The Public Service Enterprise Group dismissed reconductoring, underground power lines, and using existing right of way as alternatives to the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project in its application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity from the Maryland Public Service Commission filed Tuesday.
MPRP, the proposed 70-mile power line that would run through Carroll, Frederick and Baltimore counties, must be approved by the commission before construction may begin.
“There are no clearly superior alternatives that can take the place of this proposed transmission line,” the application states.
State Sen. Chris West proposed reconductoring, the process of replacing conductor cables on existing power lines, as an alternative to the reliability project, in a five-page report on reconductoring that was distributed to 200 people who attended a listening session on Aug. 22, during which stakeholders were allowed to voice their frustrations with the project to Carroll lawmakers. West is a Republican who represents Carroll and Baltimore counties.
PJM, the organization responsible for operating and planning Maryland’s electric grid, has contracted with PSEG to build the estimated $424 million power line, projected to be operational by June 1, 2027. The Maryland Public Service Commission is composed of five members appointed to five-year terms by the governor. PSEG’s 59-page application is supported by hundreds of pages of attachments and testimony. The fee to file for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity is $10,000.
“PJM determined through its federally regulated regional transmission expansion planning process that the MPRP is critically needed to prevent severe, extensive, and widespread reliability violations on the existing 500 kV transmission system that serves Maryland and its surrounding states,” according to the application’s cover letter. “If unaddressed, these violations could compromise overall system reliability in the PJM region, including for Maryland customers, and could lead to widespread and extreme conditions in 2027, such as system collapse and blackouts. As a result, PJM requires the MPRP to be in service by June 1, 2027.”
Jason Kalwa, who manages the energy project for PSEG, said in testimony included in the company’s certificate application, that numerous alternatives were selected as part of PSEG’s bid development process, but energy reliability concerns were too “extensive, severe, and widespread” to be fixed with reconductoring.
“The MPRP, in combination with other PJM selected proposals, met the reliability needs with a much higher reliability margin compared to other alternatives. Moreover, the alternatives proposed that were not selected required significantly more infrastructure and as such would have resulted in greater environmental and socioeconomic impacts than the MPRP.”
PJM determined that reconductoring would be insufficient to address regional energy needs. According to a Tuesday news release from PSEG, the company determined that demolishing and rebuilding existing lines raises safety and design concerns; building near existing lines would be too disruptive to 90 homes and buildings; and underground lines would invite greater land-use restrictions. Additionally, using underground power or existing right of way would be more costly and neither alternative would be complete by 2027.
West said he agrees with PSEG’s assessment that the entire project could not be completed using reconductoring but proposed a plan to reconductor certain existing lines to eliminate the need for 90% of new construction.
An existing line running through northern Baltimore and Carroll counties could be reconductored to replace the first half of the project, West said. Then, a new substation and power line could be constructed to connect the line from northwestern Carroll to Union Bridge, where existing power lines running west to Thurmont, then south to the proposed end of the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project, could be reconductored.
“They really never sat down and considered the alternatives to begin with,” West said. “They simply jumped right into a contract with PSEG, which then foreclosed the possibility of looking at alternatives, because once that contract was signed, it’s there. All of these public meetings that PSEG has been holding is all window dressing, because they have a $424 million contract, and they could care less what the residents have to say. They’re committed to executing their $424 million contract.”
West said he is not an energy expert, but reconductoring should be cheaper and less disruptive than installing a new power line.
“They could take down these power lines temporarily while they reconducted them and put them right back into service,” West said. “It would not cause the entire grid in the northern part of the country to crash, because they’re always taking down power lines to do work on them. This happens with regularity.”
Sami Abdulsalam, PJM director of Transmission Planning, who holds a doctorate in engineering, said in testimony that the reliability project, “was selected as a robust solution addressing the needed reliability enhancements with the least amount of infrastructure development and with superior performance compared to other alternatives submitted into the competitive transmission window.”
“After studying dozens of alternatives to resolving these conditions to maintain transmission system reliability, PJM determined that the MPRP, along with other transmission enhancements and expansions, will prevent the overloading of numerous 500 kV (and lower voltage) lines and voltage collapse conditions in Maryland and the surrounding PJM system,” Abdulsalam stated.
West, who has a background in law, said the application and associated testimony is rhetorically clever and intentional about switching between discussing aspects of the reliability project and the proposed project as a whole.
“It’s not as if this application is a dispassionate analysis of the situation,” West said. “This is an advocacy paper, and under the circumstances, you have to regard anything they say with a grain of salt.”
Requiring Virginia to install sufficient energy generation sources to support its data centers would be a better solution still, West said, but it would be more convenient for Virginia and its data centers to have Maryland bear the burden of transporting power from Pennsylvania. Data centers can use as much energy as a small city to power the internet-based applications of technology companies.
“It’s incredible how quickly the data centers have come on,” West said, “it’s like a summer thunderstorm. One minute the sky is clear, and 15 minutes later, it’s dark and there’s lightning going on.”
In northern Virginia, Loudoun County’s data center alley is the world’s largest concentration of data centers, with more than 30 million square feet currently in operation and at least five million more being planned or developed, according to the Loudoun County website. The county is home to more than 3,500 technology companies, and there has not been a day without data center construction in Loudoun in more than 14 years. The typical power rate paid by Loudoun data centers is 28% below the U.S. average, and the county offers a sales and use tax (6%) exemption for servers, generators, chillers and server-related equipment in an effort to allow data centers to become operational in record time.
Most of Loudoun County is north of D.C.; it borders Frederick and Montgomery counties in Maryland.
“The people of Maryland aren’t going to benefit one iota from the electricity that’s going to flow through this line, if it ends up being built,” West said.
The project has been controversial since it was announced. Carroll County lawmakers voiced opposition to the project saying it threatens the environment; would increase local energy costs; would result in a loss of farmland and revenue for farmers; would be disruptive; and would have other consequences. According to Maryland law, the commission will consider recommendations from officials in the three counties, the effect of climate change on the power line, and a number of other factors, including electric system reliability, economics, aesthetics, historic sites, aviation safety, and pollution. Because the proposed project is an overhead transmission line, the committee will also consider the regional demand for electricity, and whether alternative routes were considered.
The current proposed path was chosen in October from among 10 possibilities, because it would impact fewer homes and buildings, crosses fewer conservation easements, and is shorter with fewer turns, PSEG officials said.
The commission will hold public hearings in each county that would be affected by the proposed project, but none are scheduled yet, according to the news release.
Members of Stop MPRP, one of several community advocacy groups to quickly recruit hundreds of members, plan to emphasize every argument against the proposed project, Director Joanne Frederick said earlier this month.
The commission will typically render a decision in nine months to a year for cases like the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project, according to Tori Leonard, a spokesperson for the commission.
“Depending on the complexity of the case, it could be longer,” Leonard said in an email this month.
The public may submit comments to the commission about the project, which has been assigned case number 9773. To submit a comment online, visit: https://www.psc.state.md.us/make-a-public-comment/. Comments can also be mailed to the Maryland Public Service Commission at 6 Saint Paul St., 16th Floor, Baltimore, MD 21202-6806. Mailed comments should be addressed to Chief Clerk Jamie Bergin.
Have a news tip? Contact Thomas Goodwin Smith at thsmith@baltsun.com.