StopPATH WV Blog

FirstEnergy's Plan To Pickpocket West Virginians To Increase Profits

10/27/2025

FirstEnergy is an investor-owned utility (IOU). Great acronym for companies that make themselves rich by providing an essential service, like electricity. We will always owe them. Unless you're lucky enough to live in an area that has a municipally-run electric utility, or a consumer-owned electric cooperative, you're a captive customer of an IOU. The vast majority of West Virginians are captive customers of either FirstEnergy (subsidiaries Potomac Edison and Mon Power) or American Electric Power (Appalachian Power or Wheeling Power). Therefore, your electric supplier is also in the business of turning a hefty profit in order to pay share dividends to stockholders. FirstEnergy is a publicly-traded company.

I've always found it both ironic and fascinating that these IOUs have two faces... one for their regulators and customers, and one for their investors. You often get two completely different stories about the same set of facts. The public story is often about their obligation to serve and their dedication and commitment to providing your electric service at the cheapest possible rate. Regulators get sad, sad stories about how the utility cannot continue to provide service if it isn't permitted to raise rates. And the investors? Well, they get a story that is based on

increasing profits and share dividends, at your expense.
You can find the utility's public service face just about everywhere, however these IOUs only let their mask slip to reveal the investor face several times a year at what are known as corporate "Earnings Calls."

Earnings calls are an exercise in the absurd. The IOU makes a presentation about its financial situation over the past quarter designed to convince big investment firms to buy more of its stock, and then they take a few questions from the investors. The investors, for their part, know the company is lying to them about how profitable it is, just like they're lying to you about how they are working in your best interest. But the investors are a glib bunch. So friendly with the CEO and other executives on the call! It's just one big, happy, back slapping fest about how much money the company has made, and more importantly, plans to make in the future. The investor's job is to trip the company up with a hard question about their money-making plans. They often ask about stalled projects, or stalled regulatory processes.

Case in point: FirstEnergy's proposal to build a new 800MW gas-fired generation station in West Virginia. First read FirstEnergy's rosy public version, where it's doing this only for the benefit of West Virginians.

Mon Power and Potomac Edison, subsidiaries of FirstEnergy Corp. (NYSE: FE), have submitted an Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) to the Public Service Commission of West Virginia that outlines how the companies will continue to deliver reliable, cost-effective power to West Virginia homes and businesses over the next decade.

West Virginia's energy landscape is changing as industries grow, and the need for dependable, cost-effective power is critical. The IRP lays out a roadmap to meet the need, guided by local priorities and a commitment to keeping power accessible and resilient.

Contrast with FirstEnergy's talk about the same power station in its recent Q3 2025 earnings call.

The proposed gas and solar investments are aligned with Governor Morrissey’s 50 by 50 initiative, which aims to boost West Virginia’s energy capacity to 50 gigawatts by 2050. We are pleased to pursue generation projects in a state with strong executive, legislative, and regulatory support.

This is an exciting opportunity for FirstEnergy...

Question: I was just wondering, this morning, on the West Virginia generation, if you kind of talked about build-own-transfer versus self-build, can you maybe kind of talk about how you’d recover the capital in either scenario and how we should kind of think about the impact to earnings 2028 through 2031? If you’re just kind of thinking about a build-own-transfer for 2031, is there really no earnings attribution until then, or could there be milestone payments? Maybe you can kind of expand on that.Answer: The build-own-transfer, I think, is fairly straightforward. On the we build it side, we, of course, would file for CWIP during construction. We’d expect at least the recovery of that, if not the earnings component, during the pendency of construction. The real significant earnings component for that will come after the asset’s online.

... we think of it as firming up the ability for us to be in that 6% to 8% earnings per share range over the planning period. You know, people don’t traditionally think of utilities as growth investments, but as we look at the opportunity to invest in our system, increasing CapEx over the period, it gives us real confidence that we’ll solidly be in that 6% to 8% earnings per share growth range.

Question: You touched on in your comments, I guess, the bill increases and the impact generation has had on that. I was just wondering if you could expand a bit more there on the appetite to build new generation elsewhere across PJM if there’s the proper underpinnings to it. How do conversations look on that, and anything new to report there?
Answer: Yeah. Nothing new to report there, Jeremy. The place where we have a clear window, a supportive Governor, commission, and legislature is in West Virginia. That’s how we’re able to move forward so quickly with those plans. The idea that we’d be building in any of the other states on a long-term basis would really just be speculative at this point.

Even more revolting, check out how FirstEnergy talks about data centers and their transmission needs. Despite their glowing talk about how much these transmission lines are needed to keep YOUR lights on, the real reason is revealed in the Earnings Call Transcript.

The impact of this demand will be tremendous. Based on data center customers who are contracted or in our pipeline, we expect FirstEnergy’s system peak load to increase 15 gigawatts, or nearly 50% from 33.5 gigawatts this year to 48.5 gigawatts in 2035. Across PJM, peak load projections are forecasted to increase by nearly 48 gigawatts by 2035, or 30% of the current peak load of 162 gigawatts. FirstEnergy is uniquely situated to support this growing demand through customer-focused investments, specifically in our transmission system.

This system is located in the heart of PJM, interconnecting with a broad number of neighboring utilities and encompassing strategic high-voltage corridors that are a vital part of the transmission grid.

We are also participating in regional network upgrades, which are the investments awarded through PJM’s RTEP open window process.
This includes required system upgrades and improvements to address reliability, security, and load demands of the bulk electric system. Over the last few years, we have been awarded $4 billion of capital investments through the PJM open window process. We recently submitted proposals of capital investments through the 2025 open window to support increasing demand in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. These proposed investments include several new and upgraded substations and high voltage lines needed to support the increasing customer demand. The PJM board is expected to award transmission projects in this open window by the first quarter of 2026.  Any projects awarded to FirstEnergy in this open window will be included in our new five-year plan. We now expect transmission investments included in the 2026 to 2030 capital plan to increase by 30% versus our current five-year plan.

This includes increases from reliability enhancements and regulatory required investments to improve the overall health and performance of our most critical assets on the system and to address growing demand and changes in generation in the region. Our company-wide transmission assets are a terrific growth engine. Our investments are expected to result in a compound transmission rate-based growth of up to 18% per year through 2030. This means total transmission rate base would more than double through the planning period.

Question:  I guess looking at the data center pipeline, I was wondering if you could refresh us on just, you know, the activity seems to continue to be very strong. As you see more gigawatts maybe come in and firm up, is there a way to give any rule of thumb for how much increased transmission CapEx you could see going forward, like on a per-gigawatt basis? I think you’ve given that rule of thumb in the past, but the CapEx that you’re adding to the plan here seems to be, you know, quite a bit stronger. Just wondering your current thoughts on as more and more data center activity continues to come to your service territory, what that could mean going forward.

Answer:  In total right now, as we look at what’s contracted and just our transmission CapEx program in total, I think you could say there’s probably easily $1 billion of CapEx associated with transmission interconnection requests, whether that be direct connection projects or network upgrades to support large loads. That’s what we see now based on the contracted and active large load customers that we have. I think that will vary as we move into the future. We’ve seen a wide range of capital deployment based on interconnection requests depending on the location and the size.

FirstEnergy is making gobs of cash building things because captive ratepayers have to pay for those things, plus a guaranteed rate of return (interest) on the company's investment in the neighborhood of 10%. In fact, FirstEnergy revealed during the earnings call that their most recent realized ROE is 10.1%. Are you making 10% on your investments? FirstEnergy is EAGER to find things to build because it increases their profits. That's how IOUs make their profits, with a little share dividend on the side. FirstEnergy has a NEED to build things in order to make money.

Regulators are supposed to balance these two conflicting interests in IOUs (the need to make a profit v. the duty to serve captive customers who have no other choice for service). But watch FirstEnergy during the earnings call talking about how supportive West Virginia's elected officials and PSC is of their plans. These West Virginians are nothing but putty in FirstEnergy's evil, corporate hands.

If you ever have a spare hour that coincides with a FirstEnergy earnings call, you can also listen to it live, instead of just reading a transcript. Way more fun when you can hear their voices and ask yourself if they are telling the complete truth. After all, FirstEnergy got itself into quite a bit of trouble not too long ago pulling some shady stuff. Can its executives be trusted?

Here's a few closing words from FirstEnergy...

Most of this growth will come from high-quality transmission investments backed by forward-looking rates with constructive ROEs. We’re also excited about new opportunities to invest in generation in a state that is supportive of these efforts.

In closing, the team is extremely focused on the value proposition that we offer to shareholders. We are focused on delivering enhanced customer experience through strong customer-focused investments, which in turn will allow us to provide solid risk-adjusted returns to our investors. The future is bright for FirstEnergy.

Whether it be industry-leading transmission investment opportunities, significant reliability investments in the distribution system, or the build-out of regulated generation in a supportive state like West Virginia, we have a strong business plan and the right team to execute. We are committed to continuing our positive momentum and delivering value for our shareholders.

But what about your customers, FirstEnergy? Don't they deserve "value" too? We're nothing but a pocket FirstEnergy can pick to increase its profits, and it seems to be due to the weakness of our elected officials and regulators to protect us from this huge IOU that's based in Ohio. West Virginians probably has the lowest average income of all the states FirstEnergy serves. But yet we're the ones being used as a piggy bank.

Ask your representatives if they've got your back... or are they going to encourage FirstEnergy to pick your pocket for profits?

0 Comments

Looks Like MO PSC's Love Affair With GBE is O-V-E-R

10/26/2025

0 Comments

Missouri utilities must perform integrated resource planning every three years. In conjunction with this, the Missouri PSC opens a docket to collect ideas for the utility to "consider and analyze" in their integrated resource plan, which it calls "special contemporary issues". These issues must be outside the regular planning, and they must be "contemporary" and truly "special". The PSC can order the utility to consider any of the contemporary issues that are filed in the docket before the planning begins. While the PSC cannot order that the utility adopt one plan or the other, it can order the utility to consider certain issues in its planning.

What is integrated resource planning?  Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) is a strategic roadmap that utilities use to plan for future energy needs by evaluating supply and demand-side resources like power plants, renewable energy, and energy efficiency. This process considers risks, benefits, costs, reliability, and environmental impacts to create a long-term plan for how the utility will meet customer demand reliably and affordably.

Recently, the MO PSC opened a docket to begin the process for Ameren's 2026 Integrated Resource Plan. Docket No. EO-2026-0037. The PSC requested parties to file any contemporary and special issues they wanted included in Ameren's planning.

Filings were made by the PSC Staff and the Office of Public Counsel. Grain Belt Express also made a filing, pushing its project as a special contemporary issue that Ameren should consider when creating its plan for serving its customers.

Where's the customers, Invenergy? Is Grain Belt still so desperate for customers that it's trying to make the PSC force consideration of GBE into Ameren's Integrated Resource Plan?

Grain Belt Express submitted three issues for consideration. The first two issues have already been agreed to by Ameren in a prior settlement in which the PSC granted an order for Ameren to construct and own the Castle Bluff 800MW natural gas electric generation station (Case No. EA-2024-0237).

Those issues are:

Grain Belt Express Issue A: Ameren shall model and share the results of generation that can be delivered through Grain Belt Express to Ameren’s service territory. For this modeling, Ameren shall use data for generic Kansas resources, including wind, solar, battery and natural gas generation, as distinct from data for generic Missouri and Midcontinent Independent System Operator (“MISO”) resources. For this modeling, Ameren shall also use an ownership and delivery cost based on discussions between Ameren and Grain Belt Express. If a firm delivery cost cannot be provided by Grain Belt, Ameren shall use a range of delivery costs to account for uncertainties in what the actual ownership and delivery costs may be.

Grain Belt Express Issue B: Ameren shall weigh the reliability, resiliency, and operational benefits of HVDC transmission facilities. In particular, Ameren shall weigh resource diversity values, cost-effective black-start capabilities, active and reactive power control, voltage and frequency control, dynamic voltage support, emergency power control and power modulation, and damping of electro-mechanical oscillations.

Nothing the PSC, Ameren, or GBE can do about those issues since they are part of an existing settlement. Just because Ameren is going to "study" those things does NOT mean that it will find GBE beneficial for its customers.

In the IRP docket, GBE tried to add a third special contemporary issue.

Grain Belt Express Issue C: Ameren shall also assess the potential resource adequacy value provided by Grain Belt Express’s ability to access available generation in neighboring regions. This value is separate from the capacity value of contracted resources with firm transmission on Grain Belt Express. Ameren shall conduct probabilistic analysis using a methodology equivalent to that used by PowerGEM (formerly, Astrape) to evaluate the resource adequacy value of the North Plains Connector.

Ameren objected, stating:

This issue goes beyond the bounds of IRP requirements to evaluate "generic" resources and contemplates analysis that is outside the resource adequacy considerations of Ameren Missouri; therefore, it should not be considered a special contemporary issue. Regardless, Ameren Missouri has already evaluated the broader market benefits of two-way flow on the GBX line as part of its analysis pursuant to the aforementioned stipulation and agreement and included in the Company's 2025 IRP Annual Update.

The PSC recently issued an order directing Ameren to consider the following contemporary and special issues:

1. Construction of a nuclear power plant
2. Large load customers (i.e. data centers)
3. Small modular nuclear reactors
4. Geologic Hydrogen Onsite or Near Natural Gas Storage

What's not included in this list? The Grain Belt Express suggestion that Ameren consider more issues related to its project. Looks like the PSC thinks there are better solutions to Ameren's needs than Grain Belt Express. Perhaps Ameren thinks that, too, but it's still got to do that analysis it agreed to in the prior settlement.

I think it's pretty clear... Grain Belt Express has jumped the shark. What may have sounded like a good idea 15 years ago when Grain Belt was originally proposed, and as recently as a couple years ago when the PSC approved the project, has been eclipsed by time and better ideas. Is this the reason that GBE doesn't have any customers? Despite GBE's bold statement that it was going to get "private financing" for its project, it's still struggling to find a way to make GBE a value proposition for utility customers in Missouri. Remember, a merchant transmission project like GBE is completely voluntary. Customers will only sign up if it provides some value to them. All these years, and only one customer... a collection of Missouri municipal utilities that were offered loss leader pricing if they signed up to be a potential customer ten years ago.

As well, it is unlikely that a bank, or other investor, would plunk down billions to build Grain Belt Express if it cannot find customers to create a revenue stream.

Time is never a friend to utility proposals that aren't needed. They are always obviated by better ideas. And it looks like the MO PSC isn't going out of its way to force a "need" for Grain Belt Express any longer. That's refreshing!

0 Comments

The Facts About MARL are Clear

10/20/2025

0 Comments

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

GBE's Much Ado About Nothing

10/16/2025

0 Comments

Time has a way of solving things, doesn't it? The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has been studiously ignoring Invenergy's complaints about regional grid planner MISO since August 2022.

Today, the Commission issued an order denying the bulk of Invenergy's complaint, and ordering MISO to make a compliance filing, within 90 days of the date of this order, to revise Attachment FF to specify when and how MHVDC transmission projects are incorporated into MISO's transmission planning models, as discussed in the order.

So, the ball is now in MISO's court to come up with a process. A prospective process. As in for the future.

It doesn't get Grain Belt Express what it really wanted... an order requiring MISO to restudy its Tranche 1 and Tranche 2 to include GBE in its planning, and then plan around it. The Commission is clear about what Invenergy was asking for... and why.

Invenergy also requests that the Commission use its authority under section 309 of the FPA37 to grant remedial relief with regard to LRTP decisions that MISO has made to date to ensure that Tranche 1 and Tranche 2 assessments will result in just and reasonable rates.

Invenergy asserts that, despite the fact that it now has an effective TCA, MISO’s Tranche 2 draft portfolio still did not consider the impact of advanced-stage merchant transmission and therefore proposed a new 765 kV transmission line in Missouri that is redundant to the GBX Line.

What Invenergy really wanted was the Commission to order MISO to remove the "redundant" lines from its plan that obviate any need for GBE. Water under the bridge, three years later. MISO's "redundant" plan is proceeding as scheduled, and GBE is now the "redundant" transmission project. FERC rejected any request to undo MISO's completed transmission planning.

Time cures all transmission "needs" because when a transmission project cannot be built in a timely fashion, other options always intervene to solve the need. In GBE's case, it was reliability and other needs in MISO that needed solving, and MISO was obligated to do so, so it did. MISO actually has a duty to ensure that the region's needs are met. MISO does not have to risk reliability waiting for a speculative merchant transmission project like GBE to get its stuff together and actually build its project. MISO cannot risk reliability by allowing speculative merchant projects to find customers and build. Whether GBE gets built or not is beyond MISO's control. MISO cannot order GBE to be built. GBE is on its own as a supplemental project that is only viable if it provides some benefit to voluntary customers.

And that seems to have been GBE's problem all along... lack of customers. Clean Line Energy never managed to find enough customers to make GBE economic, so it sold the project to Invenergy before going belly-up. Caveat emptor! Invenergy has also struggled to find customers for GBE. Despite "renewing" its negotiated rate authority recently, GBE still hasn't managed to hold an open season to attract customers. There's no guarantee that it will ever do so.

Meanwhile, the transmission planning world at MISO moves on, and new projects are currently in process that will supply energy as needed. Customers will pay for MISO's new lines no matter what. It remains to be seen whether these same customers will also opt to pay additional amounts to secure transmission capacity on GBE. I don't know why any customer would, if they can get the same service on new lines planned by MISO that they are already obligated to pay for.

Seems to me that this FERC order is a hollow victory. If GBE wants to continue to limp along and try to be included in MISO's next planning window base case, it's not going to get very far. MISO has made GBE redundant. GBE's turtle-like creep toward ever becoming viable didn't win the race.

And before I go, here's one more thing from the Order worth noting...

In this case, Invenergy has not shown that MISO’s approach is unreasonable in how it is treating the external nature and unidirectional flow of the GBX Line, and the contention that the GBX Line can be operated bidirectionally misses the mark. The record is clear that Invenergy has not requested the ability to withdraw energy from MISO but only to inject energy onto MISO’s system. Even though the GBX Line could allow bidirectional flow, the GBX Line does not have the agreements and studies in place to effectuate bidirectional flow. This same logic also applies to the GBX Line as an external facility, as it is not intended to solve transmission issues on MISO’s transmission system.

I distinctly remember the MO PSC Staff witness making this very argument before the MO PSC and being dismissed. The MO PSC chose to believe that GBE was bidirectional and could export energy from MISO on a moment's notice in an emergency. Here's your proof that the MO PSC Staff was right! GBE cannot change direction to pump energy from east to west in the event of a grid emergency because it requires a whole bunch more process to acquire withdrawal rights from MISO or PJM. So, heads up to all the state utility commissions who bought that line of hogwash. GBE is currently a one-way street sucking power out of Kansas and delivering it to states east. GBE will not be there to help Kansas if they ever have a grid emergency requiring electricity imports.

Seems both Kansas and Missouri bought a whole briefcase full of who shot John, and GBE is further from being built than ever. Isn't it time to stop throwing good money after bad and waiting for Grain Belt Express to become a viable project? How many decades before the blinders come off? Gotta wonder if Michael Skelly is laughing his ass off somewhere in Montana, still tilting at windmills.

0 Comments

Using Propaganda to Stifle Transmission Opposition

9/17/2025

0 Comments

Well, well, waddya know... a new propaganda poll says that Americans overwhelmingly LOVE new transmission lines! Don't believe it? Of course you shouldn't! It's pure propaganda. Read on to find out how they do it, and why it's completely meaningless.

Start here. Canary Media is a politically biased "news" website. Everything they print is to support "the clean energy transition." If Canary Media is publishing "a new survey" by the Conservative Energy Network, you know there's propaganda afoot. What's Conservative Energy Network? It's not a network of conservative energy ideas, that's for sure. Google tells me it's a network of left-leaning philanthropic organizations and the energy industry and fully funded by left-leaning dark money groups. Is this really about whether people want new transmission lines?

Not really. There was a push over the last four years to spend gobs of money on "the energy transition" that would change our energy supply from fossil fuels to 100% wind and solar. LOL, dear readers. That just can't happen. But the fantasy story said that if we only build tons and tons of new electric transmission everywhere that we can ship intermittent wind and solar around to keep the lights on. But any hope these folks had was dashed by AI's skyrocketing increase in power demand. Keep that fact handy... AI killed wind and solar.

Apparently these left-leaning organizations and an energy industry left with half-finished project ideas do not yet want to admit they're dead. They're still spending money spewing out propaganda like this "new survey" that tells us that Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of new transmission if they are fed a strict diet of propaganda, and as long as none of that nasty new transmission comes anywhere near them!

This "new survey" isn't really a survey at all. It's an exercise in message development as the basis for a propaganda campaign to convince the masses that we need new transmission for reasons that are not true. This group wants to build transmission lines for wind and solar "farms". It doesn't want to build transmission because it will lower costs, prevent blackouts, or do some rah rah rah on "American" energy. But it is laying the groundwork to convince people they need new transmission using these meaningless and untrue messages. Propaganda!

What is propaganda? It's the dissemination of a message, or series of messages, designed to implant an idea in everyone's mind or change their thinking about something. The messages are very simple and everyone can understand them. The messages are repeated over and over and over and over until they somehow transform into common knowledge accepted as fact, although there is nothing to back it up. Here's the Conservative Energy Network's propaganda messages about transmission lines:

Propaganda message #1

Positive Impacts for Americans: Upgrading the grid is worth it if it creates good-paying jobs for American workers, boosts economic development in communities, and uses American-made materials – even if it costs a little more – because it keeps our country strong.

The jobs are overblown, and why would we build very expensive things we don't need just to create jobs? Economic development? Not for the transmission "fly over" states. The only thing they're getting is property devaluation and wrecked local development opportunities, perhaps a couple hundred bucks tossed at some local charity as a token of the company's multi-billion dollar "appreciation" for wrecking your home. American made materials? HAH! Most of our electric parts and/or the material they are made from come from overseas... places like China! And how much is "a little more"? It's trillions added to our electric bills, where the transmission portion of your bill has increased significantly in the past 5 years. And look at that... they wrapped that piece of propaganda in the American flag. Use of the transfer propaganda device: Transfer is a technique used in propaganda and advertising. Also known as association, this is a technique of projecting positive or negative qualities (praise or blame) of a person, entity, object, or value (an individual, group, organization, nation, patriotism, etc.) to another in order to make the second more acceptable or to discredit it. It evokes an emotional response, which stimulates the target to identify with recognized authorities. Often highly visual, this technique often utilizes symbols superimposed over other visual images. An example of common use of this technique in the United States is for the President to be filmed or photographed in front of the country's flag.

Propaganda Message #2

American Energy: Upgrading our electricity transmission grid will allow us to produce more energy here in our own state, reducing dependence on foreign countries. It is a key step toward future energy independence.

This one is just idiotic. We generate our own electricity in this country, yes we do. We do not depend on foreign nations to keep our lights on. There are no transmission lines crossing the ocean (even though Bill Gates has a globalist evil plan to build that) so of course our country has to produce its own electricity. While our country does connect to the electric grids of Canada and Mexico, there are exports as well as imports. And it's not significant. The U.S. hasn't been dumb enough to let some other country get its hand on our light switch. So this message is using transfer to convince you of something that isn't true. The U.S. is already electrically independent.

Propaganda Message #3

Lower Costs: A modern electricity transmission grid helps open the door for more competition and innovation in energy, giving consumers more options with lower prices and better service.

When's the last time your electric bill went down? Yeah, that never happens. Electricity rates continue to go up and part of that increase in prices is a direct result of the costs of building new transmission that end up in your bill. YOU pay for every last penny these companies spend to build new transmission, plus interest, as the project's cost slowly depreciates over its 40 year life.

You're not getting anything from new transmission... except the bill!

Propaganda message #4

Prevent Blackouts: A stronger, smarter electricity transmission grid protects us from blackouts, cyberattacks, and natural disasters – keeping the lights on when it matters most.

The transmission system also has little to do with your service quality. Nearly all electric outages are due to a fault on the distribution system that brings electricity to your house from a huge transmission substation. The distribution system is larger, more fragile, and poorly maintained in a lot of places. This is why your lights go out. It's rare that a transmission outage causes blackouts. That's because the transmission system is maintained to certain standards so that it can't fail. There's nothing wrong with the transmission system and it is as modern as needed to keep the lights on. Believing that the transmission system is "creaking" (love this idiotic imagery) or decrepit is an older propaganda message that you swallowed without thinking. Building more transmission to move wind and solar around won't prevent blackouts. Any blackouts were probably caused by the intermittent nature of wind and solar in the first place! It's also true that building new transmission extension cords for data centers in other states will not prevent a blackout at your house. Those lines are just running right past you and don't connect with your distribution system at all. It's like a highway running through your town with no entrance or exit ramps!

And there's my favorite nails-on-a-chalkboard phrase, "when it matters most" aka "where it's needed most." What the heck? When doesn't it matter if you have electricity at your house? When's a good time to have a blackout? Never, that's when. And who "needs" electricity more than you? Are you willing to shut off your power so that AI can make some keyboard bottom feeder a picture of a cat roller skating in outer space?

Now let's take a look at the questions they asked to recognize how the questions shaped the respondent's answer.

Do you support or oppose making investments in America’s “electricity transmission grid” to improve reliability, reduce costs, unlock economic growth in communities, and meet future power needs?

See how they put the answer they wanted in the question and the respondent had no choice to disagree with the information in the question? It's not really about asking a question anyhow, it's about pushing propaganda in your head pretending to do a "survey."

Thinking about the “electricity transmission grid”, the network of large, tall, steel towers and high-voltage power lines that carry electricity across the state and region … Do you support or oppose making investments in America’s “electricity transmission grid” to improve reliability, reduce costs, unlock economic growth in communities, and meet future power needs?

What do you get if you oppose? The respondent isn't given a choice to disagree with the question... it's just a propaganda vehicle.

Which energy policy goals are most important to you? Select up to two options.
1. Keeping electricity costs affordable for families.
2. Ensuring the electric grid is reliable and blackout-proof.
3. Protecting the rights of local communities and property owners when building energy projects.
4. Expanding American energy independence.
5. Establishing American energy dominance.
6. Utilizing clean energy.

You might be surprised to learn that bogus "goals" about energy independence and dominance scored higher than protecting the rights of local communities and landowners. That's because at this point in the "survey" all the transmission was envisioned by the respondents to be on someone else's property.

If a new high-voltage (long-distance and high powered) electricity line was proposed in your area, would you generally support or oppose it?

Should landowners be allowed to block construction of transmission lines on their property, or should projects be built over landowner objections if fair compensation is offered?

Oh, now this stuff is in the respondent's neighborhood? How quickly the bloom comes off the propaganda rose! More than 50% thought landowners ought to be able to block construction (because all of a sudden this is personal)!

These respondents also had a lot of other crazy thoughts about who should select the kind of energy they use, and who should pay for it. Check out the whole survey to see how much they don't know about electricity and their bills.

So, here's the bottom line. This survey is useless. All those push poll questions are rejected when the truth is finally told. No matter where the new transmission is, the people impacted by it will revolt and step up to crush it. There's transmission opposition afoot all over the country because a lot of the transmission projects that were planned over the past 4 years have now advanced to the public notice stage. NOBODY wants transmission that impacts them. This survey doesn't matter in the least. It has no impact whatsoever on transmission opposition. It doesn't even influence those unaffected to support transmission in real time. As you gleaned reading the "survey," the respondents are a pretty dumb bunch. These people aren't going to go out of their way to send letters, or go to public hearings, to support new transmission. They're not going to do anything at all. Well, unless some eager transmission lover pays them to show up somewhere and say dumb things like the propaganda in this survey. Or maybe they'll put their name on a form letter and let the transmission lover send it to a utility commission. Or sign a petition.

But does stuff like that really move the needle? How much paid advocacy does a state utility commission need to approve a transmission project despite overwhelming opposition? I suppose we'll be finding out.

Remember, utility friends, you can't charge that crap to ratepayers.

0 Comments

Prepare for Transmission Permitting Chaos!

9/6/2025

0 Comments

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued a Precedential Opinion yesterday in a case that has drawn an enormous amount of attention in the electric regulatory world, but little notice from everyone else.

Transource Pennsylvania LLC v. Steven DeFrank concerns the Public Utility Commission of Pennsylvania's denial of a Certificate to construct the Transource project in the state. After losing, Transource claimed that the PUC was prohibited from making a finding that the project wasn't needed because it must simply accept the finding of need issued by PJM Interconnection.

I wrote about this at the end of last year, after listening to the Oral Argument where the state could hardly get a word in edgewise because the Court simply didn't want to hear it. The Opinion was about what I expected.

The Court confused FERC's jurisdiction to set interstate transmission RATES with PJM's transmission planning finding that the Transource project would lower rates for consumers in Washington, DC and Baltimore. PJM does not set rates, therefore their project planning does not set rates. Only FERC can do that.

What FERC cannot do is site and permit a transmission project that is not within a National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor. Transource is not within such a corridor. PJM is under the regulatory authority of FERC, therefore, the Court reasoned, PJM's planning is an extension of FERC's jurisdiction to set rates. Faulty logic.

Transmission siting and permitting is state jurisdictional. That means that the states have the final say on whether or not a project planned by PJM is approved, sited, and issued a permit to construct.

The Court has effectively neutered state jurisdiction and taken away their ability to make a determination whether the project is needed. The only thing left for the state to do is decide where the project goes. This gives undue authority to PJM over transmission permitting, and obliterates due process for landowners impacted by the new transmission project.

The Court says that states (and presumably others impacted) can challenge PJM's planning process and determination of need at FERC, therefore their due process rights are not impacted.

However, this is not the bargain states have struck with the federal government about transmission permitting. States have historically followed state law when it comes to need determinations, and state law usually requires the utility commission to make a finding of need when permitting a project. Pennsylvania's law is explicit that the PUC must decide whether the project is needed. Other states get there in different ways. West Virginia's law says:

...the commission may approve the application if it finds that the proposed transmission line:
(1) Will economically, adequately and reliably contribute to meeting the present and anticipated requirements for electric power of the customers served by the applicant or is necessary and desirable for present and anticipated reliability of service for electric power for its service area or region;
(2) Will be in the best interest of West Virginia customers and its citizens; and
(3) Will result in an acceptable balance between reasonable power needs and reasonable environmental factors.

There it is under (1)... is necessary...

But now West Virginia is prohibited from making a finding that the transmission line is not necessary. West Virginia must simply accept PJM's determination that it is.

Maybe this would work out great if PJM was actually a place where competing opinions were accepted and where an impartial adjudicator listened to both sides before making a decision whether or not a project is needed. But PJM is not that place. Anyone who has attended a PJM planning meeting knows that it's a one-way ride on the authoritarian train where you can't pull a cord to stop the train. PJM makes decisions in a closed environment and rejects any dissent. Therefore, the only avenue open for states or other parties who do not agree with PJM's findings is to make a complaint at FERC. FERC does not examine each project that PJM approves to assure it's needed. PJM has a big book of rules that are approved by FERC. As long as PJM follows its rules, then FERC just goes along for the ride. However now FERC is going to be examining all PJM's need data on a case-by-case basis for each transmission project PJM approves. FERC doesn't have time for that and the delays for new transmission are going to be astronomical while FERC spins its wheels examining each need determination in detail to make sure it agrees with PJM's rules. No more rubber stamping!

In addition, the tension between PJM and states is thick right now. PJM doesn't need this additional irritation. It could be the burr under the saddle that finally prompts PJM states to exit PJM for good. PJM isn't planning anything in your state if its not a member of PJM.

In addition, states are going to plow new ground creating a meaning for the word "permit". States have authority to site and permit. What does that mean? It means not only does the state decide where the project goes, it also decides whether the project goes. Don't underestimate what the states can do to find ways to deny transmission applications on any other basis but need. What then? Will a court keep whittling away on state authority to permit transmission?

This Opinion is Pandora's Box. Nothing good is going to come out of it except a whole lotta litigation and state refusal to approve new transmission applications. Nobody likes to be told they must accept someone else's opinion without examining it. Trust but verify. That's what states have been doing for decades.

It remains to be seen whether the PA PUC will ask for hearing en banc, where the entire court (all the judges) takes another look at the decision, or whether the PA PUC will take their chances at the Supreme Court.

This story is not over.

0 Comments

Double Jeopardy... Now With Pictures!

9/5/2025

0 Comments

Last month, I told you about a proposal that was submitted to PJM Interconnection that would turn MARL into a double-circuit 500kV transmission line between the Fort Martin power station in Morgantown, WV and the new Woodside substation in Frederick County, VA.

Well, PJM has finally posted its new maps and there's one that shows what this NextEra proposal would look like, if you had trouble following along with the narrative I gave you last time.

Here it is:

This map shows a second 500kV circuit beginning at the Fort Martin power station. A double circuit is just what it sounds like... two 500kV circuits on a common structure. It is unlikely that the two circuits will be stacked vertically on the structure. More likely that they will be separated horizontally, with one 500kV circuit on a horizontal arm on each side of the structure. This is going to change the look of the towers, perhaps their height, and perhaps their width. It also doubles the amount of power MARL can carry.

The double circuit structures will end at Gore, VA, where NextEra's segment of the project ends. Because FirstEnergy owns the eastern segment of MARL that continues on from there, NextEra will have to put its second 500kV circuit on new structures on a new 200 ft. wide right of way. This is an enlargement of the Frederick County section.

You would still get Gore-Doubs-Goose Creek 500kV on new poles on one side of the existing easement, plus you would get MARL 500kV #2 on a new 200 ft. right of way on the north side of the existing easement. And don't forget Valley Link, which will add another 200 ft. to all that for its own line of 765kV towers. Impacted landowners would have not only 1,765kV of electricity added to their properties, but an additional 400 feet of right of way as well.

Meanwhile, at the other end of MARL #2, NextEra proposes to add a new 500kV substation at the point where existing lines feeding from Ft. Martin intersect with MARL #1. That part of PJM's map doesn't look exactly accurate, so here's my attempt at mapping where the new Sandy Creek substation may be located north of Bruceton Mills.

Of course, this is going to delay MARL significantly because they're going to have to go back to the drawing board designing the structures. They're going to have to have new Open House meetings to show you their updated project, too. And this project is likely to include parts that are ultimately assigned to FirstEnergy, such as expanding the Fort Martin substation. If FirstEnergy is assigned components of MARL #2, then FirstEnergy would have to start from square one on its part of the project. The new 500kV NextEra line in Frederick County would also have to start from scratch and hold Open House meetings before filing an application.

So, what happens next? PJM will be evaluating this proposal (and 133 others around the region) and discussing them at upcoming meetings with the goal of choosing projects by the end of the year. It's unlikely NextEra will move forward with its application until it knows whether it will be approved to add that second 500kV circuit.

When your friendly, neighborhood land shark... err agent, land agent, shows up to pressure you about signing an easement agreement, perhaps you should be asking him about NextEra's MARL double circuit proposal? There's more you're not being told...

0 Comments

How to Respond to the Transmission Company's Notice of Intent

8/28/2025

1 Comment

This week, both NextEra and Potomac Edison made filings at the West Virginia Public Service Commission indicating that they intend to file applications for their respective segments of a new 150-mile 500kV electric transmission line. The line moves coal-fired electricity from a substation in Greene County, Pennsylvania to a substation in Loudoun County’s “data center alley.” Data center alley is home to the largest concentration of data centers in the world. Regional grid operator PJM Interconnection planned the project, and assigned a different segment to each company to complete.

NextEra Energy has responsibility for the 105-mile segment from Pennsylvania to a point in Frederick County, Virginia. NextEra named their segment MARL. The new transmission line continues with a 45-mile segment from Frederick County, Virginia to Loudoun County, Virginia that is assigned to FirstEnergy, Potomac Edison’s parent company. Potomac Edison named their segment Gore-Doubs-Goose Creek, after the substations it connects.

Each company is responsible for securing a state utility commission permit in every state which its project crosses. A Notice of Intent to file an application is required by West Virginia law to be filed at least 30 days before the actual application, and expires after 90 days.

The West Virginia Public Service Commission has opened a permitting docket for each company’s application.

The Case Number for Potomac Edison’s segment is NOIE Potomac Edison 25C.

The Case Number for NextEra’s segment is NOIE NextEra Energy 25A.

The new dockets enable concerned persons to formally file comments and/or petitions about the projects at the PSC. To do so, visit the PSC’s website and select “Submit a Comment” from the left hand menu. Then select “Formal Case” from the next screen. Agree to the disclaimer on the next page, and it will bring up a form to fill out with a space to type your comment. Be sure to include the Case Number in your filing.

If you would rather mail your comments in, send them to:

West Virginia Public Service Commission
201 Brooks Street
Charleston, WV 25301

Be sure to write the Case Number on your comments.

If you previously submitted comments, Resolutions, or letters to the PSC about these projects, you may need to resend them with the correct case number on them in order to have them become part of the official record in the docket. You may file comments on either, or both, docket(s). There is no limit on how many comments you can send. You could send them one every morning over coffee until a decision is made. It’s up to you.

Next Steps:

The companies will file their applications in their respective dockets. Once the application is filed, the company must notify impacted landowners by certified mail at least 30 days before the deadline to intervene in the case. The PSC will set a deadline to intervene in the case after the application is filed. It may be as soon as 30 days after the application is filed, but not sooner than the company sends you a notice via certified mail.

Intervening means becoming a legal party to the case, with the right to file testimony and cross-examine the company’s witnesses. Intervenors may also file briefs, recommending a decision to the PSC, and only intervenors have a right to appeal the PSC’s decision in the case.

Persons with an interest in the case, whether as an impacted landowner or electric ratepayer, may intervene and request party status. Intervenors may hire an attorney, or they may participate pro se, which means representing himself or herself without an attorney. Intervenors may also join together and hire one attorney to represent an organized group of intervenors, which can make representation less costly. We will have more information about intervening coming up soon.

1 Comment

MARL and Gore-Doubs-Goose Creek are the SAME project!

8/27/2025

0 Comments

The companies assigned to build one of the components of PJM Interconnection's project B3800 have made an absolute mess of the public's understanding of the project. Congratulations, NextEra and FirstEnergy! This is all your fault!

PJM doesn't invent and assign cutsie-poo names like MARL or Gore-Doubs-Goose Creek to the projects it approves and orders. It gives them numbers. B3800 was assigned to this project when it was approved in December 2023. Names like MARL and Gore-Doubs-Goose Creek are inventions of the companies that PJM assigns to build the projects it orders. Different names do NOT mean different PJM projects. They're all B3800.

Here's the only thing you need to know about MARL and Gore-Doubs-Goose Creek.

A picture is worth a thousand words, right? If you study this one, you'll figure it out, despite the stupid stuff NextEra and FirstEnergy are saying right now. Block all their nonsense out of your mind. This is one continuous 500kV transmission line. It's all connected, just like a gigantic extension cord. Pay attention to the key on this map. There is a table called "Transmission System Enhancement" that lists the different color-coded line segments and the companies that PJM assigned to build each segment of this ONE 500kV line.

Starting at the top of the list is a dark pink/purply segment assigned to AEP. AEP stands for American Electric Power, who owns a section of existing 500kV line between the Kammer substation and the 502 Junction substation. AEP's part of this project was to study its existing line to assure it could pump more power from Kammer. Kammer is the name of the substation at AEP's Mitchell Power Generation station in Marshall County, WV. AEP is not building a new line here (at least not in this project).

Next the table lists yellow for Dom. That stands for Dominion. Dominion is the Virginia-based utility that will be building the last 3 miles of this 500kV circuit from Edwards Ferry to Goose Creek in Loudoun County, Virginia. It's really impossible to see the yellow part of this map because it's tiny compared to the rest of the line's mileage. Just know it's there, at the eastern end of the line.

Then we have red for Exelon. Exelon owns a short segment of existing line and easement in Montgomery County, Maryland that would be reconfigured to change a corridor containing one 500kV line and two 230kV lines into a corridor that contains three 500kV lines and two 230kV lines. One of those new 500kV lines in Maryland is part of B3800, the continuous 500kV line from 502 Junction to Goose Creek. You can barely see the red if you look hard.

And now we're getting to the real meat here... blue and peach. The blue part of the line is owned by FirstEnergy (FE) subsidiary Potomac Edison. The FE part of the line begins at a point in Frederick County, Virginia where the NextEra part ends and runs east through Jefferson County, WV, Loudoun County, VA, and Frederick and Montgomery Counties, MD to a point at Edwards Ferry where Dominion picks up the construction of the 500kV circuit. The blue part of the line is approximately 45 miles long. The blue part of the line plans to tear down an existing 138kV circuit on 65 ft. tall towers and replace it with double circuit 500/138kV lines on a new tower 185 ft. tall. FirstEnergy named this part Gore-Doubs-Goose Creek.

And last, but certainly not least, the peachy colored part of the line that is assigned to NextEra. This 105-mile long segment begins at 502 Junction substation and ends at a point in Frederick County, Virginia were FirstEnergy's segment of the project begins. We're literally talking about two adjacent transmission towers carrying one continuous 500kV circuit, except one tower is owned by NextEra, and the other is owned by FirstEnergy. These are not two separate projects physically. The separation only exists in legal documents and the balance sheets of competitors NextEra and FirstEnergy. NextEra named its peach MARL.

To put the parts of the map in order from west to east: dark pink (AEP), peach (NextEra), blue (FirstEnergy), red (Exelon), more blue (FirstEnergy), and then yellow (Dominion), which connects to a substation that serves Loudoun County's data centers.

PJM approved and ordered ONE 500kV circuit between 502 Junction and Goose Creek and then assigned the project to 3 different companies to build. Each company has made up its own name for its segment. NextEra calls its 105-mile portion of the project MARL. FirstEnergy calls its 45-mile portion of the project Gore-Doubs-Goose Creek. Dominion has not come up with a name for its 3 mile section in Virginia because it has not presented the project to the public yet.

This confusion about who owns what and what the project is called and what connects to what can be flung directly on the door step of NextEra and FirstEnergy.

NextEra has been playing pretend games that its 105-mile segment of PJM's 500kV circuit is a separate project not connected to anything else. NextEra says it begins in PA and ends in Frederick County, Virginia. The media has added the narrative that MARL connects with "a data center in Frederick County, Virginia" which is just false. There are no significant data centers in Frederick County. All the data centers are in Loudoun County. Loudoun and Frederick are not even contiguous counties. Jefferson County, WV sits between them. We need some basic geography here!

NextEra may have created this false narrative in the press because it thought that it could escape any bad data center juju being attached to its project. Didn't work. We all know MARL is a data center extension cord. All that narrative did was confuse the heck out of people when Jefferson County popped into the picture on Monday when FirstEnergy filed a Notice of Intent at the PSC.

FirstEnergy, for its part, contributed to this confusion by refusing to name its project, or to do any public relations about it until just recently (and still its attempts can be called anemic at best). The citizens of Jefferson County have been fighting FirstEnergy's part of PJM's 500kV circuit for 2 years now. Because FirstEnergy refused to acknowledge the project, we named it for them, and we called it MARL, adopting NextEra's name for this 150-mile long 500kV circuit.

So, when FirstEnergy's Potomac Edison filed its Notice of Intent at the PSC, it said the project was "also referred to as MARL". That is absolutely 100% true.

And the media circus began. The stories pumped out don't even make sense, and the confusion becomes deeper and deeper. Take a deep breath... just look at the map!

I'm guessing that NextEra got its corporate panties in a wad yesterday because FirstEnergy had used their MARL name in their Notice of Intent at the PSC. FirstEnergy tried to issue a retraction yesterday. This confused things even more.

And, using my best mom voice, here's some advice that NextEra and FirstEnergy should take to heart.

GET OVER YOURSELF, KIDS!

Stop your bickering and squabbling and not wanting to be associated with each other. It's going to come back and bite you in the butt at the PSC.

The PSC will have two separate applications for two different segments of the same transmission line. Are the companies going to keep pretending they have nothing to do with each other before the PSC? That's going to be a little uncomfortable for PJM's witness, won't it? You'll never get away with it. And it would serve you right if the PSC denied one of these segments because they didn't know the other was connected to it.

FIX THIS MESS!

0 Comments

Double Jeopardy!

8/23/2025

2 Comments

PJM Interconnection, our regional grid operator and planner, is always planning something. PJM regularly presents problem statements to transmission developers and solicits proposed solutions as part of a competitive transmission process. Each RFP for transmission solutions is called a "window". PJM presents its problem statement, and willing developers submit proposed solutions. PJM's competitive transmission windows are what brought us the MARL, Gore-Doubs-Goose Creek, and Valley Link projects.

Once the open "window" closes, developers submissions are posted on PJM's website with a lot of "competitive" information redacted so that only a skeleton of the proposal is available to the public. These bare bones proposals are turned into maps and tables that PJM's Transmission Expansion Advisory Committee (TEAC) discusses at its monthly meetings with the goal of selecting one of more of the proposals to address the problem PJM described. The discussion and selection usually takes place over the course of several months, and once PJM's TEAC has selected a project or projects, it must read them into the record twice at committee meetings before submitting them to PJM's Board of Managers for approval. If PJM's Board of Managers approves the new projects, they are added to PJM's Regional Transmission Expansion Plan (RTEP) and assigned to their transmission developer sponsors. PJM signs what's called a Designated Entity Agreement (DEA) with the developer and the developer begins routing and engineering studies and eventual public information sessions that they call "Open House" meetings. This is the exact process that MARL, GDGC and Valley Link have followed.

PJM opened a new competitive window in June of this year to solve a number of problems with the transmission system. The main problem, as always, is that Northern Virginia demand is skyrocketing due to new data center proposals. You can look at the factors PJM was considering by reviewing PJM's TEAC meeting slides from last month. PJM said that some of the lines bringing power from the west would be overloaded in 2032. Here's one of their maps.

I will share that PJM's meetings and information are high on the techno-speak level and may appear confusing to most people.

PJM's 2025 Window 1 closed on August 18. PJM received many new transmission proposals. Not all proposals submitted will ultimately be selected. However, we have a first look at what has been proposed so that we can follow PJM's evaluation of these proposals and selection of the projects it wants to move forward. Here's the full list of proposed projects (expand the 2025 RTEP Window 1 link). They are simply referred to by number, and each number has a brief description of the project, with much of the specific information redacted to protect competitive information. The name of the proposer is always redacted, however there's much we can garner out of the information that is not redacted that gives us clues about who may have proposed them.

One of the proposed projects is numbered 896. This proposal, which may have been made by FirstEnergy or NextEra, calls for turning MARL into a double circuit 500kV transmission line, and adding a second 500kV line to the first segment of GDGC across Frederick County, Virginia.

The proposed MARL double circuit begins at FirstEnergy's Fort Martin power station in Morgantown, WV.

Convert the 500kV single circuit 502 Junction - Woodside 500kV project under development (PJM Baseline Upgrade ID b3800.102) to a double circuit configuration between Fort Martin and the NEETMA/APS interconnection point in Frederick County, VA, to accommodate Circuit 1 (b3800.102: 502 Junction – Black Oak – Woodside 500kV) and Circuit 2 (Fort Martin – Sandy Creek – Woodside 500kV).

The project calls for a new 138kV line from Ft. Martin to a new substation in Mon County that would be called Sandy Creek. The proposed Sandy Creek substation will intersect with MARL and feed power directly from Ft. Martin to the new 500kV circuit proposed to be added to the MARL project. The Sandy Creek substation is described:

AC Air Insulated Substation (AIS): New proposed 500-138kV Substation. New 500kV ring switchyard with three (3) line terminals, three (3) 500kV, 5000A, 63kAIC breakers, one (1) 500-138kV, 485 MVA transformer bank.

The new 500kV circuit will be added to MARL's proposed towers so that MARL would consist of TWO 500kV transmission lines, possibly hanging from the same new tower. The proposer says this doesn't make any difference because MARL has not been constructed yet so they can change the towers and the circuits.

Approved 502 Junction - Woodside 500 kV project (PJM Baseline Upgrade ID b3800.102) has not been constructed so no existing hardware will be impacted.

The entire circuit shall be upgraded to a double circuit from a single circuit from the point where the Fort Martin - Sandy Creek circuit joins the 502 Junction - Black Oak circuit until the point at which the Sandy Creek - Woodside circuit transitions to single circuit towers.

This includes the entire portion of MARL from a point in Mon County to the place in Frederick County, Virginia where the MARL project ends and the Gore-Doubs-Goose Creek project begins. It would impact Mon, Preston, Garrett, Allegany, Mineral and Hampshire Counties. The proposer says it will use "existing right-of-way" but that right-of-way doesn't actually exist yet and will only exist if MARL is approved and built. It only exists on paper right now because NextEra has not actually obtained any right-of-way for the MARL project in those counties yet. Talk about counting your chickens before they hatch, right?

Existing right-of-way to be used for upgrading the single circuit to a double circuit. ROW Adjustments may be required in specific locations to mitigate engineering and/or operational risks.

Once this new double circuit 500kV line gets to the demarcation point between MARL and GDGC in Frederick County, Virginia, it proposes to run on a new 200 foot right of way for 17 miles across Frederick County until it reaches the proposed Woodside substation owned by NextEra.

The approximately 17-mile route in Frederick County, Virginia travels eastward from the MARL NEET/FE handoff, paralleling the existing Mt. Storm to Doubs 500kV corridor where feasible. The route will have a 200 ft ROW width. The proposed ROW will be an expansion of existing transmission line corridors for approximately 20% of the route length, the remainder will be greenfield ROW.

They can't simply continue the double circuit on the same new towers when they get to Frederick County because that is the point where the Gore-Doubs-Goose Creek line is already planned to be constructed as a double circuit with the existing 138kV line. The second 500kV circuit would need a whole new right-of-way parallel to the existing configuration. And don't forget that Valley Link is coming along behind it and creating its own new 200 ft. right-of-way. Frederick County is looking at not only the new 185 ft. tower for the first 500kV circuit, but the addition of two new lines on parallel rights-of-way that would add 400 feet to the existing 250 foot wide corridor. Total if this is selected and completed: 650 feet wide right-of-way with three 500 kV lines, one 138kV line, and one 765kV line. That's a whole lot of power and a whole lot of expansion for Frederick County!

Meanwhile, back in Mon County, Fort Martin's substation must expand for this plan.

Expand the existing 500kV double breaker double bus (DBDB) switchyard by adding (2) 500kV breakers to create (1) new bay with (1) new line position. Replace (9) existing 500kV breakers.
Assumes that fence line must be expanded to west to accommodate upgrades.
Based on publicly available parcel data and imagery, upgrades are expected to fit on transmission-owner owned property.

The new line from Fort Martin to the new Sandy Creek substation will be constructed for approximately 1-mile and parallels the Hazelton to Lake Lynn 138 kV in Mon County on a proposed new 100 ft. right-of-way. A second new 138kV line from a nearby substation will also parallel Hazelton to Lake Lynn for an additional 2 miles of new 100 ft. right-of-way. That's three miles of new right of way in Mon County, and a new substation.

Seems like double jeopardy for impacted landowners, doesn't it? As if it's not bad enough that MARL is proposed for your property, now the transmission companies want to double your pain with a second 500kV circuit and miles of new right-of-way, and a new substation, in Mon County and Frederick County.

For what? To get power to data centers in Northern Virginia.

It really emphasizes the fact that these new transmission lines are NOT for West Virginia, and they are NOT needed to attract new data centers in the West Virginia counties they cross. They are for Northern Virginia data centers, they are not for us!

PJM's TEAC meetings are open to all "stakeholders". We are all stakeholders in this and anyone may attend the TEAC meetings where these projects are discussed to ask questions or make comments. PJM TEAC meetings are held once a month, during the work day, and may be attended via Webex or over the telephone. If you want to attend, you can sign up on PJM's website. You must have a PJM account and pre-register for the meetings. If that's not your cup of tea, you can simply get updates from citizens who regularly attend these meetings and save your written comments for PJM's Board of Managers if this proposal is ultimately selected by PJM's TEAC.

Remember, this is only a proposal right now and there is no guarantee it will be selected. However, MARL and Valley Link were once only just proposals like this, so consider this a heads up on what PJM may be cooking up to invade your community in the future.

Transmission extension cords from West Virginia will never be enough for Virginia's insatiable appetite for electricity and it is expected that PJM's planners will keep adding more and more unless West Virginia stands up and says NO.

2 Comments

<<Previous

FirstEnergy's Plan To Pickpocket West Virginians To Increase Profits

Looks Like MO PSC's Love Affair With GBE is O-V-E-R

The Facts About MARL are Clear

GBE's Much Ado About Nothing

Using Propaganda to Stifle Transmission Opposition

Prepare for Transmission Permitting Chaos!

Double Jeopardy... Now With Pictures!

How to Respond to the Transmission Company's Notice of Intent

MARL and Gore-Doubs-Goose Creek are the SAME project!

Double Jeopardy!

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