After careful consideration and evaluation, in late 2023 we made the decision to remove our interim target to achieve a 30% reduction in GHG emissions by 2030 from a 2019 baseline since achieving it is not entirely within our control. 

Achieving the 2030 interim goal was predicated on meaningful emissions reductions at our Fort Martin and Harrison power plants in West Virginia, which account for approximately 99% of our greenhouse gas emissions.
We've identified several challenges to our ability to meet that interim goal, including resource adequacy concerns in the PJM region and state energy policy initiatives. Given these challenges, we have decided to remove our 2030 interim goal. Through regulatory filings in West Virginia, we have forecast the end of the useful life of Fort Martin in 2035 and for Harrison in 2040.

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.”

Imported electricity from surrounding PJM states makes up over half of the electricity demand in Maryland in 2031 and contributes to over 95% of the remaining emissions in the power sector. In this pathway, although Maryland achieves its renewable and clean energy targets for in-state generation, the rapid expansion of solar and wind from current levels in this scenario is not sufficient to meet the growth in electricity demand from end-use sectors and to make up for reductions in natural gas generation. This means that Maryland must also increase imports from other states.”

“The petition asks the EPA to issue a finding that 36 electric generating units located in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia are in violation of the prohibition of 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(D)(i), commonly referred to as the “good neighbor provision.” The petition alleges that nitrogen oxides emitted by these units significantly contribute to Maryland’s nonattainment, or interfere with its maintenance of certain National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”)”.

path-lre.pdf
File Size:	2736 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

---

The Routing Team developed specific routing criteria in identifying, evaluating, and selecting routes, attempting to minimize:

Route length, circuity, cost, and special design requirements.

The removal or substantial interference with the use of existing residences.

The removal of existing barns, garages, commercial buildings, and other nonresidential structures. 

Substantial interference with the use and operation of existing schools, existing and recognized places of worship, existing cemeteries, and existing facilities used for cultural and historical, and recreational purposes.

Substantial interference with economic activities.

Crossing of designated public resource lands such as national and state forests and parks, large camps and other recreation lands, designated battlefields or other designated historic resources and sites, and wildlife management areas.

Crossing large lakes and large wetland complexes, critical habitat, and other scarce, distinct natural resources.
​
Substantial visual impact on residential areas and public resources.

Avoid double-circuiting or crossing existing 765 kV lines.

Do not parallel existing 765 kV lines for more than 1 mile in any particular location.

Minimize the crossing of 345 kV and 500 kV transmission lines.

Minimize paralleling corridors with more than one existing 345 kV or 500 kV circuit.
​
Maintain 200 feet of centerline-to-centerline separation when paralleling existing 345 kV, 500 kV, and 765 kV transmission lines.

Maintain 150 feet of centerline-to-centerline separation when paralleling 138 kV or lower voltage transmission lines.

Minimize angles greater than 65 degrees and sloping soils more than 30 degrees (20 degrees at angle points).

Do not triple-circuit lines of 345 kV or greater voltage. 

In these cases, the existing transmission corridor already runs through theses areas, and in order to keep the height of the structures lower, the Applicant would work with the holders of these easements to modify them in order to acquire approximately 105 feet of additional ROW. 

(i) recovery of all pre-commercial costs not capitalized and authorization to establish a regulatory asset that will include all such expenses that are incurred prior to the time costs first flow through to customers, including authorization to accrue carrying charges and amortize the regulatory asset over five years for cost recovery purposes (“Regulatory Asset Incentive”); (ii) use of a hypothetical capital structure of 60% equity and 40% debt until NEET MidAtlantic Indiana’s first project achieved commercial operations (“Hypothetical Capital Structure Incentive”); and (iii) use of a 50-basis point return on equity (“ROE”) adder for Regional Transmission Organization Participation (“RTO Participation Adder”). 

(i) recovery of 100 percent of prudently-incurred transmission-related costs of the Project if it is abandoned or canceled for reasons beyond the control of NEET MidAtlantic Indiana (“Abandoned Plant Incentive”); (ii) authorization to include 100 percent of prudently incurred Construction Work in Progress (“CWIP”) in rate base for the Project (“CWIP Incentive”); and (iii) authorization to assign the requested Abandoned Plant and CWIP Incentives, if approved, to any newly-formed PJM affiliate of NEET MidAtlantic Indiana that is involved in the development and construction of the MidAtlantic Resiliency Link Project.​

In addition, the Project requires construction of approximately 129-line miles of 500 kV transmission lines, 24 miles of which is located in a greenfield corridor that crosses through Loudoun County, Virginia, which is one of the wealthiest counties in America. Project opposition from residents in this County is foreseeable and may result in permitting delays, undergrounding requirements that may increase the costs associated with the Project, and/or litigation over the Project’s scope and construction. The Project also spans across four different states—West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania—which will require NEET MidAtlantic Indiana to obtain necessary permits and approvals from a large number of different state and local regulatory bodies and will subject the Project to numerous different environmental and other regulatory standards and requirements. Finally, the Project is directly reliant on the construction of a 36-mile increment of 500 kV transmission lines being developed by First Energy as the incumbent transmission owner. Delays or cancellation associated with First Energy’s construction of its 36-mile increment may impact NEET MidAtlantic Indiana’s ability to obtain permits, finalize construction, and place into service the MidAtlantic Resiliency Link Project in a timely fashion. 


Additionally, the Commission has also recognized that large, new interstate projects can face substantial risks and challenges not presented by more ordinary transmission investments. Like other large interstate projects, the MidAtlantic Resiliency Link Project will span across four different states and many more localities, each with its own regulatory permitting requirements. The Project also traverses across regions of Virginia, such as Loudon County, that have traditionally been litigious when it comes to new, significant transmission build, and similar opposition is expected here. This opposition could result in Project delays or the inability to obtain certain required permits, such as a certificate of public convenience and necessity, ultimately resulting in cancellation of the Project for reasons outside of NEET MidAtlantic Indiana’s reasonable control.

“Defendants also argue that the PUC's decision related to siting, and not regional planning, because it was procedurally different from PJM's transmission planning process. (Id. at 12-14.) In support of this argument, they point to various ways in which PJM's process was purportedly faulty, whether by not conducting evidentiary hearings, taking sworn testimony, permitting cross-examination, or purportedly basing the benefit-to-cost analysis on stale information. (Id.) Meanwhile, the PUC's determination was based on timely information which provides, in Defendants' words, “an important procedural check on the unlitigated, un-reviewed conclusions reached by PJM.” (Id. at 13.)

If they were not allowed this important procedural check, Defendants argue, state laws would merely be a “rubber-stamp [of] every RTO-approved transmission line application.” (Id. at 14 (internal quotation marks omitted).) Defendants argue that the court need not parse the meaning of FERC's instructions in Order 1000 “because FERC has clearly instructed that its jurisdiction did not reach siting and permitting.” (Id.) Here, the PUC's decision was made “after the transmission planning process was completed. The PUC decision, therefore, was a valid exercise of its siting authority.””)

To obtain approval for their application, public utilities must satisfy the following requirements by a preponderance of the evidence:

1) That there is a need for it.
2) That it will not create an unreasonable risk of danger to the health and safety of the public.
3) That it is in compliance with applicable statutes and regulations providing for the protection of the natural resources of this Commonwealth.
4) That it will have minimum adverse environmental impact, considering the electric power needs of the public, the state of available technology and the available alternatives.

The proposed solution includes new substations, new transmission lines and improvements to existing facilities. A majority of the project components use existing facilities and rights of way (through either repurposing/rebuilding existing assets or paralleling existing rights of way, which can reduce costs and minimize impacts to local areas). There are sections that would be new construction on land without existing transmission lines, known as greenfield development.

PJM does not site the facilities or transmission lines nor determine their routes. This is the next step in the process and will be completed by the developers designated by PJM to construct the projects.

Project needs and recommended solutions as discussed in this report were reviewed with stakeholders during 2023, most recently at the October 31, 2023, and December 5, 2023, TEAC meetings. Written comments were requested to be submitted to PJM to communicate any concerns with project recommendations. All correspondence addressed to the PJM Board are available at the Board communications page.

​Dear Board Members,

I was a phone call member for yesterday's meeting. Yep, the entire meeting. I listened to the initial acknowledgement of the hundreds of letters you received. The slight defensive tone was hard to dismiss. I heard what was said about "once the Board approves the plan" more opportunity will arise for the public to voice there concerns. I also did note, you welcomed phone calls in and then moved onto your presentation. 

I listened to the need to retire some equipment nearing the end of it's life and the need for the massive output in the near future. I heard quotes of millions of dollars being passed around like Monopoly money, if I'm honest. We all know the true source of those finances. I also heard how and why we need the additional extensions and how soon those should be in place.

What I felt was completely ignored was the elephant in the room; the people being effected by this massive build. I followed Keryn Newman's line of questioning perfectly; what happens to the folks who loose their drain fields or the viability of their wells with the expansion process? The gentleman couldn't answer. He didn't have one. Crickets. What happens to the woman off Short Hill Mountain that already puts up with these towers and now is possibly slated for an extension to run south off her property as well. Where are the studies to show the placement of these towers are safe for Indigenous wildlife, showing it's safe for children playing near by, and even equally important, how the people living in these paths are supposed to maintain their quality of life.

It was evident that more studies for an accurate path were formulating and town halls were going to be promoted, BUT, the cow will be out of the barn at that point. Once a project is passed rarely are we able to go back and discount it. I felt the meeting was merely checking boxes; you allowed public transparency, as well as opportunities to ask questions, placated opposition and now you were simply going to proceed how you initially wanted. Us be damned. 

PJM, please find another way to get your power where it needs to go. I think the township of Waterford has the most serious claim, HOWEVER, that does not make the rest of us of less value. I implore you to do the right thing.