Take a Drive, PJM!

Stop Transource filled the house yesterday at the Maryland Public Service Commission public hearing on the Transource project.  It is estimated that around 200 people gave up their Saturday to come out and show their staunch opposition to this project.

Transource opponent Patti Hankins asked PJM to take a drive...

Welcome to our Mason-Dixon Community. A Community at risk due to a broken PJM process.

PJM holds the view, that agricultural land is “undeveloped land” ready and waiting for their transmission projects. PJM fails to consider or care about the negative impacts their transmission projects have on our local economy, local agricultural businesses, rural pastoral viewsheds or the rural Community in general. PJM fails to recognize that agriculture is an intended land use designation. Harford County retains approximately 75,000 acres, or 27%, of the County’s land area dedicated to farming. Agricultural land is in decline and both MD & PA have made preserving agricultural land a priority. We can’t make more farmland.

On November 6, 2017 members of this Mason-Dixon Community, along with elected and appointed officials from both MD & PA met with PJM staff, Paul McGlynn (PJM System Planning), Matthew LaRocque (Manager Regulatory Affairs for MD, VA & NC), and Darlene Phillips (PJM State and Member Services) as a result of a written request to PJM’s Board Chairman. The purpose of this meeting was to resolve the need for any new “greenfield” transmission projects in our Community.

What was and is still disturbing is the failure of PJM and their staff to acknowledge that, as citizens, we know what is best for our Mason-Dixon Community. On November 6, 2017, those PJM staff chose to ignore the invitation by Councilman Chad Shrodes to take a five-minute drive to see the underutilized transmission line, the Otter Creek-Conastone line near Shaw’s Orchard in Norrisville. In fact, the Otter Creek-Conastone line parallels and is located within sight of the proposed Transource IEC-East line almost the entire proposed pathway. To validate this one only has to take a drive.

In addition, we were told that “some states have requirements” to utilize existing brownfields vs. building new greenfield transmission. And that “we are all working with the states to work within and respect the state’s regulations”. And that (the project) “was submitted based on state policy”. If those statements were true, PJM wouldn’t have approved Transource to build an unnecessary, redundant IEC-East transmission line in a Community already beset with existing underutilized transmission lines. Something that is very clear to the members of our Community. All one has to do is take a drive.

We expressed concern to PJM staff that the Benefit/Cost analysis only included costs of siting, costs of ROW’s, substation and equipment costs – transaction and infrastructure costs only, costs specific to building the project. A member of the York County Planning Commission told PJM staff, “those are transaction and infrastructure costs only, project costs specifically related to building the project. You are not looking at the farm economy for local farms. Where is the B/C for the Community? We need to come up with this impact.” There was just silence from the PJM staff present. Matter of fact, our Community still has yet to receive an answer from PJM. So, PJM what is the negative impact to our Community? Are you ever going to answer?

Our Mason-Dixon Community urges the Commission to provide that answer to PJM. Tell PJM that their project, the Transource IEC Project is denied. Tell PJM that existing underutilized transmission infrastructure is the best solution for “Market Efficiency” and/or “emerging reliability issues”. Tell PJM that the next time they propose a problem and search for solutions that they need to just take a drive.

Too bad PJM officials couldn't be bothered to give up their Saturday to listen to citizens concerned about the impact of a project PJM supports.  You drive me crazy, PJM!