At its July 9 Transmission Expansion Advisory Committee meeting, PJM proposed a re-route of the MidAtlantic Resiliency Link (MARL).  MARL is a giant extension cord for importing West Virginia coal-fired electricity to Loudoun County's "data center alley." 

Loudoun County just can't stop approving new data centers, even though it has no way to power them.  Now Loudoun's data center addiction is impacting people in other states... people who will have their property taken using eminent domain so that Loudoun can have more electricity for its data centers.  Loudoun County is not going to stop building data centers until its voters MAKE them stop building data centers.  That would happen in a hot minute if Loudoun County's SACRED COWS were impacted by the data centers.

This is the Sacred Cow Zone.  A look at an electric infrastructure map shows a pristine donut hole surrounded by high voltage transmission lines, substations, and generators on all sides.  But there's nothing in the Sacred Cow Zone!

What's a Sacred Cow?  A person with more money (and therefore more political influence) than you.  Examples include Jackie Kennedy, who took umbrage at a proposal to run a power line through her pony club in the Sacred Cow Zone back in the 1960's.  Legend has it that caused the line to end up in Jefferson County, West Virginia instead.  It's the reason we have that 500kV transmission line right across the middle of our county today.  Another example might be the movie stars and their wine-making friends who objected to a different 500kV high-voltage transmission line in the mid 2000s called TrAIL.  That line got pushed south into Fauquier County instead of impacting the Sacred Cows.

If you want to nauseate yourself a bit you could read the fakeass "report" the Sacred Cows threw together to plead their case that they are much, much too sacred to be impacted by the MARL.  They really think they are much more special than you.  Their views!  Their wine!  Their horses! Their environment!  They even claim to be DC's "central park", where harried rich and important people can go to escape the daily grind of grinding the less fortunate into the dirt.  If they thought they were going to get some sympathy from that report, I suggest it's time to buy a mirror and take a really good look.  Your arrogance is showing and people are laughing at your utter snobbery.  Get over yourself!

Because of Jackie Kennedy's pony club and resident movie stars, PJM was also attuned to the history of the Sacred Cow Zone.  It created a "work around" re-route up front, and now it has pulled the ejector button before even TRYING to propose a route through Loudoun.  It went from this

to this

It's a miracle!  The Sacred Cow Zone has been saved again!  However, in doing so, other landowners who were not previously affected are now affected.  In fact, those landowners in Northern Loudoun will have their property taken using eminent domain to widen the existing right of way, as confirmed by FirstEnergy's representative at the meeting.  Those sacrificial lambs get no consideration because they are not rich or important.

You may find it surprising that the Sacred Cow Zone is more important than the C&O Canal National Historical Park!  The re-route crosses the C&O twice whereas the original route didn't cross it at all.  Let's trash a national historical park that regular people from all over the region visit to escape snobbery and selfishness... in favor of snobbery and selfishness.  Is the Sacred Cow Zone really more important than a national park?

What is not really surprising is that the Sacred Cows didn't even think about using their Sacred status to actually help others.  Maybe if they did, they wouldn't be sacred anymore?  In exchange for continuing their Sacred status, the Cows proclaimed their mission:  

To support the overall PJM Regional Transmission Expansion Plan (RTEP) to inter alia supply the rising power needs of the region’s data center industry

Keep that in mind... the Sacred Cows love PJM, transmission lines, and data centers... as long as they are Not In My Back Yard!

And the whole debacle is going to cost all ratepayers in the region $167 MILLION more!  We're going to have to pay $167M to keep the Sacred Cows sacred and free from all that nasty infrastructure needed to power the data centers that keep their tax burden low.  What a world!

The real irony here may be the fact that a transmission line necessary for Loudoun's data centers has been pushed out of Loudoun and onto landowners in other states.

PJM claims it is not setting a precedent by re-routing a transmission line to spare certain rich and powerful people and dump it on others without the resources to fight back.

How are you enjoying the email bombardment, PJM?  The Sacred Cows just couldn't wait to strut their arrogance for the people impacted by the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project and assure them that if they, too, started having a tantrum at PJM that they could have the transmission line moved out of their community, also.

See?  I'm already right about that.  PJM IS setting a precedent that if you don't want a transmission line in your community you simply have to make some demands and pull the ejector button and you're spared, like magic!  But if PJM is NOT setting a precedent, like Stu assured me they were not last week, then PJM is going to have to explain to those folks in Maryland why they are not Sacred Cows that deserve special treatment.  What'll it be, PJM?

This question has been asked over and over and the answer is multi-faceted and much too long for Facebook.

First, let's acknowledge that existing transmission lines in the region are serving a purpose.  They are providing a public service to provide electricity to customers.  Public utilities have service territories, where they either generate power or buy power to serve their customers.  They may own some of the transmission lines in their service territory, but sometimes another utility may own a line through their territory that was constructed to serve its own customers elsewhere.  You would have to do some research to find out who owns any particular transmission line you see.

A utility owns both the transmission line and the existing easement or property it sits on.  The easement has to be a certain size to meet safety code requirements.  The bigger the lines, the bigger the easement.  The utility has exclusive rights to the easement it owns, and the transmission lines on it.  The company paid for and constructed that line, and it was only allowed to take the amount of land it needed for the line, and no more.  The cost of this public service is reimbursed to the company by ratepayers who use it.

When the line needs repairs, the company that owns it is responsible.  When the line needs to be upgraded, the company that owns it is responsible.  Under current law, a company would have "first dibs" to upgrade or expand its line when it's needed.  Some have asked why PSEG cannot use eminent domain to take another company's line and use the land for the MPRP?  Utilities are immune to eminent domain in most cases.  Isn't it ironic, since they can use it on us?  Utilities are immune to eminent domain because they are providing a public service on that land.  If another entity was allowed to take that land from them, there wouldn't be a transmission line and the public service of providing electricity would end.  I'm sure you can appreciate that nobody is going to take the lines that serve you.

Therefore, PSEG has no right to take another company's transmission line that is in use and tear it down to erect their own line.  Heck, PSEG is not even a legal public utility in Maryland and has no utility rights at all at this time.  If that line needs to be rebuilt, the company that owns it has "first dibs" to rebuild it on the easement it already owns.

Some have asked why PSEG can't just hang some new wires on the existing towers owned by another utility?  Because those towers were not designed to carry that extra circuit.  Transmission towers are structurally engineered to carry the load they are designed for.  They are the property of the utility that owns them to use to maintain and expand its own system when needed.  If BGE was ordered to let PSEG use its transmission system for its own line, what would happen when BGE needed another line?  It would have to take a new right-of-way, since PSEG had used theirs for its own line.  PSEG cannot own a line that is on someone else's right-of-way.  Furthermore, it would be unsafe to try to string some new lines on a tower that doesn't even have a place to put them.  Sometimes, transmission companies think ahead a bit and build oversized towers that leave room for a future circuit to be added.  That is not the case in the MPRP area.  

So, what is PSEG doing in Maryland anyhow if they're not a public utility that serves customers in the state?  Our regional transmission system is operated and planned by a regional transmission operator called PJM Interconnection.  PJM makes sure the system is safe and reliable and that your lights stay on.  PJM is constantly monitoring its system, which consists of transmission lines owned by many of its members, like BG&E, or PSEG.  PJM runs a robust planning process and orders new lines, upgrades, and rebuilds that are recommended by its Transmission Expansion Advisory Committee (TEAC).  TEAC meetings are held once a month, and are open to the public.  But most of what PJM talks about is way too complicated for regular people and they are generally not involved.

Last year, PJM opened a new planning window to find transmission solutions to a reliability problem caused by 7,500MW of increased data center load in Northern Virginia, combined with 11,000MW of generation closing around the region.  Numerous companies submitted 72 different project ideas for PJM's consideration.  For big projects such as this, PJM's planning process is competitive.  That means all those transmission ideas were competing with each other to be selected.  PJM evaluated them for constructability and price, trying to find the best projects that solved the reliability problem for the cheapest price.  In order to be competitive, some companies submitted their project ideas with financial cost caps that would guarantee a final price for the project, no matter what happens in the mean time.  There are all sorts of ways to increase the price even with a cost cap, but I'm not going to get into that really complicated topic just now.

Maryland public utility BGE submitted a bunch of project ideas wrapped into a package in conjunction with other local public utilities.  None of those projects had cost caps.  While they had estimated costs attached, they are not held to the estimate.  Spend as much as you want!  One of the project ideas in this package was to rebuild  existing transmission lines from Pennsylvania to a substation named Brighton.  That project did not connect with the Doubs substation.  It looked like this:

This transmission idea wasn't just one transmission project but a series of transmission upgrades that were considered as a package.  None of these lines connected to Doubs, which feeds power to Northern Virginia.  We do not know why BGE didn't propose connecting to Doubs, and we don't really know why PJM selected PSEG's MPRP project instead.  The only clue we have is PJM's project evaluation risk matrix.

PJM decided that PSEG's MPRP was the best project in this list, and they ordered it and assigned it to PSEG.  PSEG is being held to its guarantee that it will have this project finished on time and on budget.  It is in a big ol' hurry because, for PSEG, time is money.

Once PJM selects and orders a transmission project, it's like a momma bear with a cub.  PJM will protect that transmission project and refuse to second guess itself at all costs.  The only thing that can stop PJM is a denial by the state utility commission in the state(s) where the project is located.  In that case, PJM will have to go back to the drawing board and start its planning process all over again.  Because these are competitive projects, PJM can't just pick another one.

There have only been two instances where PJM has made a change to a transmission project it ordered.  The first occurred several years ago when it was facing a denial of its planned Independence Energy Connection by the Maryland Public Service Commission.  It got that far, folks, right up until decision time!  In that instance, there was a locally-owned and operated transmission line that had recently been built that had room for another circuit (remember the planning ahead thing?).  Citizens asked why PJM had assigned a whole new transmission line on new easements to a non-local transmission company similar to PSEG when there was an existing line with open space that could hold a new circuit on the existing towers.  The Maryland PSC wanted to know also, and PJM and the transmission company fell on its sword and re-assigned that part of the project to the local utility to construct on its existing towers.  However, there were other parts to this project in Western Pennsylvania that were not changed because there was no existing transmission line with room for another circuit.  Only part of that project was changed, and the company continued trying to get approval from Pennsylvania.  Pennsylvania denied their permit and the entire project was shelved.  Turns out the years-long delay in permitting obviated the project and it was no longer needed anyhow.  The project was never built.

The second instance is happening right now.  PJM selected a transmission line connecting West Virginia coal-fired power plants with Loudoun County, Virginia's "data center alley."  A portion of this project is a greenfield line through western Loudoun on new easements.  When PJM evaluated this project, it noted that obtaining approval for new easements in Loudoun  might be a problem, so it created a "work around" on a different route, if needed.  PJM planned for this project's route in Loudoun to be rejected.  Just as PJM thought, the people in Loudoun opposed the line, and they used their money and political power to get their county government to demand PJM pull the ejector button and put the project on the alternate route.  PJM is currently considering the re-route.  However, this re-route is not exactly on "existing rights-of-way," no matter how they try to spin it.  The re-route "along existing lines" expands the existing easement and takes more property from people on the existing line using eminent domain.  The people on the re-route got mowed over by the important people in Loudoun who didn't want to have any impacts from new transmission to serve Loudoun's data centers.  They were stabbed in the back and thrown under the bus in order to save the rich people in Virginia's wine and horse country.  And they're going to remember it for a long, long time.

"Using existing rights-of-way" is not always the panacea it seems.  It's basically a NIMBY argument and pushes impacts on to others.  Even when a transmission line is rebuilt entirely on existing easements, there are still impacts from construction, as well as permanent impacts from having much higher voltage running on an easement you may be so unlucky to have on your property.  Rebuilds need new access roads for construction.  A new gravel road across your field, even temporary, will cause permanent and lasting impacts.  Just try getting all the rock out of there afterwards, or fixing the compaction that has happened.  You probably won't enjoy living with the construction traffic on it during construction either.  A rebuild on the existing easement may take out more trees along the easement, proclaiming them "danger trees" to the new transmission line.  It's a way of widening the easement without actually paying you anything.  Rebuilds aren't fun for the people who are subject to them, and horrendous for people whose home gets gobbled up by an expanded easement.

The lesson here is that moving a planned transmission line to an existing easement has only happened under certain circumstances.  The first is having space available to take a new line on existing towers.  That isn't present with MPRP.  The second was PJM having an alternate route already in mind.  That also isn't present with MPRP.

Getting PJM to change its mind and cancel MPRP entirely in favor of some other project that has not even been proposed is a very heavy lift.  So heavy, in fact, it may be nearly impossible.  PJM will have to be forced into it, and that's not going to happen quickly, easily, or inexpensively.  If you want to pursue this strategy, my advice is to hire a licensed engineer with experience and credentials working cases just like this before a regulatory commission to take a look at the PJM system and come up with an alternate plan.  Citizens don't have the right credentials to design the transmission system and PJM will just ignore them (and the PSC will ignore them as well).  You need to point to a viable plan that has been thoroughly vetted by a professional with experience designing the transmission system.  Even then, PJM will fight you on this and attack your expert.  He needs to be flameproof.  But, if you're in it for the long haul, this is your avenue, and the choice is yours.  It won't be quick.  It won't be cheap.  It won't be easy.  

Perhaps by the time you're done fighting that very long battle (with no guarantee of success) the transmission line will have obviated itself.  The data centers aren't going to wait around for a new extension cord that is mired in years of legal battle, they're going to go somewhere else with available power.

If you're going to find another solution for MPRP, make sure it's one that the entire community finds acceptable, otherwise you're playing into the NIMBY game PJM and PSEG hopes you will play.  Nobody really wins that game.  Someone alway gets stabbed in the back and tossed under the bus to save yourself.  The transmission planners and companies want you to do this because they're the ones who win... they get to have their project and someone who has to live with it is miserable.

There are plenty of transmission projects that have been cancelled entirely without anyone being thrown to the wolves because the community came together and presented a united front... we won't have this here in our community in any way, shape, or form.

​Good luck, MPRP opponents!  Carry on!

Get your hip waders, folks, it's going to get deep in here!

Last night I attended the MPRP "Open House" in Brunswick.  It made the guy from Assedo pretty nervous that we wouldn't sign in and give them our information, but he said we were welcome to look around.  So, I did.  I think maybe he changed his mind later when he spied us chatting with the reporter from Fox because he found it so intriguing he needed to document it with photographs.  I saw you, dude.  Somehow, I don't think PSEG is going to be using those photos for public relations purposes.

MPRP's "Open House" was right out of the utility playbook.  Free food and beverage, free tchotchkes, and plenty of free propaganda from subject matter "experts" that sometimes couldn't stay within their specialties.  Most of them were very nice, heck, they're just doing a job.  A couple were quite snotty when they realized I knew they were blowing smoke.  And I got so far under the PJM guy's skin that he started "m'am"-ing me.  The sickest part of these open house meetings to me is always the Indoctrination Station for the kiddos.

Don't leave your kids here coloring propaganda under the watchful eye of strangers.

The first stop was the table with the PJM guy.  Stu Widom had lots of helpful information, but didn't know much about the actual planning process, and it showed.  Got himself all tweaked when I mentioned the precedent PJM has recently set by changing the route of a different project so it doesn't affect wealthy and politically connected people in Virginia's wine and horse country.  Why don't you ask Stu about that tonight?  He likes to pretend that it was for "environmental reasons" but it was nothing of the sort!  The new route crosses the C&O Canal NHP TWICE.  Environmental my foot.  Of course, poking the rich and powerful might affect Stu's own personal environment as one of PJM's political schmoozers, so maybe that's what he meant?  He obviously wasn't there to talk with citizens, but to use his bee smoker on any angry legislators or government officials who showed up.

Next I talked to one of the land agent ladies, who pretended that's not what she was.  I asked her when they were going to release the land agents on the citizens impacted by this project and she acted all confused.  I asked her if land agents would be calling on people BEFORE or AFTER the Maryland Public Service Commission approves this project.  She assured me land agents would only contact you AFTER the MD PSC approves.  We both knew she was full of it, and my investigation of regulatory filings this morning confirms

Busted!  Those land agents will be on your doorstep as soon as the routing is completed in September.

Next was one of the routing guys who told me this project was needed to supply electricity to the local area.  I told him he was wrong, then he admitted that he wasn't the subject matter expert on that.  He suggested I go over to Stu's table to find the answer to that question.  I said I'd already been there and maybe HE should go talk to Stu.  He refused, so I suggested that he not lie to people about that anymore,

I talked with a delightful young lady at the structure/electrical engineering poster.  She showed me the selected H-frame structures and told me the poles were 40 feet apart and that it would be possible to drive farm equipment between them.  I asked her what happens if someone tried that and accidentally clipped one of the poles and it fell over.  Who would be liable?  She didn't know.  I didn't suggest that she volunteer for a farm machinery rodeo, where the power company person stands in a field with their arms outstretched and pretends to be a transmission tower while farmers see how close they can drive their gigantic pieces of equipment to the "tower" without knocking it over.

I talked with another routing lady who confirmed that paralleling existing transmission lines can actually be MORE destructive than cutting new greenfield lines.  We talked about how homes and other structures are often sited right outside transmission rights of way that have existed for decades.  Paralleling that corridor with a new 150-ft wide easement would destroy everything adjacent to the existing corridor.  She said MPRP would go around homes rather than over or through them, but had to minimize how many times its line crossed the existing line.  There was also a problem where a home stood on either side of the existing easement, preventing expansion on either side.  She didn't know what MPRP would do in that instance.  One of those homes would have to be sacrificed, that's what.  Whichever side of the existing easement has more homes wins.  However, when MPRP uses new easements, it can go around any home or other obstruction and won't have to destroy anyone's home.

And finally, I talked with PSEG's staff lawyer, who happened to be sitting at Stu's table.

Very nice person who pretty much told the truth and had the answers to my rather unique questions.  She admitted that perhaps some of the other "experts" at the meeting may be making crap up and she had asked them not to do that.  I grilled her on PSEG's federal regulatory filings and cost recovery system.  This morning I found the documents and they mostly confirmed what she told me. 

​PSEG has applied at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to be granted three transmission incentives.  The first is the Abandoned Plant Incentive.  If granted, PSEG would be able to recover all its prudent expenditures on MPRP in the event that it is abandoned before being built through no fault of PSEG.  This would include if cannot get the permits it needs, or if PJM's need for the project changes.  The second is to set a preliminary debt/equity ratio of 55/45%.  This isn't anything to get concerned about.  The third incentive is recovery of PSEG's expenses related to this project once the project has an approved formula rate.  PSEG's initial expenditures will be recovered over a 5-year period once it has a recovery method.  This means that all the money PSEG has spent preparing this project for PJM, ushering it through PJM's competitive process, it's legal costs to make those FERC filings, the cost of all its contractors (routing, engineering, land acquisition, public relations), the food, the coloring books, even those cute little hardhat flashlight keychains (be sure to get one!).  Everything PSEG has already spent will end up added to ratepayer bills once it has its formula rate established.  The one made up fib the lawyer told was that PSEG was paying for all the current costs of the project out of the goodness of their hearts.  I hope she knew as well as I did that those costs were being put in an account as a regulatory asset that would be recovered (with interest) at a later date.

First, PSEG is waiting for FERC to approve its incentives.  Afterwards, PSEG will file for approval of its formula rate and rate of return.  Bet your eyes glazed over just then, right?  Stick with me here...  A formula rate is a set of tables that calculate a yearly rate based on numbers that the transmission company plugs in from their ledger.  As things are paid for, the costs get added to certain accounts, and the account totals get transferred to the formula rate on a yearly basis.  The number that comes out the end of the formula is the amount that electric consumers pay for the transmission project on a yearly basis.  A rate of return is how much interest the company earns on its capital expenses.  That includes physical assets, like transmission lines, land they sit on, and it also includes the cost of building them in the first place.  It's heady stuff, but anyone with a little accounting experience can handle it just fine.

Once the formula rate and rate of return is set by FERC, you can help PSEG look over its costs every year to make sure they don't include any costs in their formula rate that shouldn't be charged to ratepayers.

To wrap up... I urge you to download and read PSEG's application for FERC incentives.  It may answer a bunch of the questions I have seen swirling around, such as where's the data proving need?  Why was this project selected instead of upgrading existing lines?  If you have questions, why not take them to the PSEG attorney at tonight's meeting?  She's fun to talk to.  Be nice. 

Another utility "dog and pony show" in the books.  Don't expect to accomplish much.  MPRP isn't going to be stopped at any of these meetings, but attending is your first step.  It's simply a networking opportunity.  Come hungry.  As one landowner remarked at one of these shows years ago... "We might as well eat.  It might be all we get."

The MidAtlantic Resiliency Link, or MARL, transmission project has been assigned by PJM Interconnection to two different transmission builders.  NextEra is assigned to build the majority of it, but FirstEnergy ended up with the portion that runs through Frederick County, VA and Jefferson County, WV.

Long ago, even before PJM ordered MARL, NextEra filed an application for transmission incentives with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.  FERC approved them back in January.  Nobody bothered to get involved and comment or protest.

Everyone's been treading water, waiting to get more information, but neither NextEra or FirstEnergy has held public meetings to share information with impacted communities.  Seems like nobody is in a hurry at all.

Remember that when PJM ordered MARL, it said the project was needed to be operating by June 1, 2027 or else there would be darkness.

Back in May, FirstEnergy finally got around to requesting transmission incentives for its portion of the MARL.  It asked FERC to grant it the abandoned plant incentive.  Grant of the abandoned plant incentive begins the tally of project costs that can be recovered if the project is abandoned (cancelled) before being built.  Anything FirstEnergy spends before receiving this incentive is only eligible to be recovered at 50%.  That would mean that FirstEnergy could only collect half of the money it spends on MARL in the case of abandonment.  The other half would come out of FirstEnergy's pocket.  Fitting, don't you think, since FirstEnergy insisted on being assigned this portion that rebuilds and expands lines FirstEnergy already owns?  However, that's not what FirstEnergy asked FERC for... it asked FERC to allow it to recover 100% of whatever it has spent (plus interest) if the project is abandoned.

FERC Commissioner Mark Christie is at war against certain transmission incentives.  FERC opened a rulemaking to examine and revise its incentives more than 4 years ago, but has punted it to the side without action, allowing the overly generous incentives to continue.  
​
I'm taking this opportunity to object to FirstEnergy's request for the abandoned plant incentive.  Do they really need it, since they were so eager to have this project that they engineered some secret deal behind the scenes at PJM?  

NextEra's cost cap for MARL (as crappy as it is) did not transfer to FirstEnergy when it took over this section of the project.  FirstEnergy can and will spend however much it wants... currently estimated at $341M for a very short "rebuild" segment.  How much will they actually spend, and how soon will they spend it?  How much spending is planned *before* state approvals, which if denied can cause abandonment?  FERC should place a limit on running up the spending before project approval.

These are the comments I submitted to FERC.

And here's the worst part!  As part of their filing, FirstEnergy included a copy of its acceptance letter of PJM's designation of a portion of the MARL.  In their acceptance, FirstEnergy has changed the in-service dates for its portion of the MARL.  The Virginia portions (both in Frederick and Loudoun counties) are supposed to be in-service by June 1, 2028, delayed a year from the date PJM said they were needed.  The in-service date for the West Virginia portion in Jefferson County is delayed until June 1, 2030.  That's right... 2030!  MARL is not planned to be completed and transmitting energy until 2030!  That's six years from now!  Are Virginia's data centers going to hang around waiting to build and be connected to the electric grid for another 6 years?

NO!  They won't wait.  They will go somewhere else where they can build a data center and get electric service before 2030.  The bottom may be about to fall out of Virginia's data center craze.

​Here's what FirstEnergy's acceptance letter looks like:

Once the in-service date for PJM's transmission projects starts slipping, it often keeps slipping... right off into oblivion.  It can be delayed if expected load doesn't show up (but goes elsewhere). It can be delayed if the utilities run into permitting problems, such as taking a state denial in a NIETC to FERC for permitting.  It can be delayed if the utilities have difficulty procuring project components; there is a huge supply chain issue for transmission components right now.  It can be delayed if there are issues with land acquisition.  It can (and will) be delayed even further.  And, as I said in my comments...

Giving these transmission companies the greenlight to spend as much of our money as they want before they finally abandon MARL many years in the future is not just and reasonable.

FirstEnergy has asked FERC to approve its incentive request before July 15.  Once consumers have thus insured the reimbursement of FirstEnergy's project spending, then maybe FirstEnergy can actually start working on MARL.

But what happens if FERC doesn't grant this incentive?  Will FirstEnergy still want to build its part of the MARL?  Or will it have to go back to PJM for revision?

​Stay tuned...

Well, here's another particularly noxious transmission project weed!  The so-called "Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project" or MPRP.  This industry loves its acronyms!

In 2023, regional grid manager PJM Interconnection devised a suite of new electric transmission projects designed to import new electricity supplies to new data centers in Northern Virginia, and for Frederick County's new Quantum Loophole project.  Data centers use so much electricity, it's equivalent to large cities sprouting up overnight in previously rural places.  New cities need new power supplies, especially because Maryland has been closing all its baseload power plants that run on fossil fuels.  Before Maryland's recent plant closures under their "clean energy" plan, the state was importing 40% of the energy it used.  Now, it needs even more imports!  We're heading toward more than 50% of Maryland's electricity being imported from neighboring states via new high-voltage transmission lines.  The only two states in the PJM region that generate more electricity than they use and can export to Maryland are West Virginia and Pennsylvania.  The MPRP is importing electricity from southeastern Pennsylvania.  Other new transmission projects are exporting electricity from West Virginia's coal-fired plants to Loudoun County's "Data Center Alley.  It's nothing more than a series of enormous electric extension cords for data centers.  In PJM's planning process, it looked like this:

Frederick County was sleeping the sleep of the uninformed throughout the planning and approval process at PJM.  And now it has manifested.

The project was assigned by PJM to New Jersey utility Public Service Enterprise Group.  Why them?  PJM put its new project requirements out for bid, and PSEG submitted the best project for PJM's needs.  PSEG also offered a certain price for the project.  There's more to this, but let's stop there for now.  Since PJM approved this project and assigned it to PSEG last December, PSEG has been busy devising a route for the project, and now they have finished and want to share it with the public.

PSEG will be holding public "open house" meetings across the project area early next month.  See website for details.  The "meeting" is hardly an actual meeting though.  It's a series of information stations the public is supposed to file through, and you may be handed a card to fill out with your thoughts at the end of the meeting.  Each little station will be populated with PSEG representatives, and you can ask them questions.  But there is no formal presentation or Q&A session where everyone can hear each question and answer.  Go ahead... ask different representatives the exact same question and get wildly different answers.  This is why utilities hold these kinds of meetings.  They will tell you what they think you want to hear, and not be held accountable for any of it.  The main purpose of the "meeting" is to introduce preliminary route maps to the impacted community and receive feedback that could help guide the final route that PSEG files for approval of the Maryland Public Service Commission.

This preliminary route map is floating around social media.

Not a lot of detail, but it's a damn sight better than PJM's initial map as far as determining where they expect this project to go.  At the open house meeting next month, PSEG will have the detailed aerial maps that you want to see.  The maps may present numerous short route segments that can be pieced together to create a route.  They may ask what you think of them.  Most people will reject routes that impact them, and may be tempted to champion routes that do not.  But, throwing your neighbor under the bus to save yourself is never a good strategy.  The community must come together to oppose ANY of these routes.  If data centers need new electricity supplies, they need to build new power generators near the data centers, instead of plowing through communities that won't receive any benefit.  

The MPRP will likely need new rights-of-way 150-200 feet wide for its 500kV transmission line.  The company will ask landowners to sign easements for a one-time "fair market value" payment for just the land in the easement.  This gives PSEG the right to use your land, but you will still own it and pay taxes on it.  The easement payments are compensation for land you can no longer use, they are not a windfall or profit.

The MPRP website is chock full of propaganda and small bits of information that impacted landowners need to really investigate.  For instance, the website says:

They don't tell you that the project is only necessary because of enormous new data center load.  If we didn't build the data centers, or if we built new electric generation near the data centers, this transmission line would not be necessary.   It's not for you, it's for data centers.  This project also has NOTHING to do with clean energy.  It will actually increase carbon emissions in neighboring states that will have to produce more power using fossil fuels in order to import it to new data centers in Maryland and Virginia.

​Here's another:

State law allows utilities to access property for limited survey purposes before easements are signed.  However, PSEG wants landowners to sign a document permitting all sorts of surveying and testing, including things that may harm your property, like core drilling.  Think twice about signing this document and giving PSEG unfettered access to do whatever it wants on your property before they have paid you a dime.  Maryland law already gives them access for surveying that doesn't harm your property.  You don't need to sign any document or give them further permissions.

I also didn't notice the words "eminent domain" on MPRP's website, but that's exactly how they intend to acquire land from unwilling landowners.  Easement offers are nothing more than coercion... sign and take the money... or else.  When there's no opportunity to say no, it's not voluntary land acquisition.

PSEG's website, its open house meetings, and its permission forms and easement agreements are written in the company's best interest, not yours!

The best use of PSEG's open house meeting will be the opportunity it gives you to meet new folks who are similarly affected by this project and to exchange contact information and hold further meetings among yourselves to share information of interest to landowners who want to defend themselves against this transmission project.  PSEG is not from here, it doesn't know your community, and at the end of the day it doesn't care what happens to it.  They can't see it from their house in New Jersey!

It's time to circle the wagons, Frederick County!  Later this year, PSEG may file an application with the Maryland Public Service Commission.  When that happens, you have the right to intervene and become a party to the case that can submit testimony and cross-examine utility witnesses with the goal of convincing the MPSC to deny a permit for this project.  There will also be public hearings held by MPSC where you can speak out against it.

Meanwhile, get engaged and stay current on project news.  Talk to your neighbors and others in the community who may be impacted.  Make a plan. Maybe I'll see you at the open house...

Did you oppose the Transource Independence Energy Connection transmission project ordered by PJM in 2016 to run through York and Franklin Counties, Pennsylvania?

THANK YOU!!!

After years of battle, PJM has finally re-evaluated IEC and made the determination that it causes uncontrolled congestion and reliability concerns starting in 2030.  You can read PJM's re-evaluation here, beginning at page 19.

If you had not stood up to PJM and delayed this project like you did, it would be built and causing problems right now.  You saved PJM's ass!

It's about time PJM acknowledged that IEC was a folly that never should never have been approved.

However, Transource has managed to spend $107.96M (that's millions, folks!) on this project, and it's going to want its money back.  That's right, we'll all get to pay Transource back for all the money it spent harassing landowners, conducting turtle hunts and netting bats, and of course all its costs to pursue appeal of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission's denial of a permit for this loser project.

PJM has *still* not abandoned this project.  It is still "suspended."  As long as it is suspended, ratepayers are on the hook for anything Transource spends on lawyers to pursue its appeal.  The appeal is currently before the Third Circuit.  You can read the PA PUC's brief here.

If PJM abandons IEC, then we stop paying for Transource's lawyers, but PJM has not done that.  Here's why... Transource's appeal to PA state court was unsuccessful, so it bumped it up to federal district court.  That judge found that the PA PUC's denial was unlawful because the PUC should be forced to accept PJM's determination of need for the project and was prohibited from making its own evaluation of need.  Essentially, that court decision hamstrings all state utility commissions from making their own determination of need for new transmission and makes them subservient to the RTO's findings of need for a transmission project.  It turns the PUC into a kangaroo court, where they must rubber stamp an RTO's need for a project.  This is incorrect on so many levels, but the only way to set things right again was for the PUC to appeal the district court's decision to the federal circuit court.  And that is where it currently sits.

Never mind that PJM has now found that the project isn't really needed after all, PJM wants to have the power created by that federal district court decision to usurp state authority to make the need determination required by state law going forward.

And the costs continue to rack up...

If PJM actually officially abandons IEC (instead of leaving it in a suspended state) the handouts would cease and Transource would have to proceed to FERC to have them determine how much of Transource's costs will have to be repaid by ratepayers.  When PJM ordered IEC, Transource went to FERC and asked them for a rate of return of 10.4% and special incentives for the project.  One of those incentives is what is known as the Abandonment incentive.  That incentive, granted by FERC, allows Transource to make a filing to collect all its sunk costs that are determined to be prudent in a future filing, plus the 10.4% rate of return.  Transource says it spent $107 MILLION dollars, and once PJM abandons the project, it is likely that FERC will order ratepayer reimbursement.

It's all over but the payback.

Shame on Transource for spending so much money on a project that never stood a chance of being approved!

And shame on PJM for approving this project in the first place and avoiding its ultimate abandonment!

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has announced an open meeting where it will present its new rules for transmission planning AND its new rules for transmission permitting in a National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor (NIETC).

Both of these rulemakings have taken years to get to this point.  As you may know, rulemakings are public participation proceedings where the agency proposes a new rule, accepts comments from the public, and then issues a final rule.  The transmission planning rulemaking began in 2019 -- 5 years ago!  Five years to get a new rule in place isn't uncommon... things move at a glacial pace at FERC.  In addition, FERC's commissioners have come and gone over that time period, making FERC flip-flop on several different new rule proposals.  The transmission permitting rulemaking hasn't been in the works for as long, but it is going to have a profound impact on landowners so unlucky as to be targeted for new transmission projects.

First, the transmission planning rulemaking.  This is all the media has been talking about.  Fans of doubling or tripling transmission lines to ostensibly connect remote wind and solar generators are chomping at the bit, convinced that it will finally make intermittent renewables viable.  That proposed rule contains, among other provisions, a plan to prospectively build new transmission to remote "zones" where some unnamed authority believes new wind and solar can be built.  This would shift the cost of transmission to connect renewables from the owner of the generator to ratepayers across the regions connected.  As it has been for years, the owner of a new generator must pay the costs of connecting its new generator.  These companies want to shift this cost burden to ratepayers.  If a generator has to pay for its own connection, it makes economic choices about where to site new generation in order to build at the most economic sites.  If we're paying, generators can build stuff anywhere, even if it doesn't make economic sense, and stick electric consumers with the bill.

Another thing the transmission planning rule is going to do is create some hypothetical list of "benefits" from new transmission in order to spread the cost allocation as wide as possible.  Even if you don't "need" transmission for reliability or economic reasons, if the transmission owner makes up some hypothetical "benefits" for you, then you're going to be charged for it.  The idea is to spread the trillions of dollars needed for new transmission as wide as possible in the hope that if everyone pays a little that nobody will notice how their money is being wasted building transmission that they don't need.

Finally, the transmission rule will require planning authorities, like PJM or MISO, to plan transmission on a rolling 20-year timeline.  What are you going to need 20 years from now?  You have no idea, and neither does the planner.  By planning so far into the future, the idea is to drive generation choices through transmission planning, and not to plan the transmission system based on need.  It will also attempt to roll state and federal "public policies" into transmission planning so that we all pay a share of other state energy policy choices.  Is Maryland shutting down all its gas-fired generation?  You're going to pay for new transmission to replace it, even though you don't live in Maryland and had no say in the creation of their energy policies. 

The transmission planning rule will be prospective only and will not affect any transmission already included in regional plans.   After this rule is issued, planners will have to submit what are known as compliance filings, which detail how the planner will adjust its rules to carry out the new transmission planning process FERC orders.  In addition, I fully expect that this rule will be litigated for several more years, which is going to hold the whole thing up.

Now onto the Transmission Permitting rule, which is something that is going to impact anyone currently battling unwanted transmission, and anyone doing so in the future.  As you probably know, the U.S. Department of Energy is poised to release its preliminary list of potential NIETCs at any time.  That's a whole battle unto itself that I'm not going to cover here, but if a corridor is designated in your area, it means that one or more proposed transmission projects may be built in that corridor.  A transmission project sited in a NIETC is subject to "backstop" permitting by FERC.  If a state has no authority to permit transmission, or denies a permit to a project in a NIETC, then it can be bumped to FERC for permitting.  FERC will require the transmission company to file an application and then will hold a full-blown permitting process very similar to the state process.  If FERC permits the project, then FERC has authority to say where it goes and to grant the utility building it federal eminent domain authority to take property for it.

In FERC's rulemaking on transmission permitting, it proposed that a utility could begin the FERC process as soon as an application is filed at the state level.  This would mean that there will be TWO simultaneous permitting processes going on at the same time.  Two permitting cases, two interventions, two sets of lawyers, double your time and double your money.  The drawback here is that the FERC process may not even be necessary if the state approves the project in its own permitting process.  If a state approves, FERC doesn't have jurisdiction to get involved.  FERC said that it needed to speed up this process by running its own permitting process at the same time as the state process.  It's foolish and a waste of our time and money.  Let's see what FERC does with this as it was widely panned by those who commented on this rulemaking.

​Another horrible idea in FERC's proposal is an "Applicant Code of Conduct" to meet the statutory requirement for "...good faith efforts to engage with landowners and other stakeholders early in the applicable permitting process."  FERC proposes a voluntary, generalized, unenforceable "Code" that does little to protect landowners.  The "Code" is merely an idea of how a company should behave, not how it will behave.  FERC does not plan to enforce it, or intervene when landowners report violations.  The landowner should report violations to the company!  Don't laugh... they're serious!  FERC's proposed "Code" advises that the company should "avoid" coercive tactics, but it doesn't prohibit them.  That does NOTHING to meet the statutory requirement.  It's a big joke!

The new transmission permitting rule will become operational once it is issued.  Many readers will be subject to this government-sponsored landowner abuse immediately.  This is one you should not ignore!

Over the years, I have worked with a large group of transmission opponents from across the country to file extensive comments on both of these rulemakings on behalf of impacted landowners.  In particular, you should read our comments about the transmission permitting rule to familiarize yourself with what's about to happen to landowners.

Please plan to (virtually) attend FERC's May 13 Open Meeting where they will release these two new rules and make comment and explanation.  The meeting is "listen only".  There is no opportunity to make comment or interact with the Commissioners.  This is an informational presentation, not a participatory event.  FERC's meeting begins at 11:00 a.m. and is expected to last about an hour.  You can watch it live on YouTube using a link that will appear on FERC's website the week before.  Later on that day (or the next day, remember FERC works at a snail's pace) the text of the rules will be released and then discussed over and over by lawyers and the media.  If you're impacted by a new transmission proposal, you can't miss this presentation!

You don't need to sign up in advance... simply click the link to view when the meeting starts.  You can find that link and minimal information about this special meeting at FERC's website.

Our power appetite is bigger than our power supply.  The "renewable transition" isn't working.  We are losing large baseload power generators and not replacing them and we're adding too much load.  Our electric system is not sustainable.  It's a simple math equation.

Back in January I was contacted by a reporter from the Washington Post who had been writing about the proliferation of data centers in Northern Virginia and wanted to investigate how Virginia's out-of-control building was impacting people in surrounding states.  Virginia's data center problem is no longer just Virginia's problem.  It has now spread to the entire 14 state PJM Interconnection region.

​Here's his story that began back in January.

​For us, the story began last summer when we found out about PJM's transmission plan for multiple new high-voltage transmission lines to import more power to data center alley.  We followed it through PJM's planning process and though we protested and asked for other solutions, PJM approved three new 500kV transmission lines and a whole bunch of smaller segments and substations.  During PJM's TEAC meetings, I remarked several times that the new transmission was feeding from existing legacy coal plants in West Virginia and was actually increasing emissions and in no way helping the "renewable transition."  Every time I mentioned it, PJM was quick to claim that the new electric supply would come from "all resources, including renewables."  PJM seemed rather sensitive about the reality of its plan and vehemently denied it.  Deny this article, PJM.  It's all there in living color.

Virginia has renewable energy laws that prohibit the building of new fossil fuel generation (gas, coal).  But yet Virginia is building an incredible amount of new data centers that use outrageous amounts of power that is simply not available on the current system.  Virginia's renewable energy plan is a virtue signaling lie.  Instead of building the electric generation it needs, Virginia intends to IMPORT electricity from surrounding states, even coal-fired power from West Virginia.  ESPECIALLY coal-fired power from West Virginia.  How is Virginia's "renewable energy" law cleaning up the environment?  It's not.  It's making the situation worse.

After Tony started working on this story for the Washington Post, FirstEnergy made an announcement that bolstered what I had been saying... PJM's transmission plan is increasing the production of coal-fired electricity in West Virginia.  FirstEnergy announced it was abandoning its goal to decrease its carbon emissions by 2030 by throttling back its Ft. Martin and Harrison coal-fired power plants near Morgantown.  FirstEnergy said it was necessary to abandon that goal because those resources were necessary to provide reliability in PJM.   In other words, FirstEnergy will throttle up its electricity production at those plants in order to provide supply to PJM's new transmission line that begins at the nearby 502 Junction substation and ends at No. Va.'s data center alley in Loudoun County.  Ft. Martin and Harrison directly connect to 502 Junction via dedicated 500kV transmission lines.  Also connecting directly to 502 Junction is the Longview coal-fired power plant in Morgantown and AEP's Mitchell coal-fired power plant in West Virginia's northern panhandle.  It's more than 5,000 MW of hot and dirty coal-fired electricity and if the line is constructed it's heading right for Northern Virginia, along with some smog and air pollution.  Data Centers are filthy!  And PJM is a filthy liar.

Along the way to No. Va., PJM's new coal-by-wire extension cord will expand existing transmission rights-of-way closer to homes, schools, parks and businesses.  Expanding existing easements makes it impossible for the utility to avoid sensitive things like they could if they were siting a new corridor.  Anyone living along the existing corridor, like the Gee family, is going to be steamrolled right over. 

The "using existing rights-of-way" propaganda is another huge PJM lie I brought up over and over during TEAC meetings.  It's a new easement all the way because it cannot be constructed within the existing corridor.

And guess what?  Along with new pollution and new land acquisition using eminent domain, West Virginians will PAY for this destruction/construction in higher electric bills, along with every other ratepayer in the PJM region.

And we get NOTHING for our trouble.  Virginia gets new tax revenue building things they can't power while crowing about how "clean" Virginia is, and the rest of us get the impacts and the bill.  We're NOT your sacrifice zone.

Washington Post reporter Tony Olivo did a fantastic job investigating and reporting on this story.  He spent a day with us here in Jefferson County and drove from one end of the county to the other meeting people, and Washington Post photographer Sal got lots of photos and drone footage along the way.  Then these two guys drove all the way out to 502 Junction and Morgantown to do the same there.  They spent an enormous amount of time on this story and it shows.

One of my favorite images in the story is the new solar "farm" near Charles Town taken from the drone.  It shows how the company building it scraped off all the vegetation and top soil and left nothing but bare earth and erosion that is killing the Shenandoah River.  Clean energy ain't so clean, is it?

And let's talk about that "clean energy", shall we?  Wind and solar cannot create the amount of electricity needed for new data centers, even if they cover Virginia with turbines and panels from end to end.  The data centers need a plentiful and reliable supply they can only get from fossil fuels.  A few solar panels on the roof of the data center won't do a thing to cure this problem.  It may only keep the lights on in the restroom... during the day.  Renewables cannot power our energy intensive society.  We're not replacing the generation we're shutting down in the name of carbon reduction, and there's no chance that we can ever catch up at this point.  Data centers are too big a drain and Virginia can't stop building them.

If you have any doubts, check out the Generation Fuel Mix pie chart on PJM's website at any time.  Renewables provide only a tiny slice of PJM's power supply and it will never change as long as we keep increasing power load with new data centers.

Bravo to Washington Post for exposing Virginia's dirty data center reality!

​And let's get to work, Jefferson County.  We've got a power line to stop!

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is due to release its preliminary list of National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETC) that it is considering any day now.  In order to understand what an NIETC is and how you can participate in the process of designation, let's take a look back at the history of NIETCs.

In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress passed legislation to give the DOE authority to study electric transmission congestion and designate NIETCs that would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) jurisdiction to site and permit an electric transmission line in the event that a state either did not have the authority to approve a transmission line or failed to act on an application for a transmission line for one year.  This became known as "Backstop Permitting."  States traditionally have authority and jurisdiction to regulate the siting and permitting of new transmission lines within their borders.  This hasn't changed, but now there was a backstop measure to prevent a state from holding up a needed transmission project.

The legislation tasked FERC with developing rules for its backstop permitting process and FERC did so.  FERC interpreted the statute to mean if a state denied an application for a transmission project then it bumped permitting to FERC.  But that's not what the statute said!  Piedmont Environmental Council and several states appealed FERC's rulemaking in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The Court found that state denial did not activate backstop permitting in PEC v. FERC.  This allowed states to deny a permit to build transmission and end the matter.

Meanwhile, DOE had performed its congestion study and designated two huge corridors, one in the southwest, and one along the east coast stretching from New York to Virginia.  The designation of those corridors was also appealed in the Ninth Circuit and the Court vacated the corridors due to DOE's failure to consult with states and its failure to perform an environmental assessment on the huge corridors it had designated.  That decision is California Wilderness Coalition v. DOE.

These two court decisions made DOE's NIETC program effectively worthless and the entire thing was put on a shelf and forgotten about.  But, in 2021, Congress passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that contained a section that is meant to cure the problems with NIETCs, reviving the program. In addition to broadening the reasons for designating a corridor, the new statute allows FERC to site and permit a transmission project in an NIETC that is denied by a state.  The law tells states -- either approve it or FERC will do it for you.  It does not take the place of state permitting, the states still have authority to site and permit, as long as they don't say "no."  Transmission projects cannot go directly to FERC without first applying at the state and going through the state permitting process.

DOE has been busy trying to revive its NIETC program ever since.  In May of 2023, DOE issued a Notice of Intent and Request for Information proposing a new procedure for designating transmission corridors.  DOE proposed that it accept applications from transmission builders to designate a NIETC that corresponded with transmission they wanted to build.  That's not what the statute says... it says

It says DOE must study and designate corridors, not farm it out for suggestions from for-profit transmission builders to come up projects that provide profits.  The DOE is supposed to be studying and designating corridors that accomplish the criteria in the study and benefit consumers.  There can be a huge difference between a project proposed simply for profit and one that is actually needed by consumers.  Designating corridors is supposed to be a government tool to incentivize the building of the right kind of beneficial projects.  If DOE thinks (all by itself) that a project is needed, then it designates a corridor that will attract transmission builders to propose a new project in the corridor.  Instead, DOE is, as I mentioned in my comments to the DOE, allowing the inmates to run the asylum.  And I wasn't the only one, DOE received more than 100 comments on its proposal for designating NIETCs.  Many commenters also thought allowing transmission builders to apply for NIETCs was a bad idea. Some thought DOE should perform a legal rulemaking to set parameters for its new program.

Meanwhile, DOE had been working on a National Transmission Needs Study required by the statute as the first step to designating NIETCs.  That study was published in October 2023.  The study found transmission congestion everywhere, meaning that NIETCs were needed everywhere.  Many comments were also submitted panning that study.  Mine are posted here.

In December 2023, DOE released a "Guidance" document on NIETCs, in lieu of the requested Rulemaking.  The Guidance says that it changed DOE's approach to allowing transmission builders to apply for NIETC corridors.  Instead, DOE opened a 60-day window for any person to submit a request for a corridor.  Supposedly this cured the DOE's problem with allowing transmission builders to control the process.  But it really doesn't.  Who else would submit a request for a corridor but a transmission builder?  It's a legal sleight of hand that is due a day of reckoning.  

Many blog readers got involved in NIETC at this point and attended DOE's webinar explaining its process in early January.  DOE was not really forthcoming about all the process that came before that webinar, but hopefully this blog will help you to understand that this didn't just drop out of the sky, but had been in process for more than a year.

DOE's 60-day window for submission of "information and recommendations" for corridors ended on February 2.  Many thought this was the one and only comment period for NIETCs, but it was actually designed for transmission builders to submit requests for DOE to study corridors to correspond with the projects they want to build.  After DOE's window closed, it began to take a preliminary look at the corridor recommendations it has received and promised to release a list of corridors it was considering within 60 days (which would be April 2).  DOE hasn't released anything yet, we are still waiting.

However, NextEra notified Piedmont Environmental Council that it had applied for a corridor in Western Loudoun for its MARL project.  I'm pretty sure that is not the extent of NextEra's corridor proposal... the corridor will cover the entire MARL transmission line, from 502 Junction substation in Pennsylvania to Data Center Alley.  It makes no sense to request a corridor for only part of a transmission project.  However, we will have to wait and see what DOE's list looks like before we proceed with our own response.

Our own response?  Oh yes, anyone can make comment on DOE's list for 45-days after it is released due to the way DOE expanded who may submit "recommendations."  I urge you to read DOE's Guidance, that separates the designation process into four phases.  Phase 1 began in December, when anyone (like NextEra) could submit recommendations for corridors.  Phase 2 begins when DOE releases its list of preliminary corridors to be studied.  In the 45-day Phase 2 window, any person may submit information and recommendations.  DOE is asking for specific information about each preliminary corridor.  It seems to be intended for transmission builders who submitted recommendations for corridors in Phase 1 to supplement their applications, err... "recommendations."  It does not seem to be intended for people concerned about the designation of an NIETC to submit their own information and recommendations, but we're going to crash this party and give DOE an earful about corridors that concern us.  More information about how to participate will be forthcoming after I see DOE's list.  After the 45-day Phase 2 process, DOE will decide which corridors will proceed to Phase 3.  Phase 3 opens the federal environmental study process required by NEPA.  DOE will also evaluate historical resources and endangered species.  During Phase 3, DOE will create a draft designation report and open it to public comment.  Phase 3 requires "robust" public engagement and notification.  This is where DOE wants you to join its NIETC party and make comment, and comes very late in the process, after DOE has already made up its mind in the draft designation report.  When all the studies and comment periods are complete, DOE will move onto Phase 4.  Phase 4 publishes a completed environmental study and DOE's Record of Decision and final Designation Report.  That's the end of the process.

However, a designation may be appealed, first through a Request for Rehearing at DOE, and afterwards through a formal appeal in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals (or other circuit where the transmission builder is headquartered).

Is it worth engaging in the NIETC process?  Absolutely!  Unfortunately it is just one more thing to deal with and will play out during the state permitting process for MARL.  If you do nothing on NIETC, you risk all your hard work opposing MARL at your state utility commission being for naught.  If your work in the state process causes the state to deny a permit, NIETC can bump it to FERC and start the permitting process all over again.

And speaking of FERC, it also needs to update its process for permitting transmission projects in a designated NIETC.  Back in 2005, FERC engaged in a rulemaking for a permitting process.  That rulemaking has to be updated for the new process.  FERC opened a rulemaking proceeding for siting and permitting transmission in a NIETC back in 2022.  The comment window closed way back in May of 2023.  However, FERC has not yet issued an order or taken any further action.  FERC cannot accept any applications for NIETC projects until it completes its rulemaking.  A group of nationwide transmission opponents submitted timely comments on FERC's rulemaking.  You can read their initial comments here, and their reply comments here.  This group was the only one to speak up for impacted landowners at FERC.  You can read other comments on the docket and monitor its progress by going to FERC's eLibrary and searching for Docket No. RM22-7.

As you can tell from the length of this blog post, NIETCs have been quietly in the works for a long time and there are a lot of moving parts.  I know it's a lot to understand all at once, that's why I will be publishing some guidelines for landowners who want to kick NIETCs to the curb just as soon as DOE releases its Phase 2 list.  

​Stay tuned!