[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6387645,"mediaKeyId","2116091-68e6c8d5c4535ada8aefff2b1024f06f","parentId",2116091,"title","Lawmakers press PJM on transmission siting after PSEG route through Carroll County draws opposition","audioSeconds",374,"startMs",1671800,"endMs",2046000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2116091-68e6c8d5c4535ada8aefff2b1024f06f&start=1671&end=2046","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2116091-68e6c8d5c4535ada8aefff2b1024f06f/thumbnail_1671800.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6387645/Maryland/Lawmakers-press-PJM-on-transmission-siting-after-PSEG-route-through-Carroll-County-draws-opposition","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6387645-dc7ded5505442db4c23f9770d356b532/orig.mp4?Expires=1771136997&Signature=Kshz-so96DPNMDcp59PCvoLlMQ-rFiYZ4pOtZIMSP7~4pDe9NpAbu~RgX74~3E5qXVNzhWUCK4XkdG3HiDcD5o5NA4VRD~IINFeEnxBqwXH68KJEdDkK2O1kNImQ8Q7JG8wyBOxymVFldhbyTeaD6sN30krg8-couP6yrpOT989AN0KHmsdC3nyHqF5YkGWjENDeLFnlbClQ7v0C3ZcnJXUG~eUsae9vjuXcDtRSO22Sjc8mwwL10hAK8gJBpmqQSnAVPdLJsINKdV7jZ6dBzKcR~ficRhvcQ03qXqHiBgLtxz05zgZS93DIZpc1GFqPIGwXVG2Yk44VSXgQmMwXLA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Maryland General Assembly - Economic Matters","date","2025-01-15T00:00:00Z","article","Delegates at the Economic Matters Committee pressed PJM officials about how high‑voltage transmission projects are approved and routed after concerns that a PSEG project would cross Carroll County farmland and conservation areas.

Jason Shannon and PJM planners told lawmakers that PJM solicits competitive proposals in a regional transmission expansion plan (RTEP) process, evaluates submittals for constructability and cost effectiveness, and awards a solution to a developer; the developer, not PJM, selects the specific line route and must then apply for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity from the Public Service Commission.

Shannon said PJM “solicit[s] solutions to that problem” and does not pick the route. He described the process in more detail: PJM issues an open solicitation of developers, scores proposals on constructability and permitting prospects, and awards the developer that is most likely to deliver a constructible project. After award, the developer seeks required state permits, including a CPCN, which involves evidence, cross‑examination and a PSC decision on the public interest.

Delegates raised reconductoring and grid‑enhancing technologies as alternatives to greenfield lines. PJM staff said planners consider reconductoring, dynamic line ratings and automated flow controls where feasible; those technologies can increase capacity on existing rights‑of‑way and may be preferable on a cost‑effective basis. PJM also noted limitations: some routes may need added right‑of‑way width or new tower alignments that require greenfield segments.

On local impacts, a delegate said the project appeared to benefit other states more than Maryland; a delegate quoted a figure that “92% of it is for the benefit of Virginia.” Shannon explained that high‑voltage lines cross state boundaries and that cost‑allocation benefits are assigned to zones rather than solely by state, and that the line in question would relieve congestion and overheating on Maryland lines, including those on the Baltimore Gas and Electric system.

Multiple delegates voiced frustration that Maryland has been described as a state “where transmission projects come to die.” Shannon acknowledged community opposition and permitting difficulty, and said the facts show Maryland has struggled to construct interstate 345 kV and higher lines in recent years. He repeated that the developer is responsible for routing and the PSC issues the CPCN after a contested process.

On reuse of retiring plant sites, PJM staff said locations such as Morgantown and Dickerson could be attractive because they have existing substations and bus work that lower interconnection upgrade costs; officials suggested the state could help market those sites to prospective developers.

The committee did not take action; PJM officials urged lawmakers to review PSC CPCN permitting timelines and encouraged state support to attract developers and financing for needed infrastructure.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","ECM Committee Session, 1/15/2025 #1","oneSentenceSummary","Delegates pressed PJM about the process that led to a PSEG‑awarded high‑voltage transmission line route through Carroll County, and PJM explained its regional transmission expansion plan and that developers—not PJM—select routes and seek CPCNs from the PSC.","taxTitle","Economic Matters Committee, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative, Maryland","taxId",15059,"location","Maryland","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6387649,"PJM warns Maryland faces power shortfalls as retirements, rising demand and market changes collide",5358,95710,5454000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2116091-68e6c8d5c4535ada8aefff2b1024f06f&start=95&end=5454","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2116091-68e6c8d5c4535ada8aefff2b1024f06f/thumbnail_95710.jpg","/articles/6387649/Maryland/PJM-warns-Maryland-faces-power-shortfalls-as-retirements-rising-demand-and-market-changes-collide","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6387649-9701a5de2e2ee1fd52f2cf3c99631c24/orig.mp4?Expires=1771136997&Signature=n8l3iL0Xn9XXXKkuivY7b1bnla7OJ1CvehZ-NLJKbCVzZHPvflrTQ4iiIJvhyhy1uqdyKeZhItp~6kyZ7tGHaKmR39gYvPbcXnjopKC4mUCOFxfpI0DyPZMnNOLUrDcktSo2ZUJAGwx3KBqDOYoIQSofl9bcTSRqmquQ4vKIMFx9mpsTjZXhcqCWs0X-pq2sP9pmOb5onoGmiJ~GARD3DYQUaXE4jK64LALmWniR9V4H4BPt-hO7eE3bAxfTPQ1oyGnG4CIMjp9TEVuvZdo1ihKDzuW3ImFcZRTkf~9QKdjW6~ve7l82Hlrrp404SoJkFyhweDgy~iUPCIgq-PknmA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Jason Shannon, a PJM representative, told the Economic Matters Committee that “the energy outlook in the state of Maryland is dire,” and outlined a combination of retiring plants, rapid demand growth and market-rule changes that together are increasing the risk of power shortfalls and higher bills for Maryland ratepayers.

Shannon said PJM — the regional transmission operator that plans the grid and runs regional electricity and capacity markets for 13 states and the District of Columbia — has approved large volumes of new projects but many have not been built. “We approved over 70,000 megawatts of projects” by Dec. 31, 2024, he said, and PJM has cleared about 50,000 megawatts from its interconnection queue, but state permitting, supply-chain and financing issues are keeping projects from being constructed.

The briefing explained why the gap matters. PJM said Maryland is a net energy importer that gets roughly 40% of its energy from neighboring states, and it has lost about 6,000 megawatts of generation since 2018 while adding only about 1,600 megawatts. Shannon warned that planned retirements such as Brandon Shores and Wagner will remove another roughly 1,800 megawatts of capacity unless replacement resources materialize.

Shannon and PJM staff described demand growth that has accelerated sharply: PJM’s preliminary figures show an unusually large year‑over‑year increase in forecasted load from 2024 to 2025, and Shannon said the 2025 line “would be off of this slide,” calling out data‑center buildouts, electrification of buildings and growing electric‑vehicle adoption as primary drivers.

Committee members asked about two PJM technical changes that affect capacity and prices: ELCC (effective load carrying capability), which reduces how much firm capacity resources such as solar are credited for meeting peak needs, and PJM’s net CONE (cost of new entry) proxy that helps set the capacity price cap. Shannon explained ELCC as a derating process — “the gold standard unit is a nuclear unit…we expect 95% of that…fixed solar panels…come in at about 8%” — and acknowledged that the recent rule changes contributed to a steep rise in capacity auction clearing prices, which rose from about $29 to about $270 per megawatt‑day in the most recent auction.

Several delegates pressed PJM on whether market rules, rather than state policy alone, caused the sudden price spikes. Delegate Delia (surname not specified in transcript) and others argued that changes such as not counting RMR (reliability‑must‑run) resources in the auction and the ELCC methodology amplified price signals while many projects were stuck in the queue. Shannon said PJM is examining the net CONE proxy and other market constructs and has made multiple filings at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in recent weeks to try to “perfect the market supply and demand.” He added that PJM hopes those filings, if approved by FERC, will ease capacity prices by the next auction.

PJM described reforms to the interconnection queue that the organization said will markedly improve throughput. Shannon said PJM moved from a first‑in, first‑out model to a cluster‑based process, requires stronger site control documentation and substantial deposits that rise as projects approach in‑service, and that these and other reforms should clear the backlog by the end of next year and allow most shovel‑ready projects to proceed within one to two years. PJM outlined a target that roughly 62% of projects in the queue would need to materialize to meet supply‑demand balance under prior forecasts.

Shannon also laid out policy recommendations directed to state lawmakers, asking them to avoid adopting policies that would push additional resources off the grid until replacement capacity is secured, to examine CPCN (certificate of public convenience and necessity) permitting timelines at the Public Service Commission to speed siting approvals, and to consider state actions to help attract and finance new generation.

The briefing offered specific numeric context that committee members emphasized in questioning: PJM said its footprint has about 85,000 miles of transmission lines, Maryland imports roughly 40% of its energy, and the Maryland queue list on PJM slides totaled about 7,261 megawatts for the state. PJM reported historic shortfall figures (about 6,000 megawatts retired since 2018, ~1,600 megawatts added) and described a recent capacity auction spike from roughly $29 to the mid‑to‑high hundreds in constrained zones.

The committee did not vote on legislation. PJM said it has multiple filings pending at FERC and will continue to brief legislators as those filings move through federal review. Shannon closed by urging lawmakers to consider permitting and policy changes to accelerate replacement capacity: “The state should be in a position to help bring new resources onto the grid as soon as possible,” he said.","PJM told the Economic Matters Committee that Maryland could face supply shortfalls unless more projects in the interconnection queue are built, citing retiring generators, rapid load growth driven by data centers and changes to capacity market rules that sharply raised prices.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Lawmakers press PJM on transmission siting after PSEG route through Carroll County draws opposition

PJM warns Maryland faces power shortfalls as retirements, rising demand and market changes collide