I just sent the following to PJM TEAC facilitators Sami Abdulsalam and David Souder.
PJM’s Reliability Analysis presentation at the August 8, 2023 TEAC demonstrates a marked concern for routing/siting/permitting/scheduling risks of certain component segments submitted in 2022 RTEP Window 3. I appreciate that PJM is considering these factors. After all, what good is a transmission project that cannot be built due to opposition?
My review of the projects submitted in Window 3 finds that several of these projects are reinvention of old projects, either in whole or in part, that PJM approved years ago and then later abandoned or suspended. Three of these historic projects are the Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline (now FE-23 and FE-837), the Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway (now Exelon-691), and the Independence Energy Connection (now Transource-487). These projects have cost PJM ratepayers hundreds of millions of dollars in development and legal fees despite never being built.
No matter what reason PJM recorded for the suspension and abandonment of these three transmission projects, the fact remains that each of these projects was met with a wall of resistance from landowner groups, state/local governments, elected officials, public interest groups, and impacted communities. Opposition to PATH, MAPP and IEC prevented approval and construction of these projects and added considerable delays to their schedule. Entities that opposed these projects the first time around are knowledgeable and prepared to oppose them again. The impacts of these projects, which made them objectionable in the first place, have not changed. The only difference now is that the opposition is better educated and better prepared to win this battle.
I asked during the TEAC how PJM could receive comments from impacted communities to consider as part of their constructibility studies for the projects. I heard from you that stakeholders could voice their concerns during TEAC meetings, as I was doing, or contact something called “Stakeholder Engagement Group.” Neither option actually incorporates the stakeholder comment into the constructibility report outcome.
I have read some of PJM’s “constructibility reports” in the past. The one for the Independence Energy Connection particularly stands out in my mind, as that constructibility report found significant opposition would not occur because the project was routed on “undeveloped land.” That “undeveloped land” is prime farmland, important to its owners and the community it supports. The owners of this “undeveloped land” are highly educated, well connected, and capable of preventing this project from being constructed as originally ordered by PJM. In conclusion, PJM’s constructibility report was dead wrong because the entity that prepared it was woefully uninformed about transmission opposition and real conditions on the ground. These are areas where public comment and consultation can be incorporated into the constructibility report to improve its historic lack of accuracy.
The presentation at yesterday’s TEAC mentioned “Utilization of existing ROWs and brownfield development/expansion.” Existing ROWs include more than just transmission or utility ROWs. New technologies and policies are opening existing transportation ROWs to new transmission infrastructure. These ROWs are ideal for burying HVDC for the purpose of transporting electricity from one market to another, not serving communities along the way. Window 3 seems to concentrate on importing new power supply to the data centers. HVDC buried on transportation ROWs may be a solution supported by impacted communities. See more: https://theray.org/technology/transmission/
Expansion of existing transmission ROWs by adding parallel lines is NOT a solution to routing issues. PJM needs to re-think this unworkable approach. While existing transmission built in the last century may have been routed on agricultural land, aka “undeveloped land”, the land use conditions that existed when the transmission line was built in 1950 will not be the same in 2023, especially in the growing PJM region. Many former farms have been sold and re-developed into new housing communities and other uses. The community has built itself up around the existing transmission line, often with new homes, schools, and other expansion right up to the edge of the existing ROW. Expanding the existing ROW cannot happen without destroying this new development. This was one of PATH’s biggest problems in Jefferson County, West Virginia. Housing developments had sprung up to surround existing transmission lines and expansion of the ROW would begin to destroy portions of these communities. This problem has not changed in the 15 years since. In fact, it’s gotten much worse. However, FirstEnergy’s submitted projects depend on expanding these ROWs to build new lines parallel to existing ones. While I recognize PJM does not design the routes for its projects, it still must be cognizant of the project’s shortcomings and risk in order to be successful at what it does do.
There’s a lot that PJM (and its member utilities and constructibility report contractors) do not know about the dynamics of transmission opposition. Much can be learned from study of scholarly research on the social aspects of opposition. It is not simply a “NIMBY” issue that can be solved by routing elsewhere. Impacted people need to examine the problem and be involved in the creation of a solution. PJM has historically ordered transmission and left the designated entity to approach the community with a pre-determined transmission solution and consult with them about where to put it. This is not a choice for the impacted community and they will reject it every time. While investigating the basis of the need for the project, the community will develop other solutions to solve the problem, such as use of existing rights-of-way, upgrading of existing lines, burying lines, allowing the market to demand new generation before building transmission, as well as other demand side solutions such as energy efficiency and distributed generation. The designated entity and PJM have resisted any and all suggested modifications to their plans, and as a result the project never gets built. Is PJM about building workable solutions, or spending eternity trying to foist its will on a public that doesn’t want or need it?
PJM prides itself on its “transparency”, but lacks any avenue for true stakeholder participation. Stakeholder consultation should begin in the project planning phase so that PJM doesn’t waste time and money pursuing projects that are not constructible. Allowing stakeholders to make comments that are never considered or acted upon is a parody of democracy. I ask that PJM create a way to accept public comments and incorporate them into its planning, particularly for such an enormous undertaking as Window 3. I have tried to find the “stakeholder engagement group” you suggested during the TEAC, but cannot find anything like that on PJM’s website. I would appreciate a substantive response to this comment/suggestion, not just an acknowledgement it has been received (and ignored).
As you might have guessed, I participated in yesterday's TEAC by telephone. It has been many years since I attended a PJM meeting or raided its free M&M dispensers (plain or peanut?). But PJM is now at the beginning of a new initiative that makes yesterday's Project Mountaineer look like child's play. PJM wants to import insane amounts of power from the east and the west to power new data centers in the DC-metro area. PJM received more than 70 proposals from greedy transmission developers to make this happen. Many of them simply recycled old projects (or parts of them) that were cancelled years ago, such as the old PATH project in Virginia, Maryland and the West Virginia eastern panhandle. Take a quick browse through these maps to get an idea of the magnitude.
As you read above, I asked where PJM might consult with the public about some of these projects while evaluating them to see how feasible they are before we waste another 10 years and hundreds of millions trying to build something impossible like PATH or MAPP or IEC. I was pretty much blown off and told that PJM does its own constructibility evaluations. In other words, comments from impacted communities are not part of the process. Because I continued to push, I was told to send a follow up email. This is the result.
Currently, anyone concerned about a PJM proposal is welcome to make comment at PJM TEAC meetings. You get unlimited time to speak over the phone at a PJM meeting, where you have a captive audience for your thoughts and ideas. What a great opportunity! All you have to do is sign up for a PJM account and register for the meeting of your choice. Call the phone number, and when the question part arrives, push a button. Instant audience. Of course, hearing unlimited public comment from hundreds of concerned people at each PJM TEAC is going to make the meetings just a bit longer. Soon, it's just going to be one long, continuous meeting where the commenters never stop making comments and the party never ends.
Or, PJM can find a constructive way to welcome and make use of public comment.
Next TEAC is September 5. Are you in?
As you read above, I asked where PJM might consult with the public about some of these projects while evaluating them to see how feasible they are before we waste another 10 years and hundreds of millions trying to build something impossible like PATH or MAPP or IEC. I was pretty much blown off and told that PJM does its own constructibility evaluations. In other words, comments from impacted communities are not part of the process. Because I continued to push, I was told to send a follow up email. This is the result.
Currently, anyone concerned about a PJM proposal is welcome to make comment at PJM TEAC meetings. You get unlimited time to speak over the phone at a PJM meeting, where you have a captive audience for your thoughts and ideas. What a great opportunity! All you have to do is sign up for a PJM account and register for the meeting of your choice. Call the phone number, and when the question part arrives, push a button. Instant audience. Of course, hearing unlimited public comment from hundreds of concerned people at each PJM TEAC is going to make the meetings just a bit longer. Soon, it's just going to be one long, continuous meeting where the commenters never stop making comments and the party never ends.
Or, PJM can find a constructive way to welcome and make use of public comment.
Next TEAC is September 5. Are you in?
RSS Feed