taxpayer-funded subsidies for renewable generators and state/local energy policy that requires your electric company to cut its carbon to zero by a certain date. Government policy has finally been successful in forcing the closure of fossil fuel electric generators. Perhaps this is a good idea, environmentally, but it absolutely doesn't work to keep the lights on.

One of the biggest problems is that new renewable generators are not coming online in time to replace closing fossil fuel generators. Instead, we just have less generation. The liars point to regional interconnection queues to demonstrate that thousands of megawatts of wind and solar are waiting patiently to connect to the grid, and blame grid operators and utilities for holding up their connection. Except this is just another lie. Generators in the queue have not yet been built and may never be. Vast numbers of generators drop out of the queue before constructing anything, even more now that the government has completely hosed up the supply chain.

When big, baseload fossil fuel generators close, there is often nothing in the state or locality to replace them. Regional grid operator PJM Interconnection is struggling to replace over 11,000 MW of closing generation. The continuing closures keep pushing our electric grid further and further to the edge. Closure of the last of Maryland's coal-fired electric generators causes widespread grid impacts that can destabilize the grid and cause power outages. But does Maryland care? Not really. Maryland leaves replacing the retiring generation to PJM and other states. Maryland is an energy parasite. Maryland's energy policies are causing unreliable electricity for everyone in the region.

PJM is also struggling with a 40% increase in electric demand caused by Virginia's out-of-control approval of new data centers. Data centers use incredible amounts of electricity that cannot be satisfied with variable forms of renewable energy like wind and solar. Data centers need 24/7 on-demand electricity, even after dark and on calm days. The capacity factors for renewables are much lower than fossil fuels. While fossil fuel generators can stockpile fuel and be prepared to run when needed, renewable generators only run when nature makes their fuel available. Therefore, you'd need many more renewables than fossil fuel generators to maintain reliable power. The big lie pretends that if we only build transmission to connect everything then some renewable generator, somewhere, will be producing electricity. But it won't be producing enough to replace everything else that isn't producing. Pretending that is so is an unproven fantasy, and one we engage in at our own peril. The cost of new generation and new transmission to connect it all is also going to make electric bills skyrocket. The liars say that renewable generation is cheaper than fossil fuel generation, but they don't tell you that's because of government subsidies, and they also don't add in the cost of all that new transmission needed to connect all the renewables. Unsubsidized remote renewables plus transmission is more expensive than existing fossil fuel generation that relies on existing transmission. Fact.

This whole lie has been spoon fed to a trusting public for years. But what happens when the largest grid planner in the country approves a new transmission expansion plan? Is it connecting renewables to load using new transmission?

NO.

PJM's recently approved transmission plan replaces closing fossil fuel generators, and increases electric supply for new data centers, by connecting these areas with existing fossil fuel generators in other states. This isn't about the "energy transition"; it's going backwards to increase the use of coal and other fossil fuels from states without impossible clean energy goals.

PJM's MidAtlantic Resiliency Link, or MARL, directly connects the data centers in Northern Virginia to over 10,000 MW of coal-fired generation. The MARL will enable the export of electricity produced at Ft. Martin (1,100MW), Harrison (2,000MW), Long View (860 MW), Mitchell (1,600 MW), Cardinal (1,800 MW), Sammis (1,700 MW) and Mt. Storm (1,700 MW). Wind, solar, biomass and hydro in this area add up to less than 10 MW. It is indisputable that the electricity carried by MARL will be overwhelmingly created by burning coal.

When will the environmental groups and people who will use this new supply of dirty power wake up and object? Transmission divorced from its source of power is a giant lie.

While Maryland sits around playing "victim" of its dwindling power supply, Virginia is planning a slew of new legislation supposed to make its data center problem "better." However, none of Virginia's legislation addresses the REAL problem -- the generation of electricity. Virginia's legislators try to pretend that electricity comes from new transmission lines.

It would also require the SCC to evaluate current rate structures to see if transmission project costs linked to data centers are being fairly applied or are being spread too widely among the broader customer base.
“One of the benefits of data centers is how much money it brings to a locality,” Subramanyam said. “And we like that, but I also want to make sure that the infrastructure needed to power those data centers, that those costs are reasonable to ratepayers and are not essentially defeating that purpose of the data centers, which is to be an economic boon for a locality.”

Transmission lines are nothing but giant extension cords that are not plugged in. It is only when the transmission line is connected to the generator that it supplies electricity. Looking at transmission while ignoring where the line plugs in is also a giant lie based on denial. Of course, it is a convenient lie for Virginians who want it all... they want the tax money data centers bring, but they don't want to host the infrastructure necessary for those data centers to operate. Attempting to shift the cost of new interstate transmission is a tricky puzzle because interstate transmission rates are a federal issue. While Virginia could direct its electric companies to allocate more costs of Virginia's portion of new transmission to certain rate classes, it cannot do a thing about all the transmission costs being allocated to the 13 other states in the PJM region. As well, data centers most likely don't have their own rate class, so any shifting of costs would also impact other industries in Virginia. This whole cost shifting thing is not solvable at the state level. Virginia needs to stop lying to everyone and trying to have it all.

If Virginia really wanted to take responsibility for its data center problem, it would deny any new data centers that did not have a firm power supply from a Virginia generator. Building new generation near the data center load is not only more reliable, but it's also cheaper than building hundreds of miles of new transmission to existing coal-fired power plants. Does Virginia think those coal plants in other states are going to operate forever? At some point, those aging plants are also going to close, and then what good is Virginia's extension cord when it's not plugged into anything? Are we all being forced to sacrifice for a new transmission line that may only be useful for 10 years or so? It's going to take more than 10 years to get it permitted and built!

Solution: Require Virginia localities that want to approve new data centers to also approve new power generation to support that load in the same locality. If that happened, data center building in Virginia would come to a screeching halt. Virginia doesn't want to shoulder the burden of providing electricity to the data centers that are increasing its tax base. Citizens of other states, such as West Virginia, want to carry your burdens even less. Stop being a parasite, Virginia!

When you hear the word "transmission" remember that it is NOT for the "energy transition" and that it cannot be divorced from the power it transmits. Virginia needs to own the fact that is is profiting off the misery of other states and increasing carbon emissions. And it's not just the data centers that will be using coal power... everyone in Virginia will now be using a lot more coal power from West Virginia, courtesy of the new MARL transmission line. Own it!

1 Comment

Transmission Leftovers

7/16/2023

2 Comments

Some things are better the second time around, like lasagna and chili. Transmission projects, however, are not good leftovers. Once a transmission idea is proposed to the public, vehemently contested, and eventually shelved as unneeded and impossible, it can never come back from the dead.

Or can it?

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act have created a new transmission feeding frenzy from coast to coast. Now that the government is giving away your tax dollars to provide incentive to build new transmission "for renewables," utilities and transmission developers are falling all over themselves to belly up to the buffet. There is no actual plan for what transmission needs to be built, any transmission will do. It's about quantity, not quality. They just can't propose transmission fast enough. And apparently some utilities are simply recycling old transmission projects from the last decade that were never built.

Remember the Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway, or MAPP, project? Proposed around 2007, this hotly opposed transmission project across Maryland's eastern shore was finally abandoned several years later, citing lack of need. The utilities behind this horrible idea were fully reimbursed for their sunk costs by ratepayers who would have "benefited" from the project. If my memory serves, it was something like $80M that we paid for a transmission project that was never constructed.

The MAPP project is back, one of dozens of new transmission proposals currently being evaluated by grid planner PJM. They even recycled the name... once again calling it MAPP.

Project title: Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway (MAPP)

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

Do they think the folks who fought MAPP have forgotten? It's only been 15 years. They remember, and many are still around, with all the knowledge they gained fighting MAPP the first time.

Transmission fatigue is a thing. Communities who have fought a transmission line are instantly opposed to another proposed for the same area, and they know what to do because they've ridden in this rodeo before. A recent transmission proposal through New Hampshire is giving communities that fought the scrapped Northern Pass project PTSD.

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

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

The four representatives nodded glumly.

And stupidly, I might add. Transmission is bad enough without ghost projects adding to the hatred.

It seems that every contested and vanquished transmission project from the past 15-20 years has been resurrected.

Remember PATH, the Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline? It's back. But instead of just the revised, re-routed project that PATH finally settled on, former PATH partner FirstEnergy has proposed BOTH the original PATH route through Morgan, Berkeley and Jefferson Counties AND the revised PATH route through Frederick County, VA, southern Jefferson County, WV, Loudoun County, VA and Frederick County Maryland. This is FirstEnergy's recent proposal for PJM's competitive transmission window. On a map, it looks like this:

The northern line on the map is described like this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

A portion of the southern line on the map from Meadow Brook to Doubs is described like this:

Component title: Meadow Brook - Doubs 500 kV Line

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, FirstEnergy proposed building a new 50 mile greenfield transmission line from Pruntytown to Meadow Brook.

It's not an "either/or" proposition. FirstEnergy wants to build BOTH old PATH ideas this time.

Here we go again!

Is this new transmission required to expand renewable power? Look at the map, it's self-explanatory. PJM is soliciting proposals to move more coal-fired electric generation from plants at Ft. Martin and Pruntytown into the Washington, D.C. suburbs. New generation is needed there because these areas have closed a whole bunch of the "dirty" coal and gas fired generation that used to keep their lights on. Instead of replacing what they closed with local renewables, they're burying their heads in the sand and pretending they don't need any new generation. However, they're also building new data centers that use an enormous amount of power and leaving it up to grid planner PJM to find a way to keep the lights on and the data centers humming. The new PATH is one proposal for PJM to do just that. Hardly "clean and green" is it? It's a step back 20 years in time, when PATH was proposed to move 5,000 MW of coal-fired electricity from southern West Virginia to the D.C. metro area.

So, what happens next? PJM says it will select projects from its huge proposal list in September. Once selected, it proposes to have the favored projects approved by its Board in December of this year. See timeline here (these projects are in 2022 RTEP Window 3):

After being beaten into submission the first time, PATH abandoned its project and collected over $150M from electric customers like us for a project that was never built. How much will it cost us the second time around?

Keep your eyes on this one. PATH did not happen the first time due to widespread opposition. We're still here and we remember.

2 Comments

Ut-oh, Utility Rainmakers. UTT-OHHHH!

7/22/2020

2 Comments

Investor-owned utilities are all about the Benjamins. They're only interested in providing a public service because it's profitable. There is no honor among thieves.

In the past couple weeks, federal investigators have dropped the hammer on two of the biggest... two of the biggest criminal enterprises in the utility business. Are more coming? I'd say it's likely at this point. Be afraid, utility rainmakers, be very afraid!

Last week, Exelon subsidiary ComEd agreed to pay a $200M fine for its part in a years-long bribery scheme involving the Speaker of the Illinois House, and possibly the Illinois Commerce Commission. According to court documents, ComEd arranged no-work "jobs", contracts, and appointments to both the ICC and its own corporate Board of Directors in exchange for political favors from House Speaker Michael Madigan.

Here's a summary from the document:

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY,
defendant herein, corruptly gave, offered, and agreed to give things of value, namely, jobs, vendor subcontracts, and monetary payments associated with those jobs and subcontracts, for the benefit of Public Official A and Public
Official A's associates, with intent to influence and reward Public Official A, as an agent of the State of Illinois, a State government that during each of the twelve-month calendar years from 2011 to 2019, received federal benefits in excess of $10,000, in connection with any business, transaction, and series of transactions of $5,000 or more of the State of Illinois, namely, legislation affecting ComEd and its business;
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 666(a)(2).

I was particularly touched by this scheme.

Hiring of Public Official A's Associates as Vendor "Subcontractors" Who Performed Little or No Work for ComEd

ComEd employees and agents, including third-party consultants and lobbyists were subject to Exelon's Code of Conduct. Exelon's Code of Conduct, applicable beginning in 2015, required employees and agents to: (a) "(k]eep accurate and complete records so all payments are honestly detailed and company funds are not used for unlawful purposes"; (b) "[c]onduct due diligence on all potential agents, consultants or other business partners"; and (c) "[n]ever use a third party to make payments or offers that could be improper." Exelon's Code of Conduct also prohibited bribery and listed as an example of a prohibited bribe: "Providing something of value for the benefit of a public official in a position to make a decision that could benefit the company." Beginning no later than in or around 2011, Public Official A and Individual A
sought to obtain from ComEd jobs, vendor subcontracts, and monetary payments associated with those jobs and subcontracts for various associates of Public Official A, such as precinct captains who operated within Public Official A's legislative district. In or around 2011, Individual A and Lobbyist 1 developed a plan to direct money to two of Public Official A's associates ("Associate 1" and'' Associate 2") by having ComEd pay them indirectly as subcontractors to Consultant 1. Payments to Associate 1 and Associate 2, as well as later payments to other subcontracted associates of Public Official A. continued until in or around 2019, even though those associates did little to no work during that period.
Consultant 1 agreed in 2011 that Public Official A's associates would be identified as subcontractors under Consultant 1's contract and that ComEd's payments to Consultant 1 would be increased to cover payments to those subcontractors. Between in or around 2011 and 2019, Consultant 1 executed written contracts and submitted invoices to ComEd that made it falsely appear that the payments made to Company 1 were all in return for Consultant 1's advice on "legislative issues" and "legislative risk management activities," and other similar matters, when in fact a portion of the compensation paid to Company 1 was intended for ultimate payment to Public Official A's associates, who in fact did little to no work for ComEd. Consultant 1 and Company 1 did little, if anything, to direct or supervise the activities of Public Official A's associates, even though they were subcontracted under and received payments through Company 1. Moreover, because they were paid indirectly through Company 1, the payments to Public Official A's associates over the course of approximately eight years were not reflected in the vendor payment system used by ComEd, and as a result, despite that Public Official A's associates were subcontracted under and receiving payments through Company 1, no such payments were identifiable in ComEd's vendor payment system.

So, because ComEd wanted to make gravy payments to certain individuals it hid them as "subcontractors" within a legitimate contractor's contract. Why, it's almost like that time when PATH hired former Joe Manchin Chief of Staff Larry Puccio and decided that he would be paid through the company's contract with Charles Ryan Associates, although Larry wouldn't give speaking events like the other subcontractors. Even PATH's accountants got suspicious, however, when Larry's bills showed up in Charles Ryan's monthly detail without any statement of work performed. All of this made the FERC Administrative Law Judge question whether Larry had actually done any work at all...

I wonder if ComEd and PATH were comparing notes on hiding the gravy $$$?

And yesterday, the federal boogeyman showed up in Ohio to clean house in an alleged $60M bribery scheme involving a FirstEnergy subsidiary and Ohio's Speaker of the House Larry Householder. You can read those court documents here.

In this instance, the schemers were arrested and charged with conspiracy to participate in an enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity. RICO. UT-OHHH FirstEnergy! Quick, NEO's to the basement bunker to use their bodies as human shields to to protect Chatty Chuck!

Bribery, extortion and efforts to defraud the government, FirstEnergy? Who woulda thunk it...

Oh, wait... I've read a whole bunch of their internal documents over the years. I guess I woulda thunk it. Schadenfreude!

Whew! That was fun, wasn't it?

I'm going to bet that all investor-owned utilities buy elected officials and regulators, either with cash, contracts, fake "jobs", maybe even hookers and blow, who knows? Looks like the utility will supply whatever it takes to make sure your elected official or regulator is working for the them, and not you. But our government has been watching... and now heads are rolling. It's about damned time.

UT-OH utility rainmakers.... who's going to be next?

2 Comments

FirstEnergy Failure

2/14/2018

2 Comments

FirstEnergy's attempt to transfer its risky, money-losing coal generating plant to West Virginia ratepayers has failed. Finally. It's just too bad all that time and money got wasted on an idea that had no real chance of succeeding. Only a corrupt regulatory system and galling arrogance made it seem like a good idea.

Because the WV Public Service Commission had approved a similar deal for a different company transfer several years ago, FirstEnergy thought it didn't have to try so hard. Its idea to transfer the Pleasants Power Station from its competitive generation company to its WV distribution affiliate was a bold joke, flimsily wrapped in "need" and bad economic projections, submitted with a wink and a nod. FirstEnergy knows that the WV PSC is more interested in the needs of the company than the needs of the ratepayers it was created to protect. Oh, sure, the WV PSC pretends its mission is to "balance" the needs of ratepayers with the needs of the community at large and the needs of the utility. However the utility is perfectly capable of advocating for its own needs, and the communities are so bought out by corporate profits that they act like yappy lap dogs, barking at corporate direction. It is the ratepayers who rely on the regulatory system to protect their interests. Indeed it is the very nature of a monopoly situation that requires regulation to protect ratepayer interests. FirstEnergy's WV affiliate has been granted a monopoly franchise to serve West Virginians. Because FirstEnergy has a monopoly, regulation serves to provide competition where none exists naturally. It is regulation that controls utility actions to ensure a monopoly does not exert market power over captive ratepayers. Therefore, the WV PSC exists first and foremost to protect the needs of WV ratepayers captive in a monopoly system. Perish the thought that FirstEnergy would have to perform and earn its right to own a monopoly franchise. That thought has probably never even crossed the minds of WV's PSC Commissioners. They seem to think they exist to make sure the utility is treated fairly. And that's what they did in the recent Pleasants transfer case.

Knowing that the WV PSC is a captured agency who dances at corporate will, it was much more productive for ratepayers to look beyond the first string of regulators who are supposed to protect them. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission isn't as wrapped up in the needs of West Virginia's economy or corporate profits, and is not captured in the same way as the WV PSC, whose commissioners are appointed as lobbied by state franchised utilities. The chances were better that an impartial decision would be made at the federal level. And it was. The FERC rejected FirstEnergy's proposal to transfer the plant between affiliates, finding that the transfer resulted in improper cross-subsidization. In plain speak, that means that it was not a fair arm's length transaction. But FirstEnergy, in its sheer arrogance, attempted to apply its West Virginia bag of tricks to influence the federal agency. That's right, FirstEnergy had its attorney call up a FERC Commissioner to try to influence the agency's decision. Somehow, FirstEnergy was aware "that the Commission would shortly issue an order adverse to the interests of Monongahela Power." How was it that a party to a FERC proceeding was aware of a decision of the agency before it was issued? Because FERC is as much a revolving door regulatory agency as any. It's a great landing spot for attorneys fresh out of law school with a mountain of student debt. With just a few years of effort at marginal pay, a FERC staff attorney can make himself marketable to private industry as an "insider." The regulated entities prize these FERC insiders and pay them handsomely. FERC is just a springboard to fat paychecks for some attorneys. That's not to say that all FERC attorneys are using the agency to pad their resumes, I found that there are plenty of staff who take their charge to protect public interests seriously and make a career out of it. Those public employees are treasures, but as you can see, it only takes a handful of bad ones to trash FERC's public service mission. I'm happy to realize, though, that one of FERC's Commissioners put a stop to this underhanded effort and reported the illegal contact from FirstEnergy's attorney. Bravo! But what happens to the attorney who attempted this improper influence? I'm thinking that FirstEnergy's attorney knew calling up the Commissioner like that was against the rules. But he did it anyhow. Why isn't he barred from practice before the agency in the future? The only thing he seems to have received is some exposure. No harm, no foul, he's free to repeat this behavior in the future, perhaps with a Commissioner who may not blow the whistle on him. It is only when improper behavior comes with significant consequences that it will end.

And why did FirstEnergy think improper influence on FERC would save their bacon? Probably because it works in other jurisdictions. I believe that if the same situation played itself out in West Virginia, for instance, that ending the contact and reporting the encounter would not occur. FirstEnergy only does this because it works.

So here we are again at regulation acting as safeguard in a monopoly situation. It's a lesson the WV PSC never seems to learn.

And what happened in West Virginia after FERC disapproved the transaction? The WV PSC approved the transfer, saying that the unfairness of affiliate transactions didn't matter. The WV PSC was totally unconcerned about the fairness of the transaction and whether it violated the concept of competition in an open market where a utility did not have a monopoly. The WV PSC tried to pretend it actually listened to public comment and considered it in its decision. That's a first, but it was contrived nonsense. The WV PSC's decision to approve the transfer was nothing short of a display of disgusting arrogance. Someone's fee-fees seemed pretty bruised that the company did not accept their offer to approve the transaction with a delay. Everyone got some backlash. The Consumer Advocate gets chastised for protecting consumers:

The CAD takes no prisoners in its attempt to “advise” the Commission of its responsibilities. In its Reply Brief, the CAD emphasizes the gravity of the situation by stating that, if this Transaction is approved, “the harm that redounds to West Virginia captive ratepayers will be a legacy of this Commission.”

Seriously? The CAD exists to protect ratepayer interests. Why shouldn't it be direct about the harm to ratepayers? Its job IS to advise the Commission, no quotation marks needed. If the CAD can place a little nugget of guilt into the mind of a compromised Commissioner, it's still not a fair trade for years of increased electric rates. And a Commissioner who resents this effort obviously doesn't have the best interests of ratepayers in mind. If he did, then the CAD's attempt to inspire guilt would have no effect. Think about that.

The WV PSC treats "risk" as a non-starter. The PSC thinks risk exists everywhere and assumption of risk should not be a primary concern in their decision. Except the company failed to accept the PSC's conditions on approval, stating:

Additionally,the Companies will not accept the conditions included in the Commission Order that would result in Mon Power assuming exposure and significant commodity risk, which is inconsistent with FirstEnergy’s announced corporate strategy.

So it is about the risk after all? While the ratepayers are supposed to be unconcerned about taking on additional risk from the transaction, the company can base its decision to abandon the transaction on its aversion to risk? FirstEnergy was trying to transfer its risk to WV consumers, but it was unsuccessful. And that's the bottom line.

FirstEnergy failed. Although it was a rough ride with some hairy, scary moments, ultimately the company ends up stuck with their own mess. We just get the bill.

2 Comments

<<Previous

Just Say NO To Utility Representatives Sneaking Around Jefferson County

Valley Link Transmission Files for Incentives and Formula Rate at FERC

How DO You Get Power For New Data Centers?

Guidance For NIETC Comments for Mid-Atlantic Corridor

Making Effective Comment on NIETCs

DOE Releases Preliminary List of NIETCs

The Big Transmission Lie

Transmission Leftovers

Ut-oh, Utility Rainmakers. UTT-OHHHH!

FirstEnergy Failure

About the Author

About
StopPATH Blog

Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
Email me

Archives

Categories

About the Author

AboutStopPATH Blog

Archives

Categories

About
StopPATH Blog