Need more inspiration?  Here's what I just filed.

Comments of Keryn Newman
Docket No. AD25-7

“Breaking the internet” is a figurative phrase coined to describe an overwhelming surge in web traffic that impedes the operation of the World Wide Web. In an ironic twist, the internet is now breaking us, or more precisely our grid. The generators, transmission lines and distribution systems that make electricity available to everyone can no longer function in the same way they have for decades because they have been overwhelmed by new service requests from artificial intelligence data centers.

This enormous surge in electricity demand is breaking energy transition goals, bedrock regulatory principles, how we plan the energy system, and PJM’s capacity market, just to name a few. It is also breaking consumers ability to pay for the electricity they need. Soon it could even impede their ability to receive service at all as the amount of electric generation continues to shrink and the amount of electricity required by artificial intelligence skyrockets. We are sacrificing our real, human world for an artificial one that exists inside machines.

Our entire energy system and the way we regulate it needs to be torn down and rebuilt to efficiently and cost effectively serve today’s reality. Of course, that cannot happen. We no longer have the luxury of time. Elected officials and regulators have ignored the clear warning signs that were present for a number of years in favor of indulging in politicized industry fantasy. The fantasy is over. It’s now reality.

At FERC’s Resource Adequacy Technical Conference, Commissioner Christie asked whether states should require load-serving entities to acquire enough generation to cover their load forecasts in advance, requiring that they build or buy sufficient generation to meet load. That ought to be the first condition to be a member of a resource sharing organization such as PJM Interconnection, but it is not. PJM states such as Virginia are raking in the cash and benefits created by new data centers and leaning on other states to supply the power they need to enable those new data centers. As Commissioner Christie pointed out during the technical conference, when everybody leans on everybody else, everybody eventually falls down.

Importing more electricity from a neighboring state to serve increased demand is not smart energy policy. It’s a house of cards that cannot stand. PJM has become a group of “haves” and “have nots.” PJM’s State Import-Export Map shows a real time picture of which states are importing electricity, and which states are exporting it. West Virginia and Pennsylvania are consistent electricity exporters. Virginia, Maryland, Washington DC, Delaware and New Jersey are consistent energy importers. It is no longer an equitable sharing of resources among states. There are states that have energy, and states that have not. There are states that are givers, and states that are takers. Where’s the value of PJM membership for the states that are consistent exporters and perpetual givers? There is no value when one state is consistently taken advantage of over and over again. West Virginia has been treated as the east coast’s sacrifice zone, exploited by corporations to benefit wealthier states and treated like a dump that becomes the butt of rude jokes. But, perhaps artificial intelligence is also breaking West Virginia’s victimhood. This year West Virginia approved a new law called the Power Generation and Consumption Act, which allows companies seeking to build data centers in the state to create their own, independent energy grids to power them. West Virginia is getting into the data center game, trying to lure the industry here where energy is plentiful and data centers can bring their own generation and be part of the solution, not just the problem. It makes so much more economic and engineering sense to bring the load to the power than to try to bring the power to the load. West Virginia has found a way to accommodate data centers that does not create financial burden on other ratepayers, or land use burdens on private property.

Over the past several years, PJM Interconnection has planned and ordered more than $11B worth of new baseload transmission to import more and more electricity to Northern Virginia’s “data center alley” from West Virginia and Pennsylvania. These new transmission lines do not provide benefit to West Virginia and Pennsylvania. They are nothing more than gigantic extension cords for the purpose of exporting resources to “have not” taker states, mainly Virginia.

The resource adequacy crisis needs an immediate solution. Satisfying new data center demand can be done three different ways. The fastest and cheapest way is to restrict new data centers to locations with onsite or nearby available power. The second would be to build new generation near data center load, but that takes more time to permit and build and the price is steep. The last, most time consuming and expensive option would be to build transmission extension cords from existing generation to new data centers in other localities. Instead of selecting the fastest and cheapest option for the grid, PJM and the Commission have opted to rely on the slowest and most expensive way to power new data centers, building new transmission. This is not a viable solution and will take much too long to implement because new transmission is never a sure thing.

The impacts of Virginia’s skyrocketing data center load will be devastating to West Virginia, which is primarily bearing the brunt of the Commission’s broken regulatory system that no longer assists consumers in obtaining reliable, safe, secure, and economically efficient energy services at a reasonable cost through appropriate regulatory and market means, and collaborative efforts. West Virginians will pay more than $440M to construct and operate two new transmission extension cords for Virginia's data centers. The MidAtlantic Resiliency Link is a new 160-mile 500kV line that will take a new 200-foot wide right-of-way through private property. Valley Link is a new 261-mile 765kV transmission line that will take an additional 200 ft. wide right-of-way through private property. In Hampshire and Jefferson Counties, West Virginia, these two separate transmission lines will converge to create a transmission superhighway as wide as two football fields laid end to end. Hundreds of homes may be taken and demolished to make way for Virginia’s insatiable appetite for new data centers. There are no benefits for West Virginia, just impacts. Membership in PJM and the Commission’s transmission planning and cost allocation procedures no longer work to provide benefit to West Virginians. We’re being used to benefit other states.

The Commission has been constantly tinkering with interconnection queues, markets and other forms of regulation but has yet to find a solution to the growing problem of resource adequacy. There seems to be little the Commission can do in the face of rapidly increasing load from data centers. All its tools no longer work. What the system needs is more generation near data center load. Because Virginia refuses to build it, other states are being torn apart for new extension cords and consumers are quickly being priced out of being able to afford basic electric service. The system is broken.

Data centers are not just another electricity customer who must be accommodated using existing rules that share burden among all customers. The Commission should take a page from West Virginia’s book and require data centers to bring their own power to wherever they choose to locate, or locate where they may directly connect with generators with excess capacity. Those localities that will not allow data centers to build their own generation cannot continue to lean on the system to support their own economic development. It’s parasitic. Once data centers are separated from the host they have been feeding on and become self-reliant, the resiliency problem solves itself. We simply don’t have any more time to wait while the Commission slow rolls minor fixes here and there and hopes for results.

Stand up for West Virginia!  It's not going to change until you do!

YOU get a substation!  Everyone gets a substation!

Has NextEra promised you a substation?  Has another transmission company that wants to run a transmission line through your county or district offered you a substation?  Does your county actually NEED a new substation, or is it being promised as a speculative draw for new data centers or industry in your county?

Talk is cheap.  Reality is expensive.  Really, really expensive.  A new 500kV substation costs around $50M to build.  Even looping MARL (or another new line) through an existing substation in your county costs about $20M.  Who do you think is going to pay for that?  If there's no actual NEED for a new substation, your county or district is going to pay for that.  All of a sudden, it doesn't sound like such a bargain, does it?  After all, your county doesn't have $50M to invest in speculative infrastructure to attract new businesses, does it?

All those promises about NextEra "dropping a substation" in your county or district are likely not only false promises, they are actually ludicrous to anyone who knows anything about how transmission is planned and built.  Don't parade your lack of knowledge around like a blinking beacon.  It's time to look your gift horse in the mouth.  It's just not happening.

Here's the reality about how transmission lines (and substations connected to them) are planned.  In the case of the MARL 500kV transmission project, the NEED came from increased load requests in the Dominion Power zone in Northern Virginia.  Dominion could not serve all the requests it had received to hook up new data center proposals in its service territory.  Dominion's load forecast is made up of actual requests from customers, not speculative requests from politicians or local county planners.  Only electric companies that serve actual customers can add new service requests that become part of the electric company's load forecast at PJM.  If there is no actual customer or NEED for new service, it doesn't go into the load forecast and it doesn't get to PJM. 

Those new service requests at Dominion got added to Dominion's load forecast that was sent to PJM.  In response, PJM opened a new proposal window to serve that need using the transmission system.  MARL was one of the proposals that is purposed to provide 7,500MW of new electricity imports from coal-fired plants in northern West Virginia.  Dominion and its future data center customers are counting on that new extension cord to build.  Those customer requests were made several years ago and cannot be connected until the transmission line is built.  Customers in Northern Virginia can expect to wait up to seven years to get service (if the project is built on time).

If a new data center wants to locate in Hampshire County, West Virginia, it would first make a new service request to the local electricity provider, Potomac Edison.  Potomac Edison would make a determination if it could serve the new customer using the existing system.  If not, Potomac Edison would add the new request to its load forecast that feeds up to PJM for transmission solutions.  However, that new service request would become part of a new planning window, it would not simply "jump the line" to take service away from customers waiting for service in Northern Virginia.

However, if there is no customer in Hampshire, and no new service request for Potomac Edison to serve, Potomac Edison would not add speculative load to its forecast.  The utilities only build the service we actually need.  They don't overbuild their systems based on speculation or political promises.  That's because new transmission and substations are paid for by ALL Potomac Edison customers, and for lines (and substations) 500kV and above, the costs are actually allocated to all consumers in PJM's 13-state region.  Utilities can only charge ratepayers for infrastructure that is used and useful to them.  It cannot charge ratepayers for speculative projects that don't even have a user.

So, where did NextEra's substation promises come from?  Most likely from lobbyists... those sweet talkers who will promise elected officials anything they want to hear in exchange for getting what the company wants.

MARL was originally planned to begin at the 502 Junction substation in Greene Co., Pennsylvania.  It was an unbroken "fly over" transmission line until it reached Frederick County, Virginia, more than 100 miles to the southeast.  There, MARL would build a new 500kV substation to connect MARL with the existing 500kV transmission line called Bismark-Doubs.  That new substation has been named Woodside.  From Woodside, both the existing Bismark-Doubs and the new 500kV MARL line will continue east another 60 miles or so until they connect with an existing 500kV substation in Loudoun County's "data center alley" called Goose Creek.

However, when transmission lines have really long spans between connecting substations, they can lose voltage.  Transmission system owner FirstEnergy noticed that the long span between 502 Junction and Woodside was going to cause unacceptable voltage drop, so they proposed to PJM that the line not simply bypass its existing Black Oak substation as originally planned, but connect there instead on its way east.  According to PJM, the loop into Black Oak is to provide voltage support to the MARL line.  It is NOT to serve new customers in Allegany County, Maryland, as it may have been sold to them in order to gain their support for MARL.  It will actually be taking power from Black Oak, not delivering it.

But, since the Black Oak connection worked so well to snow Allegany County elected officials that they were "getting something" in exchange for hosting the transmission line, perhaps NextEra simply couldn't resist using the same tactic on other elected officials in other impacted communities?  Next thing you know, everyone gets a substation!  And they're just going to "drop" out of the sky, like magic... free magic!  Do these elected officials think that NextEra is paying for all these free, unneeded substations?  Sorry, NextEra has a hard cost cap on the MARL project.  Any freebies they give away are coming out of NextEra's profits.  Also, an unneeded substation is unlikely to be permitted by state regulators.  PJM would have to testify that such a substation is NEEDED and, as as explained above, there is no NEED.  As well, NextEra doesn't serve any end use customers in West Virginia and never will.  Any new service request would be made to Potomac Edison.

In fact, when I asked PJM's planners about the possibility of a substation being "dropped" in Hampshire County (or any other county on MARL's route) I was told that there's currently no plan to do that.  In fact, PJM said that any new customers in those counties would have to make a request to the local electricity provider (Potomac Edison) before anything was planned.  Now go back where we started and read again about how new transmission and substations are planned to serve new customers.

There are currently NO PLANS for new substations to be "dropped" along MARL's route.  Anyone who believes that had best check their facts.  

A new substation is not any more likely than the promises of millions of dollars of new property tax revenue and jobs, jobs, jobs.  It's just not happening.  Oprah can give away cars, but NextEra cannot give away substations.  Don't look like a fool.

The West Virginia Public Service Commission's mission statement is:

However, when a customer filed a general comment with the PSC recently regarding the way FirstEnergy is shirking its duty to provide public information, this is the response she got:

The consumer corrected the PSC with this response:

And then the PSC's Director of Communications responded by passing the buck and telling the consumer to go away.

Aren't there any lawyers at the PSC that can acknowledge that the company has an obligation to notify impacted landowners via certified mail once an application is filed?  That's what the customer was looking for.  She filed a general comment seeking help with the fact that FirstEnergy is approaching landowners to seek Right of Entry on their properties without providing any information about their project.  FirstEnergy has provided no information whatsoever about their project to the impacted communities.  Do impacted landowners have to wait until an application is filed to get basic information about the project and what it intends to do to private property?

Furthermore, a different segment of the same transmission project has absolutely failed to provide effective engagement with other impacted landowners.  NextEra has been holding "Open House" meetings in West Virginia that leave landowners confused and angry.  The meeting setup is loud and confusing.  The maps are not labeled.  The comment cards cannot be filled out later and mailed in.  Attendees cannot have normal conversation with project representatives because they cannot hear what they are saying and answers are non-responsive or misleading.  The company's website is devoid of meaningful explanation or information about this project.

The 500kV MARL project is failing at public engagement on all fronts.

But yet when consumers go to the officials who are supposed to protect them from predatory and outrageous behavior by the public utilities it regulates, they get told their comments cannot be accepted.

In the case of FirstEnergy, impacted landowners and consumers do not even have a contact for the company in order to "file your protest with the company."  Landowners are being preyed upon and nobody is stepping up to protect them.

Keep filing your general comments with the WV PSC, even though they claim they cannot accept them.  And keep a record of your correspondence.  Please forward any refusal of the PSC to accept your comment to your state delegates and senators and ask for their help.    These public servants work for us!

To file a general comment with the WV PSC, go to this link and fill out the form.  Maybe if they receive enough comments about the outrageous behavior of regulated public utilities they will have to do something?

Landowners are not just asking to intervene before an application is filed.  They are commenting on the current process before the application is filed.  Communities deserve an open and transparent process leading up to the filing of an application and they deserve to have their right to information protected by the Public Service Commission.  After all, that is the PSC's mission!

Keep filing your comments with the PSC regarding your concerns with public engagement (or lack thereof).  The PSC has rules that must be followed.  The least it can do is accept and acknowledge your comments about these major transmission projects that have been proposed to cross our state.  Let them know what you think about what's happening now, even if an application has not yet been filed.  Don't let them pass the buck!

An out-of-state utility company hoping to build the MidAtlantic Resiliency Link, or MARL, has been telling local elected officials that its project will bring millions of dollars of new tax revenue to county coffers.

But, will it really?  Or is this just a pig in a poke?

Has anyone bothered to ask the company to show you their math and verify that it actually agrees with the utility tax scheme of your state?  I don't think anyone has.  I've heard that when details are sought, the subject gets changed, or when pressed they say we will find out the details during the state PSC case.  That's magic math, according to one of my elementary school teachers -- where the answer appears out of thin air without showing your work to calculate it.

How ARE utility taxes assessed and paid?  If you don't know, it's time to find out.  There's a whole lot of confusion and nobody at the local county level seems to know.  Don't take some out-of-state company's word about how your own tax system works.  Here's the skinny on how it works in West Virginia...

Utility property taxes are not handled by local government.  It's handled by a state office.  Counties have no authority over the rate or the collection of these taxes.  Once the state has assessed these utility taxes, the utilities appeal and negotiate these rates to have the tax lowered.  Once a deal is reached, the state tax office apportions the utility tax it has collected like this:

 "...the value of the property therein of every such owner or operator as valued or assessed hereunder and the relative value of such operating property within each county compared to the value of the total operating property within the state, to be determined upon such factors as the Auditor shall deem proper;".

Bottom line?  Counties have no control over utility taxes on transmission lines and the tax rates can fluctuate.  Counties only get a small portion of what is collected.  Go ahead, check with your county clerk to find out how much utility tax revenue your county received last year, and then figure out how much of that was actually due to electric transmission lines that cross your county.  Maybe you can buy a cup of coffee with it?

So, where did the company get  the numbers it is using to entice local support?  Did they sit down with the West Virginia Board of Public Works and the state tax commissioner and negotiate a deal?  Did they calculate how the value of the utility property will depreciate over the years until it's nothing but salvage?  Did they mention that transmission utilities don't buy real estate, they simply take an easement and the landowner continues paying taxes on his property, including the easement?

I doubt it.

Corporations are old hands at manipulating local governments to believe that there's a pig in their poke, and not a mangy alley cat, when the corporation is selling new development projects to us "locals."  And so they have developed a computer program to help them out that would make P.T. Barnum proud.  But, instead of calling it something fitting like "Circus Sideshow Software" its name is IMPLAN.  IMPLAN calculates job numbers, taxes, and other economic development numbers that excite local elected officials based on the capital costs of a proposed project.  If the utility company isn't using IMPLAN to come up with these pie-in-the-sky tax revenue numbers, it's using another very similar software company.

And you know what they say about computers -- garbage in, garbage out!

Economic factors calculated by a computer algorithm are not realistic.  You'd get more tax revenue and jobs out of a new fast food restaurant than you'd get from a new transmission line passing through your county and delivering nothing of value on its way.

Job predictions are extremely inflated.  I have seen transmission full-time jobs predicted over the long term that don't even make sense!  Building high-voltage transmission is a highly specialized skill.  Contractors from other states hired to do the actual build will import their own workers for the duration of the job in your community.  IMPLAN and its computerized cousins calculate all the economic impact that such transient workers will cause and then try to sell it to local elected officials as a "benefit."  Hotel rooms, fast food, and gas for their vehicles for the month or so they're onsite isn't really going to make a difference on a local level.  In addition, IMPLAN will spit out some number of full-time, permanent jobs created in your community by the project.  I'm sorry, but this just doesn't happen.

Once the line is built, there are no local jobs associated with it.  Operation and maintenance of the line is handled by remote teams.

But, back to those tax revenue claims...

Ask the company how it has balanced the actual reduction in local tax revenue caused by the project  with the fictional number spit out by IMPLAN.  It hasn't done that at all.

New transmission lines across your county are going to devalue the real estate in your tax base.  A property crossed by a transmission line loses value and the owner of that parcel can appeal his assessment because of the devaluation the transmission line has caused.  In addition, the transmission line can impact many planned developments and future land uses.  What development is currently going on, planned, or dreamed about by your county?  Maybe you want to lay that out on a map to see how close it is to the proposed transmission line route?  New subdivisions, business parks, commercial developments, or maybe just some community improvement like parks, schools, or community services, can all be impeded, or cancelled altogether, if the new transmission line interferes with the proposed development.  Whittled down to its most basic level, it's going to harm local landowners and investors who planned to monetize their land in the future, whether it's for retirement or simple profit.  New transmission lines cause a decrease in your county's current tax base and any future prospects that might increase it.

Also consider that the transmission company actually pays no taxes at all on the transmission lines it builds... you pay those taxes!  A utility collects its cost of service from ratepayers (plus regulated profit).  Everything the company spends on its transmission lines, including real estate, personal property, business and income taxes, is reimbursed to them by electric ratepayers as the expense is incurred.  All persons in your county who pay an electric bill (including the county itself) are paying those taxes!

Think about that while you're comparing the transmission company's bulging poke with reality.  The cat's out of the bag!

We've had multiple reports recently that FirstEnergy (possibly masquerading as your local electric company, Potomac Edison) has been sneaking around Jefferson County, knocking on doors and trying to get landowners to sign permission forms allowing the utility to perform its "surveys" outside the existing easement, on the landowner's property instead.  It has also been reported that people are being approached by telephone.

One person even reported that the utility representative said the company would be seeking to expand its easement and he would be delivering an offer soon.

Just say NO!

You are not required to permit the company on your property... and that is why they need your permission to do it.  Don't give away your property rights like that!

What's a survey?  In addition to the normal metes and bounds survey you're probably thinking about, transmission developers also want to do environmental, historic, cultural, and geotechnical surveys.  The environmental surveys are looking for the presence of certain bats, or turtles, or other endangered species.  They are also looking for wetlands and other land features.  They are looking for historic resources.  They want to dig and perform archeological surveys.  And they want to bring large equipment on your property and drill core samples to see if it's possible to anchor a giant transmission tower foundation 30 feet down.  Sometimes, they need to cut trees and vegetation to get a line of sight (or so they've told the landowner).  If you want to open your property up to a parade of people using it for transmission development surveys, then go ahead and sign their form.  Otherwise, tell them to get lost and come back when they have a permit from the West Virginia Public Service Commission (WV PSC) in their hand.

FirstEnergy does NOT have a permit from the WV PSC at this time.  In fact, FirstEnergy has not yet even applied for a permit.  In order to apply for a permit, the company is required to undertake community engagement (dissemination of project information to the public such as meetings, routes and maps, newspaper articles, a website, informational mailers).  FirstEnergy hasn't even done that yet.  Instead, it wants to divide and conquer landowners, keep them isolated and uninformed, and get them to sign away their rights for pennies on the dollar.

Why is FirstEnergy so afraid of us?  Because last time they tried to build an unneeded transmission line here, they lost!  There's power in numbers and information sharing between neighbors.  There's power in grassroots community opposition, and we need to circle the wagons to keep our community safe.  Don't let FirstEnergy's representatives cut you from the herd and isolate you from your neighbors.  Tell them to stop calling and/or get off your property until they have a permit to build their transmission line from the WV PSC.

There's a rhythm to planning and building a new (or even re-built) transmission project.  The FIRST thing the utility usually does in your local community is schmooze your local elected officials and try to get them on their side.  That ship has sailed here in Jefferson -- we beat them to the County Commission and FirstEnergy has provided absolutely ZERO information to our local government. 

​The SECOND thing the utility usually does is to schedule what it calls "Open House" public information "meetings."  They really think one trip around this room is all it takes to turn you from transmission skeptic to transmission advocate!

FirstEnergy has not announced any public meetings yet.  In fact, there's no indication that it ever will happen at all. It seems FirstEnergy has skipped some steps because contacting landowners and asking for permission to survey typically comes AFTER these meetings, the publication of a website, news articles, and community notification through postcards or other mailers.

What kind of dirty deeds and misinformation is FirstEnergy spreading in our community that can't stand the sunlight of public scrutiny?

Over the years, I've assisted communities on so many transmission projects that I've come to know the "utility playbook" for ramming a new transmission project through a resistant community by heart.  However, it seems the utility has updated their playbook lately, and I'm gonna call it "Utility Playbook - Desperation Volume 2.0".  The new volume dispenses with public information and preys on landowners (that's right, I said PREYS) to get then to sign away their rights before they have necessary information to make a reasoned decision.

There's another community to our north in Pennsylvania that seems to be experiencing an identical transmission project information desert populated by the same shady characters approaching landowners and saying the most outrageous things, such as:

Sound familiar?  Or, how about this?

Enticement to sign away your rights to get information?  That's plainly criminal.

FirstEnergy needs to pull its camel nose out from under the wall of Jefferson County's tent.  We're not stupid, and we're not for sale.  Creating an information desert is about the stupidest stunt they could perform.  They must have signed with Charles Ryan again to get such stellar advice!  I know how much FirstEnergy loves to read my blog, so here's a word to the wise.  GET BUSY WITH THE INFORMATION.  THE LONGER YOU WAIT, THE WORSE IT'S GOING TO BE.

And while we're waiting... let's hold our own informational meeting for the community!  Everyone is welcome to join us on April 29 at 7:00 p.m.!  FirstEnergy spies at the meeting will be separated from the herd and given last year's Halloween candy and bottled water from Jefferson County's underground pollution plume.  I can spot you guys a mile away.  Dork has a certain fashion sense that's impossible to hide.   See you there, everyone!

On Friday, Valley Link Transmission filed at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for approval of a formula rate to collect their costs from ratepayers, along with a request to set a Return on Equity (ROE) and additional financial incentives.  They're wasting no time trying to ram their transmission projects through and make a ton of money doing it.

That's right, Valley Link wants to file its state permitting applications within the next few months, even though we've been waiting 18 months for FirstEnergy to take any interest whatsoever in building their section of the 500kV MARL project in Jefferson County.  They're in an awful hurry on Valley Link and landowners and communities are going to be mowed down if they can't keep up.

"Valley Link is committed to collaborating with residents, local governments and other stakeholders in the project communities at every stage of the process."

Well, except this stage.  Valley Link doesn't want you to "collaborate" on their request for FERC incentives or in their rate process.  All the more reason to do it!

Your first task?  Valley Link's 1500 page rate/incentive filing.  Go ahead, take a look.  I hope you understand FERCish.  You don't?  Fortunately, I do so here's a summary of the important points included in this filing.  You are encouraged to intervene and/or file a comment on this proceeding.  Deadline to do so is April 4.

Valley Link is a 765kV transmission project proposed to connect the John Amos coal-fired power station in Putnam County, WV to Loudoun County's "data center alley."  It will cross 14 counties in West Virginia on its way, including Jefferson.  It will require a new 200-foot wide right-of-way for its entire length.  In Jefferson County it is proposed to expand the existing transmission line corridor through the southern part of the county and add a third transmission line to the existing configuration that is surrounded by hundreds of existing homes, schools, businesses, parks, historic resources and even our national parks!

Valley Link's filing asks FERC to grant financial incentives to the project and set up the rate it will use to collect its costs from captive electric customers across the PJM region.  

First, let's examine the incentives Valley Link has requested.  In order to qualify for incentives, the transmission line must be the product of a fair and open transmission planning process.  Competition is an important and required part of this process so that consumer costs may be reduced through competitive cost concessions.  Except there were no such concessions for Valley Link.  They not only bid their projects in at full price, they also did not include any cost caps.  Consumers will pay whatever it costs to build these projects, even though the initial "competitive" bid may have been much lower.  The sky's the limit!  The idea of competitive transmission is that it allows incumbents and non-incumbents to compete on a level playing field to construct the most cost-effective project.  Incumbents hate it because they'd rather not compete at all, and instead be awarded all new transmission in their territory at whatever price they want to charge.  For years after FERC's Order 1000 required competitive transmission windows, incumbents simply declined to participate in region-wide competitive planning, preferring instead to concentrate on smaller projects in their own territory.  PJM's 2022 Window 3 competitive planning process actually allowed several non-incumbent companies to offer cost caps and financial concessions that actually saved ratepayers money, and those projects were selected, much to the chagrin of the incumbents.  But they weren't about to be fooled again, so they created an incumbent cartel and agreed not to compete with each other so that none of them had to make any financial concessions.  If they didn't compete with each other, they could create ostensibly "joint" projects that shut out all competitors and took control of PJM's Planning Process.  And that's how we got Valley Link's $3B project portfolio, with no limit on how much these projects might eventually cost.  Who does that?  PJM ought to be ashamed of itself!  Valley Link Transmission was not the result of a fair, open and competitive planning process.

Financial incentives for transmission must be rationally tailored to a project's risks and challenges.  "Rational" has long ago left the incentives building... it's nothing but a free buffet where utilities gorge themselves on ratepayer cash.  That's right, ratepayers fund all these financial "extras" that encourage transmission developers to build "much needed" projects.  Except if you attended any of the PJM meetings, you know that these developers are beating each other down to get awarded these projects.  And that's precisely because they want to gorge on the unnecessary incentives.  Even if FERC stopped offering these incentives tomorrow, these companies would *still* be falling all over themselves to build new projects.  Incentives are a give away that is not needed to encourage new transmission.

These are the individual incentives Valley Link has requested, with a brief explanation of each:

• Recovery of 100% of prudently incurred costs in the event that all or part of the Project Portfolio must be abandoned for reasons outside the control of Valley Link (“Abandoned Plant Incentive”)

This means that Valley Link is guaranteed to be able to collect ALL its prudent project costs from ratepayers if the project is cancelled.  Essentially, ratepayers are providing insurance for the project's success.  If it fails, then the utilities can't lose.  Only ratepayers can lose.  In the case of the failed Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline (PATH) project, ratepayers ended up spending more than $250M on a cancelled project that never put a shovel to the ground.  This is outrageous!  Utilities must have some skin in the game and accept some of the risk that they are being rewarded for through incentives.​

• Inclusion of 100% of construction work in progress (“CWIP”) in rate base during the development and construction of the Project Portfolio (“CWIP Incentive”)

This means that Valley Link will be able to collect a return (interest) on the amount of money it has spent to construct the project while it is building the project.  It begins collecting money from ratepayers as soon as FERC approves the incentive, although the project may not actually be built and serving ratepayers for many years.  It makes ratepayers responsible for paying for projects that are not being used, and haven't even been finished yet.  Ratepayers are being used as the utility's "bank" to pay the companies while they are building.

Valley Link says it needs incentives to reduce "risk" for its project.  What risk is that?  Valley Link speaks out of both sides of its mouth.  First they say this: "Valley Link Transmission’s joint venture structure allows the Participants to combine their diverse experience and knowledge to successfully develop projects of significant size and scope, while sharing the risks of such projects. The geographic and financial scale of new competitive transmission projects sought by PJM in the RTEP process in recent years lends itself to this structure to adequately manage the risks associated with infrastructure projects of this scale."  Somehow the joint non-competitive project was able to "manage risk" but yet on the other hand, the project is just so risky that it needs a bunch of financial incentives.  "​Valley Link will
face significant permitting, siting, construction, procurement, and financial risks that present challenges to developing and constructing the Project Portfolio."  So, which is it?  Is Valley Link risky or not?  It can't be both!

Of course, Valley Link plans to lower its risk that you're going to go all torches and pitchforks on them by "collaborating" with you.  Of course, that "collaborating" doesn't mean they will make any adjustments to their plan or anything like that... they just want to pretend they're considering your ideas while they laugh at you behind your back.

Valley Link also requests three identical new formula rates, one for each of its state-specific sub-companies (it's like Russian nesting dolls).  A formula rate is a set of calculations that devise a yearly revenue requirement for each company.  It includes O&M, A&G, taxes, and return (interest) on capital expenses that are paid for over the project's useful life (approximately 40 years) as these assets slowly depreciate because we pay for them.  I've long since given up trying to explain formula rates to people who don't understand them, but let's just say it's extremely complicated.  If you don't believe me, take a look at the proposed formula rates in the filing.  I will sum it up by sharing that we pay for transmission much the same way we pay for a home using a 30 year mortgage.  While the bank loans us the cash to purchase the home, we will pay much more than we ever borrowed over that 30 years because the interest is calculated monthly.  We slowly pay the bank back, and they earn a huge profit over 30 years.  It works the same way with transmission, except the utility is "the bank" and the transmission line is our house that we have to pay for over 40 years, with interest calculated every year on the remaining unpaid balance.

And speaking of interest... Valley Link has requested a base ROE of 10.9%.  But they're not stopping there... they are also requesting .5% for their new membership in PJM (see above).  Total Return on Equity for this project is proposed at 11.4%.  That means Valley Link would earn 11.4% on the unpaid project balance every year for 40 years.  Do you earn 11.4% on your investments?  Probably not.  Transmission ROEs are already incredibly generous.

The important thing to think about with the formula rate is transparency so that we can check the utility's math from time to time to make sure they are doing it correctly.  Valley Link's formula rate is not transparent and leaves certain terms undefined.  That's probably because of this.  However, lack of transparency is not just and reasonable and FERC cannot approve a formula rate that is not just and reasonable.

And I think I'll stop there.  If you have any additional questions after reading the filing, I'd be happy to help.

So, let's sum it up:

FERC should not grant transmission incentives to Valley Link because Valley Link was not part of a transparent and competitive transmission planning process.

FERC should not grant the costly transmission abandonment incentive to Valley Link because the project has not been found needed by any state where the public may actually participate in the decision making.

FERC should not grant the CWIP in Ratebase incentive because that starts the money flowing out of ratepayer pockets before any state has approved it.

FERC should not grant the RTO Participation incentive to Valley Link because it is a shell company managed by incumbent utilities that have already been granted this incentive.   The "joint venture" is a charade.

FERC must ensure that Valley Link's formula rate is transparent and allows any person to participate in annual updates, seek information, and file challenges.

And keep this in mind when you file your comments at FERC. (File on Docket No. ER25-1633).  FERC Chairman Mark Christie had this to say about the cancelled PATH project just over a year ago.  (Begin at minute 13:48 and watch for about 5 minutes until he's finished).  Attention must be paid!  Valley Link is a second attempt to build the PATH project, but it also presents FERC with a second chance to correct all the things Christie said they got wrong with the original project.

Yesterday, the Jefferson County Commission passed a Resolution that nobody seemed to understand, maybe not even the Commissioners themselves.

I made public comment at the Commission meeting yesterday morning, completely oblivious to the Jefferson County First Resolution that was added to the packet after it was originally posted on Monday.  Unfortunately, nobody involved in the power line battle saw it ahead of time and I left the meeting for other adventures before it was discussed.  My bad.  It sure would have been nice if the Commissioners had been more upfront about their Resolution that will impact hundreds of county residents.  Even when asked before the meeting what the mysteriously-named Resolution was about, a Commissioner professed ignorance.

I addressed the Commissioners yesterday morning before the meeting specifically because I had heard a rumor being spread by state legislators that Jefferson County had no power over the transmission lines and that there was federal authority to approve it if West Virginia rejected it.  It seems this untrue rumor came from Del. Linville, who misspoke about the transmission lines at the February 20 meeting.

Jefferson County has enormous power over the fate of the transmission lines, although it has no direct permitting authority.  Jefferson County's power comes from its ability to influence the future decision about the power lines from the West Virginia Public Service Commission.  The County Commission speaks with a louder voice and can advocate for the county and its people as a whole.  We need and appreciate their support!

THERE IS NO FEDERAL BACKSTOP ON PERMITTING FOR THESE LINES!  I told the Commission that yesterday.  No wonder I got such odd looks.  I do understand the prohibition of having direct dialogue with a public commenter so I can't fault them for not saying anything.  However, you'd think that if they were doing something great for the citizens of the County who will be personally impacted by the transmission lines, they would have wanted to spread the word so we could be there to cheer them on.  It's sad that we can't have that relationship.  We're on the same page, but we're not reading from the same book.  I have been working in both the state and federal transmission planning and permitting realm for nearly two decades now.  I have a wealth of experience and knowledge that I can share with you until your eyes roll back in your head and your brain shuts down.  It is incredibly complicated with a lot of moving parts that need to be fully understood before decisions are made.

Transmission siting and permitting is completely under state jurisdiction, except in the event that a line is sited in a designated National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor (NIETC).  A NIETC was proposed for Jefferson County (and other parts of the tri-state area) last year, however, that potential corridor was ABANDONED by the DOE in December 2024.  There is currently NO NIETC, and therefore no federal authority over the two proposed transmission lines in Jefferson County.  There is no other federal mechanism to usurp the jurisdiction of the West Virginia Public Service Commission.  The two transmission lines will live or die by the decision of the West Virginia Public Service Commission, which is a process where Jefferson County (and its citizens) can participate to influence the outcome.

This morning, we woke up to this.

The County Commission discussed their Resolution and unanimously supported its passage.  Unfortunately, the story doesn't say where the Resolution was sent.  It's not a bad Resolution, until it gets to the end where Jefferson County appears to give up and beg for a transmission owner lobbyist to simply whisper the magic words... "this transmission line will attract data centers to Jefferson County", even though that's not true at all.

How DO data centers get power?  Data centers use enormous amounts of power, equalling the power load of small cities in some instances.  When a county has attracted a data center customer (more on that later), the customer will request power service from the local distribution utility.  In our case, it's Potomac Edison.  The customer estimates how much power it will need, often beginning with a baseline amount that ramps up over time as the data center is built out.  Potomac Edison considers this request and determines if it can serve the load from its local system.  If not, it gets added to Potomac Edison's future load forecast that is subsequently relayed to PJM Interconnection  for planning purposes.  If the local utility cannot meet load requests, then it asks PJM to add it to its planning.  Remember, PJM's only tool is transmission.  It cannot order new generation, which is perhaps the better solution to large new load requests.  PJM uses these local load forecasts to create a regional load forecast.  Once PJM has its regional load forecast, it plugs that into its transmission planning and determines how much new transmission might be needed to meet the load requests (because it can't order new generation).  PJM opens a competitive transmission window to solve load (think RFP) and selects the transmission projects that it believes will meet the load.

This is a multi-year, multi-tiered process.  The two transmission lines through Jefferson County are the product of load forecasts and planning that occurred in 2022 and 2024.  The load that was forecast for PJM in those years is slated to occur in Loudoun and Prince William Counties, Virginia.  It's not for load requests from Jefferson County.  The power that these transmission lines will export is already spoken for by load requests that were made in earlier years by new data centers locating in Virginia.  Just because a new line will travel through Jefferson County doesn't mean it will serve new growth here.  

Attracting data centers to your locality is about much more than welcoming new transmission extension cords designed to serve data centers in other states.  It's about offering the data center companies incentives to locate here and providing the infrastructure they may need.  Just as crucial as a local supply of electricity, data centers need a fiber connection.  When Frederick County, Maryland, wanted to attract new data centers to a local campus, they arranged for a fiber backbone connected to Virginia's data center alley.  Jefferson County doesn't have this kind of infrastructure.  Data centers also need a vast supply of water for cooling.  If Jefferson County is going to allow a California company to come in here and pump and sell our water supply to outsiders, we won't have enough left for data centers.  Frederick County located its data center campus at the site of a former aluminum smelter.  Aluminum smelters use a lot of power (but nothing approaching data center proportions) so the site already had a 230kV transmission connection and substation.  Frederick County is using the existing lines to power its campus, not building new ones.  Frederick County maintains that its data center campus is not the reason for new transmission lines.  However, it is curious that both the new transmission lines proposed through Jefferson County land at substations in Frederick County before routing south along the river to make connections in Virginia's data center alley.

If Jefferson County wants to have data centers here, it needs to create a realistic plan, not just throw wide the doors for transmission extension cords for data centers in other states and hope that data centers develop through osmosis.

However, Jefferson County should also spend a great deal of time investigating how data centers have changed other communities that initially welcomed them for economic development purposes.  People are migrating here to live precisely because Jefferson County doesn't have data centers.  Citizens in Virginia hate living with them and can't wait to get out of the hellscape they have created under the guise of economic development.  Jefferson County is the peaceful, rural environment that has disappeared from Northern Virginia.  A good and affordable place to buy a home and raise a family.  Jefferson County needs to be very careful and deliberate with planning for new data centers so it doesn't turn itself into Loudoun County West.  Attracting data centers is something the West Virginia legislature should be studying as well.  State incentives are needed to attract data centers, not just local economic development efforts.

Does Jefferson County currently have any interest from companies wanting to locate new data centers here?  Have those companies developed their plans enough to make a request for service from Potomac Edison?  Or is this Resolution simply a blind expression of hope?  If so, it is unlikely to get to the right place.

Here's a little extra help planning your comments on the U.S. Department of Energy's preliminary Mid-Atlantic Corridor.  If you're concerned about a different corridor, such as the Midwest-Plains corridor that follows Grain Belt Express, there will be slightly different  guidance, coming soon.

The Mid-Atlantic Corridor roughly follows the path of the MidAtlantic Resiliency Link, or MARL, project that PJM ordered NextEra and FirstEnergy to build last December.  It begins at 502 Junction substation in southwestern Pennsylvania and traverses through West Virginia, Maryland, and Virginia on its way to bring coal-fired electricity from West Virginia to Northern Virginia's data centers.  It looks like this.  The lines on this map may be 200-400 feet wide.

DOE's National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor that corresponds with that project looks like this:

Each line on this map is 2 miles wide.

Here's my advice on submitting effective comments.  Make sure you have also sent your extension request and letters to elected officials for Step 1.

Quick Guide for Citizen Participation in Phase 2 Comments

DOE’s announcement of proposed corridors begins Phase 2 of its process. Phase 2 allows “information and recommendations” and comment from any interested party and you are urged to submit your comments. DOE requests information submissions in Phase 2 by 5:00 pm on June 24, 2024. Interested parties may email comments as attachments to [email protected]. You are encouraged to request DOE acknowledge your submission by return email so that you know it was received by the deadline. DOE requests comments in Microsoft Word or PDF format, except for maps and geospatial submissions. The attachment size limit for submissions is roughly 75 MB and may require interested parties to send more than one email in the event attachments exceed this limit. There is no page limit on comments. DOE requests that comments include the name(s), phone number(s), and email address(es) for the principal point(s) of contact, as well as relevant institution and/or organization affiliation (if any) and postal address. Note that there is no prohibition on the number of information submissions from an interested party, though DOE encourages interested parties making multiple submissions to include an explanation of any relationship among those submissions.

DOE will grant party status to anyone who comments in response to the notice of the preliminary list of potential NIETC designations, in the manner and by the deadline indicated above. Only those granted party status may request rehearing of the DOE’s decision, or appeal the NIETC in court. Protect your due process rights because you don’t know now whether you may want to request rehearing, or appeal an adverse decision. You are an interested party if: you are a person or entity, State, or Indian Tribe, concerned with DOE’s exercise of its discretion to designate a geographic area as a NIETC. Becoming a party does not obligate you to any further action, it only gives you the option of taking further action if you choose.

State in your comments that you are requesting interested party status in accordance with DOE’s NIETC Guidance at Pages 41-42 to preserve your right to request rehearing or appeal a corridor designation. Include comments that may become the basis for your appeal (where DOE is not following the statute). More information on the statute in the long version of this guidance that you can download at the bottom of this blog.

We are urging interested people to submit comments in two phases. RIGHT NOW and before the deadline.

RIGHT NOW:
To demand public notice and engagement from DOE and set a new comment deadline at least 45 days after the conclusion of the public engagement period. Ask for direct notification by mail of each impacted landowner within the corridor, as well as public notification, including posted notices in all local newspapers servicing the area of each proposed corridor. Request public information meetings, including an online meeting option for those who cannot attend in person. Ask that DOE share all available information on each corridor it is considering, including a narrative description of its boundaries, as well as identification of all transmission line(s) currently planned or proposed for the corridor.
We cannot comment on corridor requests submitted by utilities if we cannot read the requests! We cannot make effective comment on information DOE is keeping secret! It does little good to hold a public comment period for a project that has not provided notice to impacted landowners or disseminated adequate public information. DOE states, “Early, meaningful engagement with interested parties should reduce opposition to NIETC designation and to eventual transmission project siting and permitting within NIETCs, meaning more timely deployment of essential transmission investments.” But the DOE has not provided any notice or public information about this process, or attempted to engage impacted communities. DOE needs to walk their talk. Also consider writing to your U.S. Senators and Representatives and asking them to intervene on your behalf to ask DOE for public notice and engagement for the Phase 2 comment period.
See this link for a form letter and help contacting your representatives.

BEFORE JUNE 24:
At the end of Phase 2, DOE will identify which potential NIETCs it is continuing to consider, including the preliminary geographic boundaries of the potential NIETCs, the preliminary assessment of present or expected transmission capacity constraints or congestion that adversely affects consumers, and the list of discretionary factors in FPA section 216(a)(4) that DOE has preliminarily identified as relevant to the potential NIETCs.

DOE invites comments from the public on those potential NIETCs, including recommendations and alternatives.

Phase 2 provides a high level explanation of why the potential NIETCs in the list are moving forward in the NIETC designation process, and you are encouraged to provide additional information on why DOE should or should not proceed with a certain corridor.

Your comments before June 24 should focus on the underlying need within the geographic area as well as “information and recommendations” from DOE’s 13 Resource Reports and other possible topics below to narrow the list of potential NIETC designations. DOE also requests information on potential impacts to environmental, community, and other resources within the proposed corridor.

DOE’s 13 Resource Reports: (1) geographic boundaries; (2) water use and quality; (3) fish, wildlife, and vegetation; (4) cultural resources; (5) socioeconomics; (6) Tribal resources; (7) communities of interest; (8) geological resources; (9) soils; (10) land use,
recreation, and aesthetics; (11) air quality and environmental noise; (12) alternatives; and (13) reliability and safety.

DOE requests that interested parties provide in their Phase 2 comments the following resource information: concise descriptions of any known or potential environmental and cumulative effects resulting from a potential NIETC designation, including visual, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health effects thereof.

In addition to the above, a list of potential topics includes:

1. Expansion of existing transmission easements to add new lines. Expansion will remove all existing buildings, lighting fixtures, signs, billboards, swimming pools, decks, flag posts, sheds, barns, garages, playgrounds, fences or other structures within the expanded easement area. Existing septic systems, leach beds, and/ or wells may not be permitted within the expanded easement area. This would seriously damage host properties or make them uninhabitable.
2. Width of proposed NIETC (2 miles for MidAtlantic). All properties within the NIETC will have the perpetual cloud of potential eminent domain taking for new transmission. This lowers resale value.
3. Area of NIETC not large enough or in the right place for alternatives or route changes you suggest, such as routing on existing highway or railroad easements. Federal authorizations needed (crossing Appalachian Trail, C&O Canal), along with impacts to other federal land in the corridor such as Harpers Ferry NHP, The National Conservation Training Center, Antietam Battlefield, to name a few examples.
4. Need for the project – Do we need new transmission, or would it be a better idea to build generation near data centers instead of importing electricity from neighboring states? This new electric supply is only needed for data centers – suggest other options to supply power such as in-state generation from natural gas, biomass, waste-to-energy, nuclear, small modular nuclear, other large scale power generation in close proximity to the data center load. Building in-state gas generation is constrained by Virginia’s energy policy, which can be changed to avoid new transmission. The federal government can use corridors to force new transmission on states, but cannot force generation choices on states. Something is wrong with this scenario.
5. Diversification of electric supply.
6. Energy independence and security. Defense and homeland security.
7. National energy policy (not defined).
8. New transmission in the corridor will enhance the ability of coal-fired generators to connect additional capacity to the grid, resulting in increased emissions. Two plants slated for closure have already had their useful life extended (FirstEnergy’s Harrison and Ft. Martin). Imports constrain development of renewable generation in Northern Virginia by importing lower cost coal-fired electricity from other states.
9. Maximize use of existing rights-of-way without expanding them, including utility, railroad, highway easements. Reconductor existing lines (new wires with increased capacity) without expanding the easement. Buried lines on existing highway or rail rights-of-way, including high-voltage direct current.
10. Environmental and historic sites.
11. Costs to consumers. Are the data centers a “consumer” or a beneficiary? New transmission to serve new data centers will increase electric costs for all consumers. Everyone pays to construct new transmission in these corridors, even if we don’t benefit.
12. Water use and quality, wetlands.
13. Fish, wildlife and vegetation impacts. Consider future vegetation management under the lines that includes the use of herbicides, weed killers or other substances toxic to humans, animals or cultivated plantings that are either sprayed on new easements from the air or by on the ground vehicles. Construction vehicles and equipment can spread undesirable, invasive vegetation along the corridor
14. Cultural resources – Historic, tribal, other.
15. Socioeconomics – impacts on property, income, quality of life, use of eminent domain.
16. “Communities of interest” – environmental justice, racial disparities, income disparities, energy burden.
17. Geologic – Karst, abandoned mines.
18. Soil – erosion, loss of topsoil, loss of vegetation, drainage, compaction, introduction of rock from blasting, destruction of prime or unique farmland,
    protected farmland, agricultural productivity.
19. Land use, recreation and aesthetics – changes to land use, homes and farms, conservation easements, parks, churches, cemeteries, schools, airports, visual impacts, public health and safety.
20. Environmental noise and air quality – construction noise, operational noise, impacts to air quality and emissions caused by project (increased use of coal in WV to supply power to data centers – Mitchell, Harrison, Ft. Martin, Longview and Mt. Storm coal-fired power plants feed these corridors).
21. Alternatives – suggest alternatives to this corridor, whether it is different design, different routing, or different power source.
22. Public safety – hazards to community from weather or operational failure or terrorist attack, health hazards from electromagnetic fields and stray voltage.
23. Your interaction (or lack thereof) with company applying for corridor. Lack of notice.

DOE must consider alternatives and recommendations from interested parties. Feel free to suggest as many alternatives as you want in one or more submissions.

DOE will prioritize which potential NIETCs move to Phase 3 based on the available information on geographic boundaries and permitting and preliminary review of comments. DOE must review public comments, consider recommendations and alternatives suggested. 

Want to read more suggestions and tips?  Download a longer version of these guidelines with additional information, quotes you can use, and more web resources to explore.

The U.S. Department of Energy released its preliminary list of National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETCs) this week.

Interested persons have only 45-days to make comment on these corridors before DOE makes its selections to proceed to the next round.  DOE is not doing any notification for property owners within these corridors.  It is not doing any public education and engagement, aside from one "listen only" webinar with limited space (sign up now!)  There will be no public meetings.  DOE is not even sharing the information and recommendations it received from transmission owners (and others) in its Phase 1 information submission window.  Their maps are very generalized and have no details.  We're supposed to comment on something that we have very little information about within a very short time window.  It sort of sounds like DOE doesn't actually want us to comment.

But that only makes me want to comment more.  And spread the word like transmission's Paul Revere...

First of all, we absolutely must have more time and information in order to make effective comment on something that threatens to put a cloud on our property in perpetuity.  Being located in a NIETC is a designation that will stick with your property, making it the first choice for new transmission projects.  How can our government make these kinds of land-use planning decisions that affect literally millions of people without providing notice and giving us information and time to comment?

This is unacceptable!

The first order of business is to demand the notice and information we need.  Therefore, I am urging everyone to send a letter to the DOE asking for notice, information and extension of the comment deadline.  It's quick and easy... simply download this prepared letter, add your name and other info. and then email it as an attachment to:  [email protected].

It is recommended that you include in your email a request for acknowledgement that DOE received your comment, since there is no automatic acknowledgement provided.

One brief explanation:  On the bottom of the letter it includes a request for full party status.  Being a party doesn't come with any additional duties or expense, it simply allows you to request rehearing or appeal any corridor that impacts you in the future.  It does not require you to do so, but it reserves your right to do so if you choose.  If you do not request that right, you will have to live with DOE's future decision and cannot take any legal action.  It's just a safety measure to protect your rights.

And one more thing... we cannot rely on DOE to act on our requests without a little encouragement, no matter how many we send.  Therefore, it is recommended that you also contact your U.S. Senators and Representatives and ask them to demand that DOE provide notice, public engagement and an extended comment deadline for their constituents who are impacted by these huge corridors.  Here's your quick and easy guide for getting that done with just a couple clicks:

Everyone should get started on this RIGHT NOW so that these requests are in the works early in the comment process.  Of course we are also going to encourage everyone to make more substantive comment on the actual corridors that impact them, but that's a post for another day.  Stay tuned!