A big hearing for consideration of the Mid-Atlantic Resiliency Link Project, a high-voltage electrical line across several states, will go on as scheduled after an order by the West Virginia Public Service Commission.
Several participants in the case, led by PSC staff, had called for a delay in the hearing after proposed route changes for the project often called MARL affected several land owners who wouldn’t have been affected before.
The developer NextEra Energy Transmission MidAtlantic and the commission staff last week jointly requested an eleven-week extension that would have rescheduled the hearing for January of next year.
But commissioners in an order filed Friday concluded that all issues could be settled within the existing timeframe.
So, all parties were having to meet a deadline for testimony today, leading toward a final evidentiary hearing scheduled for Oct. 26 to Nov. 2.
The citizens organization West Virginians Against Transmission Injustice expressed disappointment in the commission’s ruling.
“We respect the Commission’s authority and the regulatory process, but we strongly disagree with this decision,” said Tony Campbell, president of the group.
“The Commission’s own order recognizes a number of significant issues that remain unresolved. We believe additional time would have allowed those issues to receive the thorough review that West Virginia landowners and ratepayers deserve.”
The Mid-Atlantic Resiliency Link, often shorted to MARL, is a proposed 107.5-mile, 500-kilovolt high-voltage power line planned to run from Dunkard Township, Pa., through parts of West Virginia including Monongalia, Preston, Mineral and Hampshire counties and down to Gore, Va.
The project is being considered after PJM Interconnection, the regional grid operator, identified reliability issues resulting from a loss of power generation sources, support for new power sources and additional electricity demand in the region.
“Access to reliable, abundant, and affordable power has become a competitive advantage, and the electric grid has become the backbone of a competitive economy,” Kaitlin McCormick, senior director of development for NextEra, told an audience at the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce Annual Meeting and Business Summit last week.
As of today, the PSC has received 7,902 letters in opposition to the project and 153 letters in support.
Concerns about the schedule arose after five changes to the route were proposed after a public hearing period and just weeks ahead of the evidentiary hearing.
The proposed route changes could affect several people who hadn’t previously been notified so the concern is that they wouldn’t have adequate time to respond.
Developers NextEra Energy Transmission submitted an official siting application to the West Virginia PSC on Jan. 30.
The final public comment hearing was June 11.
The project’s evidentiary hearing is coming up in just a few weeks, scheduled to begin on Oct. 26. The deadline to file direct testimony is even sooner, today.
On July 30, lawyers for NextEra Energy Transmission filed a route revision supplement, describing proposed changes as minor.
Several of the changes had come at the request of potentially affected landowners who had advocated for relocating proposed structures on the original route.
Another was in response to concerns by the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources about forest effects on White Horse Mountain Wildlife Management Area in Hampshire County. And another resulted from an engineering review that identified concerns about the line crossing existing transmission.
The five revisions are estimated to increase cost by about a million dollars.
Moreover, the changes would affect three landowners who had not been previously informed.
Staff attorneys and engineers, in filings with the PSC, raised the initial concerns that the newly affected landowners missed the June public hearings and would have limited time to consume a nearly 4,000-page application and respond before the upcoming deadlines.
And staff contended that the revisions deny the commission adequate time to perform necessary field investigations and technical reviews before a final decision.
Despite concerns over late route revisions and potential impacts on unaffected landowners, the Commission maintained that all issues could be settled within the current schedule.
“The route revisions and the issues raised regarding those revisions are appropriate subjects for the evidentiary record,” commissioners wrote in their order.
When the PSC originally established the procedural timeline, it emphasized that transmission certificate proceedings require a disciplined schedule because of a strict 400-day statutory review period and the potential implications of federal backstop authority.
Maintaining the existing timeline ensures the case can be resolved promptly and remains consistent with the commission’s mandate to complete the review before the statutory decision due date of March 6, 2027, commissioners wrote.
Rather than a delay to address late developments, the commission ruled that outstanding questions are appropriate subjects for the evidentiary record and can be fully examined during the hearing.
That exploration could include the adequacy of NextEra’s route-selection process, the timing and significance of the route revisions, constructability concerns, environmental effects and whether the revised route satisfies statutory requirements.
“West Virginians whose property and electric bills could ultimately be affected by this project deserve a complete and careful review,” said Campbell, president of West Virginians Against Transmission Injustice.
“A project of this magnitude should be decided on a fully developed record, not simply because a statutory clock is running.”