New Jersey officials hope to engage in “horse trading” with other PJM states over the cost allocation of transmission needed to meet their climate goals, a key state regulator said last week.

“The other clean energy states and PJM are looking at billions of dollars of transmission upgrades if we do it the way we’re doing it now, when we can meet all the needs of the entire PJM region at approximately the same price,” he said. “So there’s a lot of room for horse trading, if we can get the parties to the table.”

The SAA leaves New Jersey “almost in a hostage situation at the moment,” Silverman said. “The transmission projects that we are planning benefit many states in PJM; they will see lower production costs as a result of these upgrades. But because of the way the system works, we are solely responsible for the cost. That needs to change.”

“Trump and FERC are selling us out to the fossil fuel industry. They are adding billions of dollars in subsidies for coal, oil, and natural gas at the expense of green jobs and our health. They will now be getting over $6 billion a year just from our PJM grid alone, in addition to $15 billion a year in direct federal subsidies and all types of indirect subsidies. These dirty industries cannot compete with cheaper and cleaner renewable energy, so they are looking for a massive subsidy at our expense. This will hurt green jobs and public health,” said Jeff Tittel, Director of the New Jersey Sierra Club.

"We strongly disagree that JCP&L failed to prove the need for the Monmouth County Reliability Project," the utility said. "The initial decision contradicts the findings made by the regional grid operator and industry experts."

I FIND that the preponderance of credible evidence proves that JCP&L commenced studies to justify the MCRP as its preferred route months before any “problem” was even identified as needing a solution.

During the hearings, PJM concurred that JCP&L will not suffer any financial penalties if the Board rejects the MCRP. Both PJM and JCP&L agree that if the MCRP is not approved, they will return to the planning stage and find another way to solve the P7 contingency.

There were four alternative 230 kV lines into Red Bank on the narrowed list but apparently no technical studies were undertaken of them because they were considered by JCP&L to lack the appropriate level of “robustness.” Palermo could not find any definition for that term and was unfamiliar with its use generally in the transmission industry.

Applying these standards, I FIND that Dr. Moliver’s expert opinion is entitled to greater weight than that of McHale. I FIND that McHale’s credibility was undermined by his careless quotation of synopses of studies he never read. He utilized a general search engine that returned results for terms “effect of HVTL at 15 ft” and followed a link to a New Hampshire Siting Commission webpage, copied the summaries, and deleted the attribution footer from his reprint. As reluctant as I am to express this, in my opinion, such “scholarship” by a student would produce an “F” and subject one to claims of plagiarism. It is certainly not the work product of a professional entitled to much weight to count the number of supportive studies versus the number of unsupportive studies without regard for the study criteria and quality. The merits, depths, sampling size, and commonality must be taken into account before a study can be cited as persuasive to a novel setting. I also FIND that his opinion as an expert witness was blended with several lay perceptions that fell outside the scope of his presentation for the Company and were unverified.

The evaluation directed by JCP&L was both pre-emptive in the timeline of the “need” for the Project and created an unlevel playing field tipped in its obvious favor. This is not a close case of general public interest versus parochial interest, with a tie going to the public utility company. I CONCLUDE that JCP&L’s application for municipal waivers pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-19 must be denied because the Company has not supported its application by the preponderance of the relevant and admissible evidence. The MCRP is not a safe or reasonable response to the potential P7 violation.

The prepared summary of written statements indicates that eighty-three (83%) percent were opposed to the MCRP; and, seventeen (17%) percent in favor. Approximately twenty-five (25%) percent of the statements opposing the Project were form letters; and ninety-two (92%) percent of the statements in favor of the Project were form letters, of which eighty-eight (88%) percent were not from the impacted area.

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.  --  Margaret Mead

The participation of Mr. Sims [PJM witness] in this proceeding as an enthusiastic cheerleader for an expensive and blighting transmission project even after being presented with a feasible non-generation solution to the P7 contingency raises very serious questions about the neutrality of PJM. As is the case with other RTOs, PJM is by law and FERC decisions supposed to be scrupulously neutral.  While this is ordinarily taken to mean that it cannot discriminate in favor of one or more member utilities or independent power producers, it also means that PJM cannot be in the business of advocating a solution that has been given an “exclusive” to one of its member utilities. The Board should express condemnation of PJM’s role in this case.

During testimony, RAGE unveiled its alternative to the transmission line plan — an alternative the group says would cost 70 percent less, and present less danger to the community.

The group’s solution, backed by a power flow analysis and an engineering expert, includes the addition of two STATCOM devices — each about the size of an RV — at the Red Bank substation. It also calls for updating 11 of the existing 34.5 kV lines coming out of Red Bank.

“That’s it — all you need to do is update some existing lines that probably need replacing anyway, and add two big boxes to Red Bank, Kanapka said. “Do these two things and the P7 violation goes away, for a total estimated cost of just $30 million.”

In its most recent estimate, JCP&L said their project could cost $111 million, and that does not include the fee for usage of NJ Transit’s property.

I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.

 Among the sea of red t-shirts, jackets, hats and signs were small, blue stickers, each handwritten with a different number. It was a description, in feet, of how far their home was situated from a proposed JCP&L power line poles. For some, it was a couple thousand feet. For others, it a few hundred feet. And there were those whose number was expressed in two digits.

Buildings, building extensions and additions (homes, businesses, garages, barns), swimming pools, above ground fuel tanks, tall signs or billboards, tall trees, obstructions and mounding of soil in the right of way are encroachments that are prohibited.

[a] minimum of a 60 ft. wide corridor will be cleared (30 ft. from either side of conductor or approximately 45 ft. from centerline of the poles on the rail side and 15 ft. from centerline of the poles on the opposite side/vacant side of pole).

JCP&L will clear the NJT and JCP&L ROW to the specified width in accordance with the FirstEnergy Initial Clearing of Transmission Lines Specification and the FirstEnergy Detailed Property and Provision List. Trees located outside the ROW which are deemed Priority Trees shall be removed. Priority Trees are defined as trees located adjacent to transmission corridors that are dead, dying, diseased, structurally defective, leaning or significantly encroaching, where the transmission facilities are at risk of arcing or failing should the tree or portions of the tree (1) fall into or near the transmission facilities; or (2) grow into or towards the transmission facilities. JCP&L will obtain the necessary rights from applicable property owners before removing trees and vegetation both on and off the ROW.

“This meeting tonight was to hear what the public had to say,” said JCP&L spokesman Ron Morano. “We elected to not have any supporters speak at this event.”