July 25, 2024
MPRP Update – Some good news
I wanted to share a quick update with you on where we are in the battle against MPRP. First, I’m continuing to work, along with our Carroll County Delegation and County Commissioners, on ways to stop MPRP from moving forward and to let residents and stakeholders know what they can do to give comments, understand their rights and get as many other leaders and organizations at the state and federal level engaged in this fight. In the coming couple of days we’ll be sending out information about an August 22nd Public Meeting that we are putting on to meet with the community – we are finalizing location and details and I will share them as soon as possible.
Second, I do want to share some good news in our fight. The Maryland Office of People’s Counsel (which represents consumers in front of the Public Service Commission, the entity that would have to approve MPRP) has come out raising serious questions about this project and calling for PJM (the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s regional grid authority) to take a step back and reevalute how they calculate actual demand and need for this and other electric lines that are planned in the future for other parts of the state.
Here’s the link to a very informative article in the Baltimore Banner on Wednesday – Maryland consumer watchdog questions need for 70-mile power line – The Baltimore Banner. Because this is a subscription based article I’m also pasting it below this email – it’s quite lengthy so I apologize but it does a good job of covering the People’s Counsel questioning of this project – and maybe the best part of all is they had several other states in the PJM footprint also joining them in this inquiry. The article also covers the lack of transparency, community concerns and even addresses an issue several people who’ve contacted me have raised about the incoming Frederick, MD Data Center which, it turns out, has planned to access all its power from First Energy/Potomac Edison and would not be connected to this PSEG electric line.
Finally – to recap – the Maryland Office of the People’s Counsel is an independent agency that advocates for Maryland’s residential utility customers. You can find their website here. If you or someone you know believes they may have a legal argument that would provide protection for their property or the community at large, this is an entity that would be good to reach out to.
As always, I appreciate your correspondence, input and feedback and my team and I will continue to do our best to respond and get information out to you to oppose and defeat this project. I believe the more issues we can raise with the PSC, People’s Counsel, potentially the courts and federal representatives, the better our chance is of getting them to scrap this.
Sincerely,
Sen. Justin Ready
Here is the full text of the Baltimore Banner article:
Maryland consumer watchdog questions need for 70-mile power line project
7/24/24 5:30 a.m. EDT, Updated 7/24/24 8:03 a.m. EDT
Maryland Office of People’s Counsel questions need for $424 million project
Maryland’s consumer utility watchdog joined the chorus of residents, legislators, environmental advocates and farmers concerned about a plan to build a 70-mile power line through Carroll, Frederick and Baltimore counties.
David Lapp, the people’s counsel, wrote a letter voicing his worries to the managers of PJM Interconnection LLC, the utility that manages the power grid infrastructure in Maryland and 12 other states.
Lapp, whose organization, Office of People’s Counsel, represents Maryland utility customers, said PJM was not distinguishing between future business demands from “speculative” industries, such as data centers, and the needs of the average customer in the residential area. That lack of distinction is creating a “distorted load forecast” that might create the impression the state needs more transmission lines when it actually may not.
“Load forecasts are a critical step in a process that can trigger massive transmission investments that flow through to utility customer bills,” Lapp wrote. “PJM’s lack of clear guidance on what utilities should include in their forecasts leaves customers vulnerable to utility investments that may never be useful. And those costs could be imposed on customers across the 14 PJM jurisdictions even if just one utility’s over-optimistic forecast turns out to be flawed.”
The letter asks PJM managers to differentiate between actual customers and those projected based on “customer requests or utility projections that do not have such support and are more uncertain.” Among the state offices that joined the Maryland letter: the Office of the Illinois Attorney General, the Delaware Division of the Public Advocate, the Illinois Citizens Utility Board, the Public Staff of the North Carolina Utilities Commission, and the Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel.
Lapp’s letter comes after PSEG, the New Jersey company that PJM selected to build the project, held six contentious public meetings in counties that would be affected. At each one, residents voiced their worries about a proposed data center complex. PSEG told reporters and residents that the coming data centers are driving some of the demand for more transmission lines.
Stephen Kearney, who is representing Quantum Loophole, a company developing a former industrial site into a data center complex, said his client was already moving forward with existing capacity from First Energy and has no connection to the PSEG project.
Before PJM proposed the PSEG project, Potomac Edison, which is servicing Quantum Loophole, said it had enough power for the project. PJM’s own analysis shows the data center demand to be south of the Potomac River, in Northern Virginia. Quantum Loophole, Kearney said, is “basically another electricity customer in the region that is just learning about this project.”
When asked about data centers, PJM spokesman Dan Lockwood did not mention Quantum Loophole specifically, but said there was a general need for more reliable power due to “electrification of vehicles and buildings, manufacturing increases and data centers.”
The Baltimore Banner thanks its sponsors. Become one.
Residents, environmental advocates and state politicians learned of plans to build the new transmission lines last week. Property owners immediately began mobilizing in opposition to the project. One Facebook group, Stop MPRP, has 8,400 members. A second, Marylanders Against Piedmont Reliability Project, has more than 3,000. The groups are working together with various state delegates and senators to determine if they can stop the project.
“We stand firmly opposed to the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project,” senators and delegates representing Carroll County wrote in a letter to constituents. “We just recently learned of this project and saw the proposed routes at the same time the public did. This project was not introduced as legislation and never voted on.”
Signatories to the letter include state Sens. Chris West and Justin Ready, as well as Dels. Eric Bouchat, April Rose, Josh Stonko and Chris Tomlinson.
Carroll County Commissioners remain firmly opposed to the project. In a press release, the board said it will “leverage all its influence with our neighboring jurisdictions as well as state and national leaders to halt the project in its current form.”
In Frederick County, Del. Jesse Pippy heard from concerned residents and was arranging a meeting from 6 to 9 p.m. July 31 at Linganore High School’s auditorium. Pippy said he’s hoping to bring together residents and company representatives in hopes of getting more information.
The Baltimore Banner thanks its sponsors. Become one.
Baltimore County officials have said little about the project, though it would traverse some of the county’s most productive farmland and several routes would affect Prettyboy Reservoir and Gunpowder Falls State Park.
County Executive Johnny Olszewski Jr.’s office issued a statement saying its involvement would be “limited to permitting for construction and development to ensure protection of our environmental resources” should the state grant the permit.
Valleys Planning Council, a nonprofit with 60 years of experience working in northern Baltimore County, is keeping residents informed of meetings and advocacy opportunities on its Facebook page. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has an open meeting at 10 a.m. July 25. PJM’s is on the agenda, but it’s unclear if the PSEG project will be.
Maryland’s growing power needs stem from an increasing population and new laws that require cleaner energy. Maryland law requires 50% of all power to come from renewable sources by 2030. As a result, many coal-fired and natural gas power plants are being retired, in Maryland and nationally. Yet, the need for energy remains stronger than ever, especially for data centers.
In its letter, the Carroll County delegation blamed Democrats in the General Assembly for pushing renewable energy and retiring coal-fired power plants that are contributing to the global climate crisis. Renewable sources, they argue, have not been able to ramp up quickly enough.
Brandon Shores, which sits on the banks of the Patapsco River in northern Anne Arundel County, will run longer than planned because a 2025 retirement could have caused grid reliability issues. Lapp lamented customers will have to pay $215 million a year to keep the coal-burning power plant running beyond its retirement date.
At PJM, Lockwood said retiring plants are fueling demand. “In addition to the growth in electricity demand, there has been an acceleration of generating plants that are retiring and closing throughout the PJM footprint. In Maryland specifically, the need for these transmission upgrades is also being driven, in part, by the rapid retirements of generation facilities in the state before new generation projects can replace them.”
Last month, Gov. Wes Moore joined with governors from New Jersey, Illinois and Pennsylvania in a letter to PJM urging better communication to reach renewable energy policy goals without sacrificing reliability.
“We write today to urge you to facilitate a robust process for states to engage with PJM and stakeholders on these planning decisions moving forward,” the letter said.
Return To News >