BEFORE THE

PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION

Application of Transource Pennsylvania, LLC :

for approval of the Siting and Construction of the : A-2017-2640195
230 kV Transmission Line Associated with the : A-2017-2640200
Independence Energy Connection - East and West Projects :
in portions of York and Franklin Counties, Pennsylvania. :

Petition of Transource Pennsylvania, LLC :

for a finding that a building to shelter control equipment :
at the Rice Substation in Franklin County, Pennsylvania : P-2018-3001878
is reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of :
the public. :

Petition of Transource Pennsylvania, LLC :

for a finding that a building to shelter control equipment :
at the Furnace Run Substation in York County, : P-2018-3001883
Pennsylvania is reasonably necessary for the convenience :
or welfare of the public. :

Applications of Transource Pennsylvania, LLC :

for approval to acquire a certain portion of the lands of :
various landowners in York and Franklin Counties, :
Pennsylvania for the siting and construction of the 230 Kv :
Transmission Line associated with the Independence Energy :
Connection – East and West Projects as necessary or proper :
for the service, accommodation, convenience, or safety of :
the public. :

Douglas E. and Martha Royer : A-2018-3001881

Dale A & Barbara D.J. Torbet : A-2018-3001886
Yost Family Farms, LP : A-2018-3001898
Kent E. and Nancy H. Blevins : A-2018-3001902
Gregory J. and Melanie A. Goss : A-2018-3001904
Michael Hecner, Eva Hecner, Stephen M. Hecner and :
Theresa M. Norris : A-2018-3001906
Robert A Burchett, Judy K Burchett, Thomas L Burchett, :
and Stacy L Burchett, t/d/b/a Maple Springs Farms :
Partnership : A-2018-3001907
Mervin S & Gladys O Miller : A-2018-3001922
Amos L & Elizabeth K Esh : A-2018-3001923
J. Ross & Norma R. McGinnis : A-2018-3001925
McGinnis Limited Partnership : A-2018-3001929
Chilcoat and Peters Inc. : A-2018-3001932
Gregory M. & Kristina L. Wilt : A-2018-3001933
Burton Family Limited Partnership : A-2018-3001936
James R. McGinnis : A-2018-3001943
George W. & Madelyn K. Treadway : A-2018-3001944
Richard D. Good, Cathy M Good, Roger D Good & :
Peggy L Good : A-2018-3001954
Glenn J. Bradley : A-2018-3001956
Jonathan R Hash and Gregory J & Melanie A Goss : A-2018-3001957
Thomas R. Krell Jr. & April Krell : A-2018-3001958
D. Arthur Grove and David Richard Grove : A-2018-3001960
RGRG Partners : A-2018-3001961
R. Andrew & Deborah E. Macklin : A-2018-3001962
Francis & Mary Eileen Boone : A-2018-3001963
Barley Farms LP : A-2018-3001964
Stephen J. & Dolores E. Krick : A-2018-3001965
Shane K. & Kristi L. Taylor : A-2018-3001966
Jefferson L. Bracey, Sr. & Laura R. Bracey : A-2018-3001967
Leonard M. & Sandra J. Traynor : A-2018-3001968
Barbara D. & David W. Anderson, C. Kathleen and :
William M. Tompkins, and M. Kathryn and :
Stephen M. Judy : A-2018-3001982
E. Daniel & Diane M. Neff : A-2018-3001984
Maple Lawn Farms, Inc : A-2018-3001985
Randall C. Stewart, Jr. and Peggy A. Stewart : A-2018-3001986
John J. & Carol A. Hamilton : A-2018-3001989
Lois M. White : A-2018-3001999
Jane M. Zaiger : A-2018-3002012
GBR Lincoln Highway Limited Liability Company, :
Chambersburg Holdings, LP and WLR Chambersburg, LLC : A-2018-3002022
Summit Partners, LLC : A-2018-3002028
Daryl Harry Bender and Donna Irene Bender Widney : A-2018-3002031
Roy B. Biesecker and Susan L. Biesecker : A-2018-3002032
Allan A. Stine : A-2018-3002037
John A. Steiger and Allison E. Steiger : A-2018-3002041
Leonard H. Kauffman and Mary P. Kauffman : A-2018-3002046
Ivan D. Horst and Ellen M. Horst : A-2018-3002047
Guilford Water Authority : A-2018-3002048
DC Farms, LLC : A-2018-3002051
Donald L. Martin and Denise M. Martin : A-2018-3002052
William K. Nitterhouse and Diane R. Nitterhouse : A-2018-3002053
Wayne E. Lehman & Donald R. Lehman as Trustees of :
Credit Shelter Trust established under Item II of the Last :
Will of Harvey M. Lehman (the “Harvey M. Lehman :
Credit Shelter Trust”) & Wayne E. Lehman, Donald R. :
Lehman, Jane L. Martin, Kenneth L. Lehman & :
Lester E. Lehman : A-2018-3002054
Chambersburg Area School District : A-2018-3002055
Lemma & O’Connor Investors LLC : A-2018-3002057
Daniel S. Long : A-2018-3002061
Mary K. Henry, Deceased, D. Yvonne Frank, :
Marion Carmack, Charles W. Henry (Letters Testamentary) : A-2018-3002066
Chambersburg Mall Realty LLC, Chambersburg CH LLC, :
and Chambersburg Nassim LLC : A-2018-3002067
Richard L. Lesher and Agnes Marie Lesher : A-2018-3002069
Charles Stamy Fox : A-2018-3002072
Marlin Lester Martin and Carrie Rosemarie Martin : A-2018-3002074
Owls Club, Inc. : A-2018-3002075
Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc. : A-2018-3002103
Ivan D. Horst and Ellen M. Horst : A-2018-3002104
Roy M. Cordell and Emma L. Cordell : A-2018-3002107
Patriot Federal Credit Union : A-2018-3002108
Edna S. Fox and Charles A. Fox : A-2018-3002111
Myron J. & Fern L. Miller : A-2018-3002125
Allen W. Rice and Lori C. Rice : A-2018-3002128
Colby S. Nitterhouse and Leah A. Nitterhouse- : A-2018-3002140
Willis M. Lesher Partnership : A-2018-3002147
Kyle F. & Kelly A. Schindel : A-2018-3002163
Rodney A. Meyer and Karen I. Benedict : A-2018-3002169
Lynn D. Etter and Mary W. Etter : A-2018-3002232
Margaret L. Mower : A-2018-3002238
Elam H. Reiff and Mary Z. Reiff : A-2018-3002251
J. Norman & Bonna Jane Diller : A-2018-3002310
Douglas L. Straley and Nellie M. Straley : A-2018-3002312
Michael D. Frederick and Tammy Jo Salter : A-2018-3002329
Joshua L. Diller and Nicole M. Diller : A-2018-3002331
Michael D. Frederick and Tamra D. Frederick and :
Tammy Jo Salter and Roderick C.B. Salter : A-2018-3002332

RECOMMENDED DECISION

Before
Elizabeth H. Barnes
Administrative Law Judge
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION 1

II. HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS 2

III. FINDINGS OF FACT 12

A. Background 12
B. Independence Energy Connection Project 15
C. Need For The Independence Energy Connection Project 18
D. Congestion On The AP South Reactive Interface 21
E. Excluding Detrimental Impacts From PJM’s Method 23
F. PJM Changes To Its Benefit-Cost Methodology 24
G. Subsequent Re-Evaluations Of The IEC 28
H. Impacts To The PJM Region 31
I. Impacts To Pennsylvania 34
J. Health And Safety Of The Public 36
K. Environmental Impact 38
L. Economic Impact 39
M. Availability Of Reasonable Alternatives 46
N. Eminent Domain Applications 48
O. Zoning Exemption For Buildings/Shelters 49

IV. DISCUSSION 49

A. Legal Standards 52

1. Burden Of Proof 52
2. Standards For Siting Applications 53
3. Standards For Eminent Domain Applications 57
4. Standards For Shelter Petitions 64

B. Need For Proposed Transmission Line 65

1. Transource’s Position 65
2. OCA’S, Franklin County’s And STFC’S Positions 74
3. Disposition 80

C. Health And Safety Risks To Public 103

1. Transource’s Position 103

2. Protestants’/Intervenors’ Positions 104
3. Disposition 104

i
 D. Environmental Impacts 107

1. Transource’s Position 107

2. Protestants’/Intervenors’ Positions 115
3. Disposition 116

E. Shelter PetitiONS 124

F. Eminent Domain Applications 124

V. CONCLUSION 124

VI. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 125

VII. ORDER 130

Appendix A Glossary of Acronyms i-ii

Appendix B Contents of Evidentiary Record iii-xiv

ii
 I. INTRODUCTION

This decision recommends that the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

(Commission) deny the siting applications of an electric transmission utility and reject a partial
settlement agreement proposing a high voltage transmission lines project in York and Franklin
Counties because the applicant has failed to show need for the project within the meaning of
Commission regulations and the Pennsylvania Public Utility Code. The congestion cost on the
AP South Reactive Interface (APSRI) in the Baltimore-Washington D.C. metro-area that the
market-efficiency project was designed to alleviate has substantially declined by over $400
million since 2014 without the project being built. Where the congestion costs at the APSRI
once represented 25% of the total congestion costs in 2014 of PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM),
that percentage has decreased to a range of 1–4% of total PJM congestion costs experienced per
year for the past four years. Additionally, any projected net benefit to the PJM region of $32.5
million over a period of 15 years, is outweighed by a projected increase in wholesale power
prices in Pennsylvania by $400 million on a net basis. Further, the project will have detrimental
economic and environmental impacts on real estate values, farming practices, natural springs,
trout fishing, an elementary school, the Tim Cook Memorial Cross Country Course, businesses,
the Owl’s Club, local government, and tourism in Franklin County.

The applicant’s claims of potential reliability violations occurring in 2023 in the

absence of the Independence Energy Connection (IEC) Project are unpersuasive as this assertion
is not based upon sufficient testing, but rather outdated congestion cost data from 2014. Because
Project 9A is defined as a market efficiency project, PJM has not studied any other solutions to
alleged potential reliability issues and has not determined if there are lower-cost options
available for only solving potential reliability need. Moreover, the facilities that may experience
these potential violations are due for upgrades and some are currently undergoing rebuilds that
may increase capacity. If Project 9A is not built, PJM has the means and capability to conduct
reliability tests, determine whether any future reliability violations exist, consider other solutions,
and select another design.

1
 As this project appears to be a means for a foreign electric transmission provider
to gain access to the Washington D.C./Baltimore metro-area market while subsidizing its costs
through Pennsylvania, I recommend that the Commission reject these siting applications and
deny the accompanying two shelter petitions for zoning exemptions at the Furnace Run and Rice
substations as well as the seventy-seven (77) remaining pending eminent domain applications.
Further, I recommend that the Commission issue a rule to show cause directing Transource
Pennsylvania LLC show cause why the utility’s certificate of public convenience (CPC) should
not be rescinded as the need for the project for which it was granted is not proven.

II. HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS

On February 8, 2017, Transource Pennsylvania, LLC (Transource or Company)

filed an Application for All of the Necessary Authority, Approvals, and Certificates of Public
Convenience (1) to Begin to Furnish and Supply Electric Transmission Service in Franklin and
York Counties, Pennsylvania; (2) for Certain Affiliated Interest Agreements; and (3) for any
Other Approvals Necessary to Complete the Contemplated Transactions at Docket Nos. A-2017-
2587821 and G-2017-2587822. After a Joint Petition for Full Settlement was filed in those
cases, an Initial Decision was issued on September 14, 2017, granting Transource’s Application
and directing a CPC be issued conferring upon it status as a public utility pursuant to the terms of
the Joint Petition for Full Settlement. No exceptions were filed to the Initial Decision; however,
on September 21, 2017, Transource and the Office of Consumer Advocate (OCA) filed a letter
clarifying that under the Settlement, all parties reserved the right to challenge the need for the
Independence Project when Transource files a siting application with the Commission or to
challenge any other project proposed by Transource. Any finding of need for additional
transmission service in York and Franklin Counties is limited to the granting of a CPC and is not
precedent for any future siting application.

At Public Meeting held on December 21, 2017, Commissioner David W. Sweet

moved to grant Transource a certificate of public convenience, giving the Company the right to
file a siting application. Before an Order consistent with the passed Motion was entered, on
December 27, 2017, Transource filed an Application for authorization to construct a new 230 kV

2
transmission line in York County, Pennsylvania at Docket No. A-2017-2640195 (known as the
East Project) and an Application for authorization to construct a new 230 kV transmission line in
Franklin County, Pennsylvania at Docket No. A-2017-2640200 (known as the West Project).

A Notice of Prehearing Conference was issued on January 4, 2018, assigning as

presiding officers to this proceeding Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Elizabeth Barnes and ALJ
Andrew Calvelli.1 On January 8, 2018, Representative Kristin Phillips-Hill of the 93rd House
District2 requested a public input hearing be held in Southern York County regarding the
proposed high voltage transmission line at Docket No. A-2017-2640195. On January 10, 2018,
OCA filed a Protest and Public Statement. In accordance with Commission regulations, 52 Pa.
Code § 57.75(a), notice of a prehearing conference scheduled for March 13, 2018 was published
in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on January 20, 2018, 48 Pa.B. 585. Multiple protests were filed by
interested persons and entities. The protest period ended February 20, 2018.

On January 23, 2018, the Commission issued an Opinion and Order at Docket
Nos. A-2017-2587821 and G-2017-2587822 conferring upon Transource, the status of a
Pennsylvania public utility to: 1) begin to furnish and supply electric transmission service to or
for the public within a transmission service area from the new Rice Substation in Franklin
County, Pennsylvania to the Pennsylvania/Maryland border for PJM Project 9A, baseline
upgrade numbers b2743 and b2752; and 2) begin to furnish and supply electric transmission
service to or for the public within a transmission service area from the new Furnace Run
Substation in York County, Pennsylvania to the Pennsylvania/Maryland border for PJM Project
9A, baseline upgrade numbers b2743 and b2752.3

1
As of March 1, 2020, ALJ Calvelli ceased presiding in this matter.
2
Since January 2019, Kristin Phillips-Hill has been a member of the Pennsylvania State Senate, representing
the 28th Senate district.
3
Application of Transource Pennsylvania, LLC for all of the Necessary Authority, Approvals, and
Certificates of Public Convenience: (1) to Begin to Furnish and Supply Electric Transmission Service in Franklin
and York Counties, Pennsylvania; (2) for Approval of Certain Affiliated Interest Agreements; and (3) for Any Other
Approvals Necessary to Complete the Contemplated Transactions, A-2017-2587821, G-2587822 (Opinion and
Order entered Jan. 23, 2018).

3
 On March 5, 2018, the Office of Small Business Advocate (OSBA) filed a Notice
of Intervention and Public Statement. A Prehearing Conference was held on March 13, 2018, at
which time counsel for Stop Transource Franklin County (STFC) offered to provide declarations
from members with respect to standing in support of its Petition to Intervene. On March 14,
2018, an unopposed Protective Order was issued. On March 20, 2018, STFC filed a Petition to
add Appendix A, containing member standing affidavits to its February 20, 2018 Petition to
Intervene and Protest.

On March 28, 2018, a Procedural Order was issued consolidating Docket Nos.
A-2017-2640195 and A-2017-2640200 for the purposes of discovery, litigation, and decision.
The Procedural Order adopted a litigation schedule, modified the discovery rules, and granted
Intervenor status to the following: John and Louise Kennedy, Kira D. and J. Lamar Rohrer,
Stephen Snell, Lynda Manning, PECO Energy Company, Kay A. Baldwin, Carl Baldwin, Tim
and John Krick, David Good, Addyson Creamers, Christine Crowe, Brian McCleary, Jordyn
Creamers, Summer Ledford, Neil Autry, William Creamers, Katharine Creamers, Donald Culp,
Kenny Grove, Cletus P. and Diane M. Gohn, Blaine Ham, Matt Moser, Virginia M. and Ginny
Gibble, Garland Sweitzer, Brandy Miller, Todd Dorn, William Grove, David Saxman, Tiffany
Peiffer, Dale R. Saxman, Melvin Saylor, Zac Moser, Harry E. Peiffer Jr., Jesse Thompson, Dan
Moser, Jeremiah Good, Daniel E. Dickmyer, Kevin Elko, Jim Hershey, Steven Mink, Christine
Rogers, Diane Keys, Jamie Diamond, Garry Keys, Maryland and Pennsylvania Railroad
Preservation Society, Joseph Clubb, Mandy Welch, Kimberly Slezak, Linda A. Dickinson, James
Strack, Gary Mink, David Koons, David C. and Suzan E. Miller, Ann Lavin, Jennifer Clubb,
Margaret Williams, Mac Moser, Bill Wilt, Dean Moser, Caroline Winkler, T.R. Corcoran,
Richard Diamond, Valerie Dorn, Katherine Traynor, Madeline Traynor, Jon Smeltzer, Thomas
Wheatley, Tony Ham, Citizens to STOP Transource (Citizens), Scott Welch, Amber Geiger,
Trevor Lewis, David Hawkins, Mike Martinez Jr., Judith Hawkins, West Penn Power Company,
Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission, LLC., (MAIT) and PPL Electric Utilities Corporation
(PPL), MAIT. On April 3, 2018, an Order to Amend Procedural Order was issued amending
Ordering Paragraph No. 5 of the Procedural Order per the request from OCA and Transource.
The Order also granted Intervenor status to STFC.

4
 On April 27, 2018, certain landowners filed a joint Petition for Interim
Emergency Relief in the Nature of a Protective Order. On May 2, 2018, these landowners
withdrew their Petition for Interim Emergency Relief without prejudice.

On May 15, 2018, at Docket No. P-2018-3001883, Transource filed a Petition for
a Finding that a Building to Shelter Control Equipment at the Furnace Run Substation in York
County, Pennsylvania is Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience or Welfare of the Public.
Also on May 15, 208, at Docket No. P-2018-3001878, Transource filed a Petition for a Finding
that a Building to Shelter Control Equipment at the Rice Substation in Franklin County,
Pennsylvania is Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience or Welfare of the Public.
Also on May 15, 2018, Transource filed 40 eminent domain applications pertaining to lands in
York County and 93 eminent domain applications pertaining to lands in Franklin County. Notice
of the 133 eminent domain applications was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on June 16,
2018 at 48 Pa.B. 3679.

Public Input hearings were held on May 9 and 15, 2018 in York County and on
May 22 and 23 in Franklin County. On May 29 and 30, 2018, site views took place in Franklin
County on properties of all landowners requesting a site view. On June 1, 2018, site views took
place in York County on all properties of landowners requesting a site view.

On June 1, 2018, OCA filed a notice of intervention in the two petitions and a
Motion to Amend the Procedural Schedule. On June 4, 2018, Notice of a Further Prehearing
Conference was issued scheduling a second prehearing conference for July 9, 2018. On June 5,
2018, a Second Prehearing Conference Order was issued. On June 6, 2018, Transource filed an
Answer to OCA’s Motion to Amend the Procedural Schedule. The Second Prehearing
Conference Order was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on June 16, 2018. 48 Pa. B. 3679.
On June 26, 2018, a Third Prehearing Order was issued granting OCA’s Motion for an extension
of time allowed for intervenor direct testimony from July 25 to September 25, 2018. Pursuant to
52 Pa. Code § 57.75, the Order consolidated the 133 eminent domain applications and zoning
petitions with the applications at Docket No. A-2017-2640195. A Fourth Prehearing Order was

5
issued on July 30, 2018, admitting photographs (marked as PUC exhibits) taken by Commission
Staff at the Franklin and York County site views into the record.

Because the eminent domain applications were not filed with the initial
applications, but rather after some public input hearings, in order to afford those landowners, the
subject of eminent domain applications due process, further public input hearings were held on
September 18, 2018 in Chambersburg, Franklin County and on September 20, 2018 in Airville,
York County.

On September 25, 2018, STFC requested an extension of time to submit

Intervenor testimonies and exhibits. On October 2, 2018, a Fifth Prehearing Order was issued
extending the deadline for intervenor direct testimony from September 25, 2018 to October 11,
2018 and deeming the following eminent domain application dockets withdrawn:
A-2018-3002070 Laverne & Ellen Martin
A-2018-3002311 Gerald L. & Elaine Eberly
A-2018-3002019 Joseph N. Weagley
A-2018-3002348 Forrester Farms, II, Inc.
A-2018-3002030 Jason M. & Rosalie Hostetter
A-2018-3002120 Iven H. & Ruby E Benedict
A-2018-3002040 Harold H. Wenger Living Trust
A-2018-3002222 REK Properties LLC
A-2018-3002035 Salt Creek Partners LLC
A-2018-3002001 Jack E. & Emily L. Martin and Jason E. & Megan L. Martin
A-2018-3002141 David F. & Kimberly Jo Neibert
A-2018-3001887 Henry M. & Glenda J. Sommer
A-2018-3001914 Joseph L. & Barbara G. Lapp
A-2018-3002049 Kenneth M. & Marie A. Lehman
A-2018-3001969 Troy W. Kline
A-2018-3002240 J. Ray & Linda D. Geesaman
A-2018-3002170 John O. & Penny Lee Garber
A-2018-3002043 Justin & Sharla Dunlap
A-2018-3001988 Derek J. & Courtney Dettinger
A-2018-3002207 Michael D. Cordell
A-2018-3002173 Colt R. Martin & Kristyn Benedict
A-2018-3002124 Richard L. & Fern L. Peck
A-2018-3002068 Mahlon R. & Debra S. Eby
A-2018-3002255 Daniel W. & Clara Sue Benedict
A-2018-3002346 Mary I. & Paul J. Baker
A-2018-3002168 Daniel R. & Doreen F. Strite
A-2018-3002162 John V. & Eunice Rudolph

6
A-2018-3002119 Lamar D. & Esther M. Horst
A-2018-3002038 Charles W. Mellott
A-2018-3002064 Roy S. & Regina F. Martin
A-2018-3002013 Donald L. & Isabelle M. Hess
A-2018-3002167 Lamar V. & Edna F. Rudolph
A-2018-3002065 Charles, John & Margaret Diller and James & Mable Diller
A-2018-3002336 Roger L. & Joyce E. Diller, Trustees of the Diller Family Trust
A-2018-3002071 Samuel A. & Mandy L. Jones
A-2018-3002352 Marvin Charles & Lois Ellen Martin
A-2018-3002016 Denver N. & Katrina J. Martin
A-2018-3002334 Kevin L. & Faye I. Gayman
A-2018-3002021 Roger L. & Joyce E. Diller
A-2018-3002020 J. Daniel & Elaine J. Eshlman
A-2018-3002039 Ronald P. & Doris M. Stoner
A-2018-3001987 John E.N. Blair
A-2018-3002029 Jack E. & Emily L. Martin
A-2018-3001996 Mary Ann & DuWayne Fox
A-2018-3002000 Donald L. & Beverly A. Fahrney
A-2018-3002099 Bruce I. Neibert, Jr.
A-2018-3002172 Gerald L. & Jennifer Sibal Zeigler
A-2018-3002118 Tunde T. Tijani

On November 27, 2018, Transource served its rebuttal testimonies, adding several
new witnesses testifying that the IEC Project would address several potential future reliability
violations, a new argument not raised in its initial Applications, which had sought approval based
upon a perceived need to address market inefficiency within PJM.

On December 7, 2018, OCA filed a Motion to Amend Procedural Schedule

seeking additional time to analyze new generation deliverability analysis performed by PJM and
to prepare surrebuttal testimony. On December 10, 2018, Citizens filed a motion seeking the
same relief and on December 13, 2018, STFC filed a Motion to Amend the Procedural Schedule
and to Strike Certain Testimony, i.e. portions of testimony raising the new issue of reliability
concerns. Transource submitted timely answers to all three motions.

A Sixth Prehearing Order was issued on December 31, 2018, granting

Transource’s Petitions for Leave to Withdraw Eminent Domain Applications and removing the
following docket numbers from the caption:

7
A-2018-3001971 Carol K. Long
A-2018-3002204 Edwin W. Shank and Dawn L. Shank
A-2018-3002137 IESI PA Blue Ridge Landfill Corporation
A-2018-3002129 West Penn Power Company
A-2018-3001970 Jeffrey C. Neutzel

The Sixth Prehearing Order extended the deadline for surrebuttal testimony from
January 16 to January 30, 2019. Additionally, STFC’s Motion to Strike portions of rebuttal
testimonies pertaining to reliability claims introducing direct testimony at a rebuttal phase was
granted.

On January 16, 2019, STFC submitted a Motion to Designate Stricken Testimony

consistent with the ALJs’ Sixth Prehearing Order. The OCA and Citizens submitted Answers
concurring with the Motion. Through the Seventh Prehearing Order issued January 24, 2019, the
ALJs granted STFC’s Motion and thereby specified the page and line numbers of the testimony
and exhibits to be stricken. Seventh Prehearing Order at 3-4. The Seventh Prehearing Order also
clarified that portions of the rebuttal testimonies of the following Transource witnesses were to
be stricken to the extent they mention the new potential future reliability claims: Brian D. Weber,
Kamran Ali, Stephen Herling, Timothy Horger, and Judy Chang.

Opposing parties served surrebuttal testimony on January 28, 2019. The OCA
served Statement No. 1-SR by Scott Rubin, Statement No. 2-SR by Peter Lanzalotta and
Statement No. 3-SR by Geoffrey Crandall on that date.

On February 1, 2019, Transource submitted a Petition for Interlocutory Review

and Answer to a Material Question, challenging the ALJs’ Prehearing Orders granting STFC’s
Motion to Strike the Company’s rebuttal testimony. All parties submitted briefs in support of
their respective positions on the Petition on February 11, 2019. Also on February 11, 2019,
Transource served its written rejoinder testimony. The OCA followed the service of rejoinder
with a Motion to Strike the Rejoinder to the extent that it failed to comply with the Sixth
Prehearing Order. Transource filed and served its Answer. STFC and Citizens submitted
Motions expressing the same position. Transource thereafter served redacted versions of the

8
rejoinder statements that were consistent with the ALJs’ Orders, i.e., Rejoinder Statements 1-RJ
(Weber), 2-RJ (Ali), 7-RJ (Herling), 8-RJ (Horger), 9-RJ (Cawley), 10-RJ (Chang).

The parties proceeded to evidentiary hearings for the purposes of entering all pre-
served direct, rebuttal and surrebuttal testimonies and exhibits into the evidentiary record on
February 21-22 and 25-27, 2019 and cross-examination of witnesses. The ALJs also allowed
oral testimony by several pro se parties.

By Order entered March 20, 2019, the Commission granted the Company’s
Petition for Interlocutory Review and answered the following questions in the affirmative:

1. Whether the ALJs erred by striking Transource PA’s

rebuttal testimony regarding the Project’s reliability benefits,
thereby violating 66 Pa.C.S. 332(c) and denying Transource PA
due process of law?

2. Whether the ALJs’ error unreasonably prevents the

development of a full and complete record and denies the PUC
access to the most recent available information in determining the
need for this transmission line Project?

The Commission remanded the matter to the Office of Administrative Law Judge
(OALJ) for further proceedings consistent with its Opinion and Order entered March 20, 2019.
A Tenth Prehearing Order was issued on April 2, 2019, directing Transource to serve its
unredacted rebuttal and rejoinder statements within ten days. Furthermore, the ALJs modified
the procedural schedule to allow for the submission of supplemental surrebuttal and rejoinder
testimonies with respect to the previously redacted matter relating to reliability and scheduled
evidentiary hearings for June 28-29, 2019.

The parties proceeded with additional discovery and responses on the unredacted
statements. On May 29, 2019, the OCA served its OCA St. 2-SSR, the Supplemental Surrebuttal
Testimony of Peter J. Lanzalotta, responding to the Company’s claims of potential future
reliability violations.

9
 On June 18, 2019, Transource filed a Motion to Suspend the Procedural Schedule
seeking additional time to engage in settlement discussions, requesting that the evidentiary
hearings scheduled for June 28-29, 2019, be postponed and that the parties provide status updates
to the Presiding Officers every 30 days. On June 21, 2019, the Eleventh Prehearing Order was
issued delaying evidentiary hearings until August 7-8, 2019. By way of Hearing Notice on
August 1, 2019, those evidentiary hearings were further postponed until October 2-4, 2019, to
provide additional time for settlement discussions to continue.

On October 17, 2019, Joint Partial Settlements were filed with the Commission
between 1) Transource and the York County Planning Commission; 2) Transource and Citizens
to Stop Transource York County, Maple Lawn Farm, Barron Shaw and Shaw Orchards; and 3)
Transource and PPL. Under the Settlements, Transource agreed to file an amended application
to propose an alternative configuration for the East Portion of the IEC Project in York County.
The alternative configuration would primarily utilize existing rights-of-way (ROWs) and
transmission infrastructure in York County.

A Prehearing Conference was held on October 28, 2019, for the Presiding
Officers to obtain further details of the Settlement and to check the status of the ongoing
litigation for the West Project portion of the consolidated proceeding. During the Conference,
the Parties advised that, although a Settlement had been reached for the East Project, Transource
intended to file various documents with the Commission, including, without limitation, Joint or
Amended Application(s) and related filings. Further, OCA requested to move into the record the
Supplemental Surrebuttal Testimony of Witness Peter J. Lanzalotta, who was to retire before the
anticipated further hearing. The ALJs held that as long as Mr. Lanzalotta signed a verification
attached to his testimony, a Joint Stipulation for Admission of Evidence with Mr. Lanzalotta’s
testimony may be filed and admitted into the record.

On November 26, 2019, OCA moved for admission into the evidentiary record
the Supplemental Surrebuttal Testimony of Peter J. Lanzalotta. Pursuant to the Joint Stipulation
attached to the Motion, OCA stipulated to the authenticity of OCA St. No. 2-SSR and
accompanying exhibits. A verification was also attached to OCA St. No. 2-SSR. Upon due

10
consideration of this unopposed Motion and the Joint Stipulation, the Presiding Officers granted
the Motion on November 27, 2019.

On January 29, 2020, pursuant to the settlement agreements reached with the
other parties, Transource and PPL filed a Joint Amended Application for the Siting and
Construction of the 230 kV Transmission Lines associated with the Independence Energy
Connection-East Project. Under the Amended Siting Application, instead of pursuing greenfield
construction of a new 230 kV transmission line in York County, Transource seeks to work
cooperatively with PPL to reroute the majority of the IEC East Portion of the Project to two
existing transmission lines in York County. Currently operating as single circuit lines, PPL will
convert the existing Manor-Graceton 230 kV line and the Otter Creek-Conastone 230 kV line to
double circuit 230 kV lines. Additionally, PPL will utilize an existing ROW, currently hosting
an abandoned transmission line, to construct two new 230 kV transmission lines that will
connect the double circuit Manor-Graceton and Otter Creek-Conastone transmission lines to the
proposed Furnace Run Substation. Under its amended plan, Transource will construct, own, and
operate the Furnace Run Substation as originally proposed. Transource asserted that the
alternative configuration of the IEC East Portion of the Project will provide the same benefits as
the original IEC Project. The Furnace Run to Conastone double circuit will be approximately
eighteen miles in length of which two miles will be constructed in the expanded ROW with new
transmission towers and sixteen miles will be in the existing ROW on PPL’s existing towers.
The Furnace Run to Graceton double circuit will be approximately eleven miles in length of
which two miles will be constructed in the expanded ROW and nine miles will be in the existing
ROW on existing towers. The IEC West Portion of the Project remains the same as originally
proposed by Transource.

On January 31, 2020, the Fourteenth Prehearing Order was issued advising the
parties of a prehearing conference scheduled for March 18, 2020. Additionally, notice of
Transource’s Amended Siting Application was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on
February 8, 2020, indicating that Protests and Petitions to Intervene should be filed on or before
February 28, 2020. 50 Pa.B. 892. Accordingly, on February 19, 2020, STFC filed an Answer to
the Amended Application. Further, on February 28, 2020, OCA filed its Protest in opposition to

11
the Amended Siting Application and Franklin County filed a Petition to Intervene and Protest.
On March 10, 2020, Transource and PPL filed a joint reply to STFC’s Answer.

On March 16, 2020, the Prehearing Conference scheduled for March 18, 2020
was canceled per management directives pertaining to office closings due to a coronavirus
(COVID-19) pandemic. On May 6, 2020, the Prehearing Conference was rescheduled for
May 20, 2020.

On April 16, 2020, Franklin County was granted status as an Intervenor. On

May 20, 2020, the Prehearing Conference was held as a Telephonic Conference. A further
evidentiary hearing was held on July 9, 2020, via Business Skype, for the purpose of admitting
the remaining written testimony into the record and to conduct cross-examination regarding the
Company’s potential future reliability claims and the alterative configuration of the IEC Project.
A Briefing Order was later issued on August 5, 2020, directing the parties to file main briefs on
August 11, 2020, and Reply Briefs on September 25, 2020.

A Transcript of the July 9, 2020 hearing was filed on August 30, 2020, consisting
of pages 2807 through 2984. Transource, OCA, Franklin County, and STFC filed main briefs on
August 11, 2020, consistent with the Briefing Order, and those same entities filed reply briefs on
or about September 25, 2020. York County Planning Commission and Citizens filed letters in
support of the Joint Partial Settlement in lieu of briefs on August 11, 2020. The record closed on
September 25, 2020 when the reply briefs were filed. This matter is ripe for a decision.

II. FINDINGS OF FACT

A. Background

1. Applicant Transource Pennsylvania, LLC (Transource or Transource PA),

is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of Delaware and is a wholly
owned direct subsidiary of Transource Energy, LLC. IEC-West Application at ¶ 3.

12
 2. Transource Energy, LLC is a limited liability company organized and
existing under the laws of Delaware, majority owned by American Electric Power (AEP).
Application of Transource Pennsylvania, LLC for all of the Necessary Authority, Approvals and
Certificates of Public Convenience: (1) to begin to furnish and supply electric transmission
service in Franklin and York Counties, Pennsylvania; (2) for Approval of Certain Affiliated
Interest Agreements; and (3) for any Other Approvals Necessary to Complete the Contemplated
Transactions, A-2017-2587821 and G-2017-2587822 (Opinion and Order entered January 23,
2018).

3. The Office of Consumer Advocate is statutorily authorized to represent the

interest of public utility consumers in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in all proceedings
before the Public Utility Commission and the courts affecting the interest of public utility
consumers. 71 P.S. § 301-7, et seq.

4. PJM Interconnection, LLC, is the Regional Transmission Organization

(RTO) charged by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) under the Federal Power
Act, 16 U.S.C. § 791a, et seq., with maintaining the bulk electric transmission system in a 13
state region that includes most of Pennsylvania. IEC-West Application at ¶ 10.

5. PJM prepares an annual Regional Transmission Expansion Plan (RTEP)

detailing a series of analyses to ensure reliable flow of electricity to its customers. IEC West
Application at ¶ 11.

6. As part of its RTEP, PJM conducts a market efficiency analysis to find

areas where congestion exists and seeks solutions to reduce congestion. IEC West Application,
Att. 2 at 2-3.

7. On October 30, 2014, PJM opened a long-term RTEP proposal window

(“2014/2015 Long-Term Window”) to solicit market efficiency proposals in order to alleviate
congestion on the AP South Reactive Interface, a set of four 500 kV transmission lines that
originate in West Virginia and terminate in Maryland. IEC West Application at ¶ 17.

13
 8. Congestion on the AP South Reactive Interface totaled approximately
$800 million from 2012 to 2016. Transource St. 3 at 25.

9. Forty-one proposals were submitted as part of the 2014/2015 Long-Term

Window to address congestion on the AP South Reactive Interface. IEC West Application, Att.
2 at 4. Transource Energy, the parent of Transource, submitted “Project 9A,” to resolve
congestion on the AP South Reactive Interface. Transource St. 8-R, Exh. TH-5R at 2; Tr. 2387-
88. The Independence Energy Connection Project (IEC Project or Project) is a major component
of Project 9A. IEC West Application at ¶ 17.

10. After evaluation and review of the IEC Project, the PJM Board approved
Project 9A on August 2, 2016, as Baseline Upgrade Numbers b2743 and b2752, which includes
the IEC Project. IEC West Application at ¶ 18.On November 2, 2016, PJM and Transource
Energy executed a Designated Entity Agreement (DEA). IEC West Application ¶ 21.

11. FERC approved the DEA on January 12, 2017, at Docket No. ER17-349-
000. Id.

12. Pursuant to Schedule E of the FERC-approved DEA, Transource

Pennsylvania, LLC, is responsible for the construction, ownership, maintenance, and operation
of the Pennsylvania Portion of the IEC Project. Id.

13. On February 7, 2017, Transource filed an Application with the

Commission requesting all necessary authority, approvals, and certificates of public convenience
authorizing Transource to begin to furnish and supply electric transmission service as a
Pennsylvania public utility within two corridors to be located in Franklin and York Counties,
Pennsylvania. IEC West Application ¶5; see also Application of Transource Pennsylvania, LLC
for All of the Necessary Authority, Approvals, and Certificates of Public Convenience (1) to
Begin to Furnish and Supply Electric Transmission Service in Franklin and York Counties,
Pennsylvania; (2) for Certain Affiliated Interest Agreements; and (3) for any Other Approvals
Necessary to Complete the Contemplated Transactions, Docket No. A-2017-2587821.

14
 14. On January 23, 2018, the Commission granted the Company’s request
pursuant to the settlement agreement reached in that proceeding. Docket No. A-2017-2587821
(Opinion and Order entered January 23, 2018).

B. Independence Energy Connection Project

15. On December 27, 2017, Transource filed an application with the

Commission seeking approval to site and construct the Pennsylvania portion of the Rice-
Ringgold 230 kV Transmission Line in portions of Franklin County, Pennsylvania. Application
of Transource Pennsylvania, LLC for Approval of the Siting and Construction of the 230 kV
Transmission Line Associated with the Independence Energy Connection – West project in
portions of Franklin County, Docket No. A-20172640200 (IEC West Application).

16. The Rice-Ringgold 230 kV Transmission Line extends 28.8 miles to

connect the existing Ringgold Substation located near Smithsburg, Washington County,
Maryland to a proposed Rice Substation in Franklin County, Pennsylvania, of which, 24.4 miles
will be located in Pennsylvania. IEC West Application at ¶ 6.

17. On December 27, 2017, Transource filed an application with the

Commission seeking approval to site and construct the Pennsylvania portion of the Furnace Run-
Conastone 230 kV Transmission Line in portions of York County, Pennsylvania. Application of
Transource Pennsylvania, LLC for Approval of the Siting and Construction of the 230 kV
Transmission Line Associated with the Independence Energy Connection – East project in
portions of York County, Docket No. A-20172640195 (IEC East Application).

18. The Furnace Run-Conastone 230 kV Transmission Line extends 15.7

miles to connect the existing Conastone Substation located near Norrisville, Harford County,
Maryland to the proposed Furnace Run Substation in York County, Pennsylvania, of which, 12.7
miles will be located in Pennsylvania. IEC East Application at ¶ 6.

15
 19. On May 15, 2018, Transource filed a Petition for a Finding that a Building
to Shelter Control Equipment at the Rice Substation in Franklin County, Pennsylvania is
Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience or Welfare of the Public. Petition of Transource
Pennsylvania, LLC for a Finding that a Building to Shelter Control Equipment at the Rice
Substation in Franklin County, Pennsylvania is Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience or
Welfare of the Public, Docket No. P-2018-3001878.

20. In addition to constructing, owning and operating the Rice-Ringgold 230

kV Transmission Line, Transource seeks approval to construct, own, and operate the proposed
Rice Substation. Id., Petition ¶ 7. The Rice-Ringgold 230 kV Transmission Line and the Rice
Substation compose the West Portion of the IEC Project.

21. On May 15, 2018, Transource filed a Petition for a Finding that a Building
to Shelter Control Equipment at the Furnace Run Substation in York County, Pennsylvania is
Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience or Welfare of the Public. Petition of Transource
Pennsylvania, LLC for a Finding that a Building to Shelter Control Equipment at the Furnace
Run Substation in York County, Pennsylvania is Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience or
Welfare of the Public, Docket No. P-2018-3001883.

22. In addition to constructing, owning and operating the Furnace Run-

Conastone 230 kV Transmission Line, Transource sought approval to construct, own, and
operate the proposed Furnace Run Substation. Id., Petition ¶ 9. The Furnace Run-Conastone
230 kV Transmission Line and the Furnace Run Substation compose the original configuration
of the East Portion of the IEC Project.

23. On May 15, 2018, Transource filed 133 eminent domain applications to
acquire portions of Pennsylvania land to site and construct the IEC Project. See Application of
Transource Pennsylvania, LLC for Approval to Acquire a Certain Portion of the Lands of
Various Landowners in York and Franklin Counties, Pennsylvania for the Siting and
Construction of the 230 kV Transmission Line Associated with the Independence Energy

16
Connection – East and West Projects as Necessary or Proper for the Service, Accommodation,
Convenience, or Safety of the Public, Docket Nos. A-2018-3001881, et al.

24. On October 17, 2019, Transource filed several settlement agreements with
the Commission, indicating an agreement had been reached between Transource, PPL Electric
Utilities Corporation (PPL), York County Planning Commission (YCPC), Citizens to Stop
Transource – York County (Citizens), Maple Lawn Farms, and Barron Shaw and Shaw
Orchards. (Partial Settlement). By way of settlement, the Company agreed to propose an
alternative configuration for the East Portion of the IEC Project. Id., ¶ 9. Transource Ex. No.
AA-1, Supplemental Attachment 3, p. 2.

25. On January 29, 2020, Transource filed an Amendment to its IEC East
Application seeking to reroute the proposed Furnace Run-Conastone 230 kV Transmission Line
to existing facilities in the Project area that are currently owned and operated by PPL Electric
Utilities Corporation. Amended IEC East Application ¶ 38, 41.

26. The alternative configuration of the East Portion of the IEC Project
consists of re-conductoring PPL’s Manor-Graceton and Otter Creek-Conastone 230 kV
Transmission Lines as double circuit lines and constructing two additional 2-mile segments to
terminate the rebuilt PPL lines to the proposed Furnace Run Substation. Amended IEC East
Application ¶ 42.

27. The additional 2-mile segments will be constructed over existing ROWs
but will need to be expanded to accommodate the larger transmission lines. Id. While PPL will
continue to own and operate the transmission line segments, Transource will continue to
construct, own, and operate the Furnace Run Substation. Amended IEC East Application ¶ 41.

28. The Settlement IEC East Portion will utilize existing infrastructure and/or
ROWs, affect fewer new landowners and parcels, and impact fewer natural resources. PPL
Electric St. No. AA-5, p. 5.

17
 29. The entire alignment for the Settlement IEC East Portion consists of
parcels that currently have ROW agreements or are owned in fee by PPL Electric. The
Settlement IEC East Portion uses existing infrastructure for majority of the length of the line by
adding a second circuit onto the existing transmission lines. PPL Electric St. No. AA-5, pp. 5-6.

30. The four-mile Furnace Run 230 kV Transmission Line corridor is the only
section of the Settlement IEC East Portion that will require widening of existing ROWs. PPL
Electric St. No. AA-5, p. 6.

31. The Settlement IEC East Portion will minimize requirements for new
ROWs and potential impacts to new property owners. PPL Electric St. No. AA-5, p. 6.

32. The Settlement IEC East Portion will result in less overall environmental
impacts relative to the originally proposed route. PPL Electric St. No. AA-5, pp. 6-7.

33. The Settlement IEC East Portion will involve less tree clearing (19.3
acres) relative to the originally proposed route (51.7 acres), which reduces the forest
fragmentation effects and potential impacts to threatened and endangered species that use forest
habitat. PPL Electric St. No. AA-5, p. 6.

34. The Settlement IEC East Portion is anticipated to have less total impact
when compared to the original Proposed Route for the IEC East Project. PPL Electric St. No.
AA-5, p. 7.

C. Need for the Independence Energy Connection Project

35. Congestion occurs when the least costly resources that are available to
serve load in a given region cannot be dispatched because transmission facility limits constrain
power flow on the system. Transource St. 3 at 24.

18
 36. As part of the Market Efficiency Process, PJM can consider (i)
accelerating reliability-based enhancements or expansions already included in the Regional
Transmission Plan that if accelerated also could relieve one or more economic constraints; (ii)
modifying reliability-based enhancements or expansions already included in the Regional
Transmission Plan that as modified would relieve one or more economic constraints; and (iii)
adding new enhancements or expansions that could relieve one or more economic constraints,
but for which no reliability-based need has been identified. Transource St. 7-R, Exh. No. SRH-
3R at 10.

37. When congestion is identified on the bulk transmission grid and no

currently approved projects can alleviate that congestion, PJM opens up a competitive selection
process soliciting proposals from third parties to mitigate this congestion. Transource St. 3 at 5;
Transource St. 7-R, Exh. SRH-3R at 11.

38. PJM’s competitive solicitation planning process is based on a sponsorship

model, meaning that PJM considers only those project proposals as submitted through its
competitive proposal windows. All project proposals submitted are reviewed by PJM and
presented to the TEAC. Transource St. 7 at 27-28.

39. During its review process, PJM performs a benefit-cost analysis on each
project submission to determine whether the new facilities can lower costs to customers, and that
the benefits of the project exceeds its costs by or above a certain required ratio. Amended and
Restated Operating Agreement of PJM Interconnection, LLC, PJM Interconnection, LLC Rate
Schedule FERC No. 24, Docket No. ER11-4040-000, Schedule 6, Section 1.5.7(d).

40. In order for a market efficiency project to be considered for approval, the
benefit-cost ratio must exceed a ratio of 1.25:1. Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of
PJM Interconnection, LLC, PJM Interconnection, LLC Rate Schedule FERC No. 24, Docket No.
ER11-4040-000, Schedule 6, Section 1.5.7(d).

19
 41. The benefit-cost ratio is calculated by dividing the present value of the
total annual benefit for each of the first 15 years of the life of the enhancement or expansion by
the present value of the total annual cost for each of the first 15 years of the life of the
enhancement or expansion. Transource St. 3 at 18-19.

42. PJM utilizes a computer simulation software known as PROMOD to

calculate the total benefit for a market efficiency project. Transource St. 7-R at 24. PROMOD
forecasts future congestion over a specified period on the bulk electric grid. The model then
determines what the difference in net load payments would be without and with a proposed
market efficiency project. See e.g. Transource St. AA-3, Exh. TJH-AA3.

43. Net Load Payments are defined as gross load payments minus any
financial transmission rights hedges. Tr. 2608-2609. Gross load payments are calculated as the
zonal Locational Marginal Pricing (LMP) times the megawatt of load associated with those
specific zones. Financial transmission rights hedges are pre-determined congestion hedges
allocated to load customers, and thus removed from gross load payments. Id.

44. The change in net load payments is measured for all of PJM’s
transmission zones over a period of 15 years starting from the RTEP Study Year and discounted
to present value. OCA St. 1 at 8-9.

45. The benefits for a Lower Voltage Market Efficiency Project, such as the
IEC Project, are defined as 100 percent of the change in net load payments over a period of 15
years from the RTEP Study Year, discounted to present value. OCA St. 1 at 7-9; Transource
Hearing Exh. 18. This excludes the change in net load payments for transmission zones that
would see an overall increase as a result of constructing the market efficiency project. OCA
Hearing Exh. 1, Transource Response to OCA-II-15.

46. The cost of a market efficiency project is defined as the present value
revenue requirement that benefitting transmission zones would be expected to pay over a period
of fifteen years beginning in the RTEP Study Year. OCA St. 1 at 11.

20
 47. Once a market efficiency project is selected, PJM conducts annual re-
evaluations to determine if the project still meets the 1.25:1 benefit-cost ratio. Transource St. 7-
R, Exh. SRH-3R at 14-15.

D. Congestion on the AP South Reactive Interface

48. Prior to 2014, the AP South Reactive Interface had experienced a large
amount of congestion costs on an annual basis. OCA St. 3 at 12.

49. Congestion on the AP South Reactive Interface totaled approximately

$800 million from 2012 to 2016. Transource St. 3 at 25.

50. The IEC Project was specifically designed to address congestion on the
AP South Reactive Interface. Transource St. 3 at 24, Transource St. 8-R, Exh. TH-5R at 2

51. In 2014, congestion costs on the AP South Reactive Interface was

approximately $486.8 million, or 25.2 percent of total PJM congestion costs experienced that
year. OCA St. 3 at 12.

52. In 2016, congestion costs on the AP South Reactive Interface was

approximately $16.8 million, or 1.6 percent of total PJM congestion costs experienced that year.
OCA St. 3 at 12.

53. In 2017, congestion costs on the AP South Reactive Interface was

approximately $21.6 million, or 3.1 percent of total PJM congestion costs experienced that year.
OCA St. 3 at 12.

54. In 2018, congestion costs on the AP South Reactive Interface was

approximately $20.8 million, or 1.6 percent of total PJM congestion costs experienced that year.
Monitoring Analytics, LLC, 2018 State of the Market Report for PJM at 533. OCA M.B. at 38.

21
 55. In 2019, congestion costs on the AP South Reactive Interface was
approximately $14.5 million. Tr. at 2921.

56. Through the first quarter of 2020, congestion on the AP South Reactive
Interface was less than $900,000, failing to reach the top 25 most congested constraints on the
PJM system. OCA Hearing Exh. 6 at 559.

57. Since the selection of the IEC Project peak demand in the PJM region has
decreased. OCA St. 2 at 16. When the proposal for the IEC was submitted in 2015, the most
recent summer peaks for BGE, Pepco, and Dominion were from 2014 and totaled 31,773 MW.
Id. By 2017, these peak loads had decreased to 31,450 MW. Id. The 2018 forecast of the 2020
peak load for the three companies, at 33,016 MW, has dropped by more than 3,300 MW in the
past three years. Id.

58. Congestion event hours on the AP South Reactive Interface has dropped
precipitously beginning in 2015. The day ahead congestion hours over the 2008-2014 period
averaged 4,259 hours per year at the AP South Reactive Interface. This dropped to an average of
1,225-day ahead congestion hours per year for the 2015-2017 period. OCA St. 3 at 10-12.

59. This downward trend is continuing in light of the coronavirus (COVID-

19) pandemic since March 2020. OCA Hearing Exhibit No. 3, Transource Response to OCA-
XLVIII-1. During March and April 2020, weekday peak loads were ranging anywhere between
6.5% and 15.2% lower than originally projected. Id. PJM’s load forecasts will be impacted for
the foreseeable future. Id., Att. at 8-9.

60. Decreases in PJM’s load forecast can reduce the projected benefits of the
IEC Project. Transource St. AA-3, Exh. TJH-AA3. A one percent decrease reduces the
expected decrease in net load payments for the benefitting zones by approximately $73.57
million, from $844.8 million to $771.23 million. Transource St. AA-3, Exh. TJH-AA3 at 3, 22.

22
E. Excluding Detrimental Impacts from PJM’s Benefit-Cost Methodology

61. When measuring the benefits of a market efficiency project, PJM excludes
increased costs that are experienced as a result of constructing that project. Transource St. 7-R,
Exh. SRH-3R at 12-13; see also OCA Hearing Exh. 1, Transource Response to OCA-II-15.

62. When calculating the benefits of the IEC Project, Transource calculated
the reduced power costs (primarily in MD-DC-VA) from being able to import lower-cost power
into that region; but it failed to subtract from those benefits the higher costs that would result in
other regions (including Pennsylvania) because they would no longer have the benefit of that
same lower-cost power. OCA St. 1 at 24; see also Transource St. AA-3, Exh. TJH-AA3, OCA
Hearing Exh. 3, Transource Response to OCA-XLIII-4

63. The purpose of a benefit-cost analysis is to attempt to capture the likely

consequences of an activity, and to express those consequences in the same units (dollars, in this
case) so that they can be compared. OCA St. 1 at 23.

64. For Regional Market Efficiency Projects (voltages above 500 kV, or
double circuit facilities planned to operate at voltages of at least 345 kV, but less than 500 kV),
PJM previously included in its benefit calculation transmission zones that experience an increase
in wholesale power prices. OCA Cross Ex. 4 at 4, 8. In 2014, PJM removed this from the
benefit calculation to “increases [sic] the number of projects that could qualify as a market
efficiency project.” Id., at 8.

65. Under a proper benefit-cost analysis, the Company’s most recent re-
evaluation of the IEC Project demonstrates that it would decrease wholesale power prices in
certain transmission zones by approximately $845 million and increase wholesale power prices
in other transmission zones by approximately $812 million for a net benefit of $32 million.
OCA Hearing Exh. 3, Transource Response to OCA-XLIII-4. When dividing the net benefit of
the IEC Project by the present value revenue requirement of the IEC Project that amounts to a
benefit-cost ratio of 0.06.

23
F. PJM Changes to its Benefit-Cost Methodology

66. In 2014, PJM initiated a proceeding before the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission at Docket No. ER14-1394-000 to modify portions of its existing benefit-cost
methodology. Transource St. 7-R at 13.

67. For lower voltage market efficiency projects, PJM modified the benefit
metric from its current 70/30 weighted split between the change in production cost and change in
net load payment (for Energy Benefit) to 100 percent change in net load payments (for Energy
Benefit). OCA Cross Exh. at 9.

68. The total change in energy production costs refers to the change in system
generation variable costs (i.e. fuel costs, variable operating and maintenance costs, and emissions
costs) associated with total PJM energy production or the amount by which the Project would
lead to the more efficient use of generation resources throughout all of PJM. OCA St. 1-SR at 9.

69. With respect to Regional and Necessary Lower Voltage Market Efficiency
Projects, PJM proposed to modify the benefit metric from its current 70/30 weighted split
between the change in production cost and change in net load payment (for Energy Benefit) to
50/50 percent split. OCA Cross Exh. 4 at 6.

70. The IEC Project’s production cost savings was forecasted to be

approximately $260.13 million in its September 2018 re-evaluation. OCA St. 1SR at 9.

71. Under PJM’s methodology for higher-voltage market-efficiency projects,

system level production cost savings would receive a 50% weighting in determining the project’s
benefits. The other 50% would be made up of savings in the benefiting zones. OCA St. 1SR at
10. If that methodology were used for this Project based upon its September 2018 re-evaluation
results, it would result in the Project’s 15-year discounted “benefits” being calculated to be:
(50% x $260.13 million) + (50% x $707.29 million) = $483.71 million. Id. This is less than the

24
Project’s 15-year discounted cost of $498 million, meaning that the Project would fail to provide
a benefit-cost ratio of 1.0, let alone PJM’s required ratio of 1.25 or higher. Id.

72. PJM’s most recent analysis of the IEC Project, inclusive of the alternative
configuration of the East Portion of the IEC Project, indicates that if the Project were constructed
PJM would experience system-wide savings of approximately $150 million, much less than what
was forecasted in September 2018. Transource Ex. TJH-AA3.

73. In December 2018, PJM sought approval from FERC to modify the
PROMOD simulation used to forecast the benefits of a market efficiency project by removing
from the simulation all potential future generation with an executed Facilities Study Agreement
(FSA Generation). Transource Hearing Exh. 19 at 1.

74. A Facilities Study Agreement (FSA) is a signed agreement between the

customer, or the developer of the proposed generation, and PJM to identify the scope of facility
additions and upgrades to be included in the Facilities Study. PJM Manual 14A at 68.

75. Thirty-six (36) percent of generation with an executed FSA reaches

commercial operation. Transource Hearing Exh. No. 19 at 3.

76. FERC issued an Order adopting this change to the PROMOD model used
to simulate future congestion on the bulk electric grid. Transource Hearing Ex. No. 19 at 12.

77. PJM’s September 2018 PROMOD analysis showed that the benefit-cost
ratio of the IEC Project was 1.40. OCA St. 1 at 33. The model showed that there would be a
decrease of $707.29 million in net load payments over a period of 15 years, excluding those
zones that experience an increase. Id.

78. After excluding executed FSA generation from the model, PJM
determined that the benefit-cost ratio of the IEC Project in February 2019 was 2.17. Transource
Hearing Exh. No. 6. The model showed that there would be a decrease of $982.07 million in net

25
load payments over a period of 14 years, excluding those zones that experience an increase.
OCA Hearing Exh. No. 2 at 2. That is a difference of approximately $275 million between the
two simulations.

79. In the IEC Project’s most recent re-evaluation FSA Generation was not
included in the model used to simulate the benefits of the Project. OCA Hearing Exhibit No. 3,
Transource Response to OCAXLVII-3. This included removing significant future solar capacity
and other low-cost generation that may be online in future years in Virginia and Maryland. OCA
Hearing Exhibit No. 3, Transource Response to OCAXLVII-4.

80. Virginia passed the Grid Transformation and Security Act of 2018,
encouraging the construction of renewable energy sources and the implementation of demand-
side management programs. OCA St. 3 at 19-20.

81. The District of Columbia City Council passed an Act requiring that 100
percent of electric energy used in Washington D.C. should be supplied by solar power by 2032.
CLEANENERGY DC OMNIBUS AMENDMENT ACT OF 2018, D.C. Act 22-583 (2019).

82. In November 2018, PJM ran a generation deliverability test without the
IEC Project to determine if the existing transmission system without the Project could deliver
energy from one aggregate of generation in one area to the aggregate of load in another.
Transource St. 7-R at 22.

83. As a result of this generation deliverability test, PJM identified potential

future n-1 Single Contingency Reliability Criteria Violations occurring in 2023 in the absence of
constructing the IEC Project. Transource St. 7-R at 21. This includes overloads on the
following: (1) Three Mile Island 500/230 kV Transformer, (2) Hunterstown-Lincoln 115 kV
Line, (3) Lincoln Tap-Lincoln 115 kV line, and (4) Lincoln-Straban 115 kV Line. Id. The
generation deliverability test also identified a potential future n-0 Reliability Criteria Violations
occurring in 2023 in the absence of constructing the IEC Project on the Peach Bottom-Conastone
500 kV Line. Id., see also, Transource St. 7-RJ-Supp at 2.

26
 84. This Project is a market efficiency project designed to address congestion
on the AP South Reactive Interface. Transource St. 8-R, Exh. TH-5R at 2.

85. It was not until November 2018, several months after the OCA’s direct
testimony in this proceeding, that PJM identified possible reliability violations occurring in the
future if the Commission rejects the IEC Project for approval. Transource St. 7-R at 21.

86. The Company has repeatedly denied that this is a reliability project needed
to resolve reliability violations. Tr. at 2926; Transource St. 7-RJ-SUPP at 3.

87. The generation deliverability test is a subset of tests that PJM conducts to
ensure compliance with reliability criteria. OCA St. 2-SSR at 16-17.

88. PJM did not perform its full suite of reliability tests to confirm or clarify
the existing, nature, or scope of the alleged potential future reliability violations. Transource St.
7-RJ-SUPP at 3.

89. Many of the facilities that are expected to overload in 2023 are older
facilities that are likely to be in need of replacement in the next few years. OCA St. 2-SSR at 9-
10. OCA St. 2-SSR-10; OCA Hearing Exh. 5, MAIT Response to OCA-XXXVII-1.

90. Since the last generation deliverability test, two additional projects have
been approved by PJM involving facilities that were projected to be overloaded in 2023: a
rebuild of Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission LLC’s Hunterstown-Lincoln 115 kV line and
Project 5E, which involves re-conductoring BGE’s Conastone-Graceton and Raphael Road-
Northeast 230 kV lines together with adding bundled conductors to the Graceton-Bagley-
Raphael Road double circuit lines. Transource St. AA-2, Exh. SRH-AA2 at 13.

91. PJM has not run another generation deliverability test to determine if
Project 5E and the Hunterstown-Lincoln 115 kV projects are sufficient to cure any potential

27
future reliability violations without the IEC Project. OCA Hearing Exh. 3, Transource Response
to OCA-XLIII-10.

92. PJM has a process to timely deal with any potential future reliability
violations if the IEC Project is not approved. Transource St. 7-R at 24-25.

G. Subsequent Re-Evaluations of the IEC

93. PJM’s licensed-computer software presents a forward looking picture over

a period of approximately fifteen years into the future, which includes numerous, diverse
variables, assumptions, and forecasts that must be simulated, including, but not limited to: new
sources of generation, retired generation, forecasted load, changes to transmission topology, fuel
and other economic data, monitored flow gates for systems adjoining PJM, and energy efficiency
and demand response initiatives. See Transource St. 7-R at 30-32, TPA St. 8-R at 23

94. Each variable and forecast simulated in the model may be based upon
further assumptions needed to identify a realistic expectation of future changes. For example,
forecasted load incorporates within it equipment indices that reflect trends in energy efficiency
(state-approved and other), demand response, and distributed energy. Transource St. 8-R at 16.

95. As part of its market efficiency process, PJM performs a sensitivity

analysis demonstrating what the change to the benefit-cost ratio would be under certain
circumstances. Transource St. 8-R, Exh. TH-3R at 21.

96. In certain sensitivity scenarios, such as whether the cost of natural gas was
higher than expected, the benefit-cost ratio of the IEC Project decreases. Transource St. 8-R,
Exh. TH-3R at 21.

97. In September 2017, the impacts of the IEC Project were re-evaluated
according to PJM’s annual Regional Transmission Planning Process. PJM Manual 14B: PJM
Region Transmission Planning Process, Section 2.6.8: Ongoing Review of Project Costs. A year

28
after PJM’s initial approval, the IEC Project was now forecasted to lower the cost of wholesale
power prices in the PJM region by approximately $611.48 million dollars, or approximately
$610 million less than the previous year’s projections. OCA St. 1 at 30.

98. In September 2017, the IEC Project would increase wholesale power
prices in the PJM region by approximately $326.57 million, or $524 million less than the
previous year’s projections. Id. According to PJM’s benefit-cost methodology, the benefit-cost
ratio of the project fell to 1.3. OCA St. 1 at 20-21.

99. The same transmission zones that were shown to primarily benefit in
August 2016, still benefited, but to a much smaller degree. Similarly, the zones that were
harmed in the September 2016 evaluation, would still face increased wholesale power prices, but
to a much smaller degree. OCA St. 1 at 20-21.

100. Under the September 2018 re-evaluation, PJM’s simulations now

demonstrated that the IEC Project would lower the cost of wholesale power prices in the PJM
region by approximately $707.29 million, or approximately $96 million more that than the
September 2017 simulation. OCA St. 1 at 21.

101. The IEC Project in September 2018 would now increase wholesale power
prices in the PJM region by approximately $690 million, or approximately $363.43 million more
than the September 2017 simulation. OCA St. 1 at 33. PJM’s simulation demonstrated a net
decrease of approximately $17 million in wholesale power prices across the entire PJM region,
the smallest net difference since approval of the IEC Project. Id.

102. According to PJM’s cost-benefit methodology in September 2018, the

benefit-cost ratio of the project, which did not take into account any increases in wholesale
power prices, increased to 1.42. After this evaluation, PJM’s simulations showed a significant
shift in the benefitting and harmed zones. For example, six PJM transmission zones that once
experienced a benefit from the IEC Project were now forecasted to pay higher electric power
prices. This list included the following: AEP, which is located in portions of Virginia, West

29
Virginia, and Ohio, Linden VFT Merchant Transmission Facility (LINDVFT) located in New
Jersey, Commonwealth Edison Zone (COMED) located in Indiana, Hudson Merchant
Transmission Facility (O66HVDC), Duke Energy Ohio and Kentucky Zone (DEOK) located in
portions of Ohio and Kentucky, Dayton Power and Light Zone (DAY) located in Ohio, and the
Duquesne Light Company Zone (DUQ) located in Western Pennsylvania. OCA Cross Exh. 10,
OCA Cross Exh. 11. Under this simulation only four PJM transmission zones out of the existing
twenty-four zones were projected to benefit from the IEC Project.

103. The February 2019 simulation projected that the IEC Project would lower
the cost of wholesale power prices in the PJM region by approximately $982 million dollars, or
$275 million more than the September 2018 simulation. OCA Hearing Exh. 2 at 2. Similarly,
PJM’s simulation projected the IEC Project would increase wholesale power prices in the PJM
region by approximately $969 million, or $279 million more than the September 2018
simulation. Id.

104. Under the February 2019 simulation, PJM projected that there would be a
net decrease of approximately $13 million in wholesale power prices across the entire PJM
region. Id. According to PJM’s cost-benefit methodology, the benefit-cost ratio of the project
for this re-evaluation was 2.17. The PJM transmission zones primarily benefitting from the IEC
Project once again are DOM, PEPCO, BGE, APS, and AEP. Moreover, COMED, DAY, and
DUQ, which were originally supposed to benefit from the IEC Project only to recognize
detrimental impacts in subsequent re-evaluations, are once again benefiting from the IEC Project,
yet to a much smaller degree than before. LINDVFT, O66HVDC, and DEOC, which were once
expected to benefit from the IEC Project, were still projected to be harmed if this Project is built.
Lastly, though more zones are projected to benefit from the IEC Project than the September 2018
re-evaluation, the majority of PJM transmission zones were still expected to experience an
increase in wholesale power prices as a result of the IEC Project. Tr. at 2616.

30
H. Impacts to the PJM Region

105. In December 2019, Transource submitted PJM’s latest re-evaluation of the

economic benefits of the IEC Project, inclusive of the alternative IEC East Portion of the Project.
Transource St. No. AA-3, TPA Ex. TJH-AA3. Specifically, the Company’s most recent
evidence alleges that the IEC Project will have a benefit-cost ratio anywhere from 1.46 to 1.66,
depending upon the cost of the project and load simulated in future years. TPA St. No. AA-3 at
4.
106. The Company provides a more detailed breakdown claiming that for the
zones that benefit, i.e. the zones that will experience a decrease in wholesale power prices, will
realize over $844 million in decreased power prices over a period of fifteen years between 2023
and 2037, discounted to present value. OCA Hearing Exh. 3, Transource Response to OCA-
XLIII-4. The transmission zones that are harmed will experience increased wholesale power
prices of approximately $812 million over that same period of time. Id.

107. Under the latest simulation, load-serving entities in the following states
would experience increased wholesale power prices as a result of the IEC Project: portions of
Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey, Delaware, Kentucky, Ohio, and Illinois. OCA Hearing
Ex. No. 3, Transource Response to OCA-XLIII-4; OCA Cross Exh. 10, Tr. 2613-2616.

108. As demonstrated in the most-recent simulation, load-serving entities in the

PECO Transmission Zone, located in Southern Pennsylvania, would experience an increase of
approximately $144 million in wholesale power prices over a 15-year period, those in the
PLGRP Transmission Zone, located in Eastern Pennsylvania, would experience an increase of
$166 million, those in the PSEG Transmission Zone, located in New Jersey, would experience an
increase of $138 million, those in the METED Transmission Zone, located in central-Southern
Pennsylvania, would experience an increase of $67 million, those in the JCPL Transmission
Zone, located in New Jersey, would experience an increase of $86 million, those in the
PENELEC Transmission Zone, located in central and Northern Pennsylvania, would experience
an increase of $50 million, those in the DPL Transmission Zone, located in Eastern Maryland
and Delaware, would experience an increase of $59 million, those in the AECO Transmission

31
Zone, located in New Jersey, would experience an increase of $32 million, those in the FE-ATSI
Transmission Zone, located in Northern Ohio, would experience an increase of $24 million,
those in the NEPTHVDC Transmission Zone would experience an increase of $15 million, those
in the RECO Transmission Zone, located in Northern New Jersey, would experience an increase
of $4 million, those located in the DUQ Transmission Zone, located in Western Pennsylvania,
would experience an increase of $1 million, those in the DEOK Transmission Zone, located in
Southern Ohio and Northern Kentucky, would experience an increase of $8 million, and those in
the COMED Transmission Zone, located in Southern Illinois, would experience an increase of
$16 million. OCA Hearing Exh. 3, Transource Response to OCA-XLIII-4, OCA Cross Exh. 10,
11.

109. As demonstrated in the most-recent simulation, load-serving entities in the

DOM Transmission Zone, located in Virginia and Northern North Carolina, would experience a
decrease of approximately $406 million in wholesale power prices over a 15-year period, those
in the PEPCO Transmission Zone, located in Washington D.C. and Eastern Maryland, would
experience a decrease of $171 million, those in the BGE Transmission Zone, located in central
Maryland, would experience a decrease of $107 million, those in the APS Transmission Zone,
located in West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland, and Western Pennsylvania, would experience a
decrease of $60 million, those in the AEP Transmission Zone, located in Virginia, West Virginia,
Ohio, and Kentucky, would experience a decrease of $84 million, those in the DAY
Transmission Zone, located in Western Ohio, would experience a decrease of $9 million, and
those in the EKPC Transmission Zone, located in Eastern Kentucky, would experience an
decrease of $7 million. OCA Hearing Exh. 3, Transource Response to OCA-XLIII-4, OCA
Cross Exh. 10, 11.

110. According to PJM’s December 2019 analysis of the IEC Project, when
netting any cost savings recognized by those Transmission Zones benefiting from the IEC
Project against any increased costs to those Transmission Zones impacted by the IEC Project, the
total impact of the IEC Project is a net decrease of $32.5 million in wholesale power prices over
a period of 15 years. OCA Hearing Exh. 3, Transource Response to OCA-XLIII-4.

32
 111. The costs to construct the IEC Project must be collected from load-serving
entities in the transmission zones that do benefit from this project, i.e. load-serving entities in
Virginia, Maryland, Washington D.C., and Western Pennsylvania. Transource St. 8-R, Exh. TH-
3R at 28. The greater a transmission zone benefits from the IEC Project, the more costs that
transmission zone is expected to pay. OCA St. 1 at 36-37.

112. Over the first 15 years of the service life of the IEC Project, the IEC
Project has a revenue requirement of approximately $527.6 million, discounted to present value,
based upon a Project capital cost of $496.17. Transource St. AA-3, Exh. TJH-AA3 at 4.

113. The IEC Project is not subject to a cost cap and is entitled to seek any
reasonable and prudent expenses that exceed the estimated cost of the IEC Project. The
benefitting zones would be required to pay any additional overrun. Applications, Att. 2, App.
2.3; Tr. at 2111-12.

114. Congestion is a natural economic occurrence sending energy price signals

to load-serving entities on the constrained side to build additional low-cost generation to mitigate
congestion. Tr. at 2266.

115. Constructing the IEC Project will create reliance on distant generation
resources located North and South of the constraint, rather than local, low-cost generation,
making the system less reliable as a whole. Tr. at 2396-97.

116. Monitoring Analytics, LLC is the Independent Market Monitor of PJM

and is charged with promoting a robust, competitive, and nondiscriminatory electric power
market in PJM. Tr. at 2619.

117. In the Independent Market Monitor’s most recent PJM State of the Market
Report, the Independent Market Monitor recommended that PJM’s market efficiency process be
eliminated. Tr. at 2619- 2620.

33
 118. Dr. Richard L. Lesher, retired President of the United States Chamber of
Commerce in Washington D.C., was born and raised in Franklin County and returned to
Chambersburg when he retired. Lesher Exhibit 1; PUC Exhibits 159-161.

119. There is no need for the project as not only has demand for electricity
flattened, but Baltimore Gas and Electric, PEPCO and other utilities in the Baltimore-
Washington D.C. area are ramping up buying green energy and producing some themselves.
Lesher Exhibit 1 at 10.

I. Impacts to Pennsylvania

120. The latest re-evaluation of the ‘benefits’ of the IEC Project demonstrates
that of the Company’s purported $845 million in economic ‘benefits,’ approximately $27 million
will accrue to load-serving entities in Western Pennsylvania in the first fifteen years of the IEC
Project’s useful life, or approximately 3.2 percent of the total purported ‘benefits.’ OCA
Hearing Exh. 3, Transource Response to OCA-XLIII-15.

121. The APS zone is composed of a portion of Western Pennsylvania, West

Virginia, Maryland, and Virginia. OCA Cross Exh. 10.

122. PJM’s latest re-evaluation indicates that APS will see reduced wholesale
power prices of approximately $60 million over the first 15 years of the Project’s service life.
OCA Hearing Exh. 3, Transource Response to OCA-XLIII-15.

123. Pennsylvania’s share of the benefits measured approximately 44.75

percent. OCA St. 1, Sch. SJR-6.

124. Under the most recent re-evaluation, the IEC Project will lead to an
increase in wholesale power prices in Pennsylvania of approximately $429 million over the first
fifteen years of the Project’s service life. OCA Hearing Exh. 3, Transource Response to OCA-
XLII-15.

34
 125. The increase in wholesale power prices in Pennsylvania of approximately
$429 million includes increases of approximately $166.1 million in the PLGRP Transmission
zone, $143.6 million in the PECO Transmission Zone, $66.7 million in the METED
Transmission Zone, $50.3 million in the PENELEC Transmission Zone, $1.8 million in the FE-
ATSI Transmission Zone, and $0.9 million in the DUQ Transmission Zone. OCA Hearing Exh.
3, Transource Response to OCA-XLII-15.

126. PJM’s latest re-evaluation indicates that FE-ATSI will see increased
wholesale power prices of approximately $24.5 million over the first 15 years of the Project’s
service life. OCA Hearing Exh. 3, Transource Response to OCA-XLIII-15.

127. Pennsylvania only comprises a portion of the FE-ATSI Transmission

Zone. OCA St. 1, Sch. SJR-6 at 2.

128. To calculate Pennsylvania’s share of the detriment, the OCA’s witness

measured Pennsylvania’s percentage of peak demand contributed to the FE-ATSI system in the
summer of 2018, which was approximately 7.20 percent. OCA St. 1, Sch. SJR-6.

129. Pennsylvania would likely experience approximately $1.8 million in

increased wholesale power prices from the FE-ATSI Transmission Zone for the first fifteen years
of the IEC Project’s service life, or 7.20 percent of the FE-ATSI zone’s detriment. OCA St. 1,
Sch. SJR-6.

130. For the alternative IEC-East portion, the Furnace-Run to Conastone

double circuit transmission line will be approximately 18 miles in total length, of which
approximately 2 miles will be constructed in the expanded ROW with new transmission towers
and 16 miles will be in the existing ROW on the existing towers. Amended IEC-East
Application at 14.

131. The Furnace Run-Graceton double circuit transmission line will be

approximately 11 miles in total length, of which approximately 2 miles will be constructed in the

35
expanded ROW with new transmission towers and 9 miles will be in the existing ROW on
existing towers. Amended IEC-East Application at 14.

132. For the West Portion of the IEC Project, the Company seeks approval to
construct a double-circuit 230-kV transmission line extending approximately 28.8 miles to
connect the existing Ringgold Substation located near Smithsburg, Washington County,
Maryland, and the proposed Rice Substation to be located in Franklin County, Pennsylvania.
IEC-West Application at 4.

133. Approximately 24.4 miles of the IEC-West portion will extend across
Franklin County of which approximately 13.6 miles will be built over presently unencumbered
land. IEC-West Application at 3-4.

J. Health and Safety of the Public

134. Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) are created whenever there is a flow of

electricity. Transource St. No. 15-R at 7.

135. There are two types of EMF associated with alternating electric current—
the electric field and the magnetic field. The electric field is created by the voltage, and the
magnetic field is created by the flow of current. Transource St. No. 15-R at 7.

136. Common sources of 60 Hz EMF include wiring in homes, businesses and

schools, lighting, home appliances, power tools and other electrical equipment. Transource St.
No. 15-R at 8.

137. The EMF levels for the IEC Project were below the recommended ranges
for public exposures and the magnetic fields are within the range that people experience in their
normal living and working environments. Transource St. No. 15-R at 14.

36
 138. Stray voltage is a voltage between two objects where no voltage should
exist. Transource St. No. 15-R at 17.

139. Quincy Township, Franklin County was not notified of Transource’s

planned construction activities before drilling occurred, damaging several areas within the
township. Tr. 861- 862, 864, 868, 985 - 986.

140. Depressions in roadways due to construction activities such as drilling are

expensive to repair and can cause a depression that may cause someone to hit, be run off the road
that cause injuries or possibly death. Tr. 861- 864, 868, 985 - 986.

141. Franklin County property owners object to Transource agents/employees

coming on their property, and helicopters or drones flying over the properties. Tr. 864.

142. Property owners have valid concerns regarding the safety of using certain
tools around the power lines and the spraying herbicides. Tr. 672, 690-691, 880, 915, 1052.

143. Farmers such as Allen and Lori Rice, Brian Brechbill, and Lois White of
Franklin County with transmission lines already running through their fields, have experienced
GPS equipment becoming unreliable when used under the power lines. Tr. 675, 705-707. PUC
Exhibits 98-110.

144. Lois White has two monopoles already owned by West Penn Power on her
property and it is very hard to maneuver large equipment around them. Tr. 705-707. PUC
Exhibits 98-110.

145. Linda Mower’s in-laws own an airstrip on their farm and are concerned
for the safety of pilots taking off and landing near the monopoles. Tr. 916.

146. Homeowners expressed health concerns regarding the power lines. Tr.
670, 689, 696, 701, 790, 820, 828, 845, 853-858, 880, 914, 935, 957- 958, 1035, 1103- 1104.

37
 147. Landowners with cows, horses and/or chickens are concerned the project
will result in stray voltage that shock themselves and their animals and cattle owners fear their
heifers would spontaneously abort their calves if they were living in close proximity to high
voltage lines. Tr. 673-680, 689- 690, 716, 799, 829, 843, 876, 880- 881, 914, 963- 964, 1062,
1085, 1133, 1141, 1142, 1326. PUC Exhibits 242, 162-191.

148. The owners of Benedict’s Produce are concerned that once the monopoles
and wires are constructed, stray voltage may shock them while they work in their field. Tr.
1185-1196. PUC Exhibits 82-97.

K. Environmental Impact

149. Construction of the monopoles may adversely affect homeowners’ wells

and nearby aquifers and springs. Tr. 701, 1024, 1034, 1327-1328, 1333-1342, 1348-1349. PUC
Exhibits 216-235.

150. Construction of monopoles through blasting, drilling, staging monopoles,

and driving heavy equipment, may adversely affect wetlands and the Falling Spring in Franklin
County, which has high quality springs and waterways that have trout hatcheries nearby and
have been fished by former Presidents Carter and Eisenhower. Tr. 791, 1014- 1017, 1055- 1056,
1141.

151. The spring branch of the Falling Spring watershed is a limestone-fed

spring that is widely considered one of the most abundant waterways on the East Coast for wild
rainbow trout and new construction of power lines and defoliation as a result of construction will
damage the spring. Tr. 1010 - 1051.

152. Transource maps do not show Falling Spring as wetlands when in fact it
is. Tr. 1050.

38
 153. Carl Helman lives along Falling Springs and has concerns about the
wildlife that depend on the spring and the effects construction would have on the underground
supports for his water supply system. Tr. 1071.

154. Drilling may damage an underground limestone spring that feeds the creek
and Falling Spring. Tr. 789.

155. Janet Pollard works for the Franklin County Visitors Bureau, and is
concerned that the preconstruction, construction, and maintenance of the monopoles disrupts
wildlife habitats and has a negative impact on tourism in Franklin County. Tr. 944- 945.

156. Ann Fincuane lives across from a field that is known to get sinkholes
almost every year. She is concerned about the monopoles that will be built there in relation to the
reoccurring sinkhole issues. Tr. 1090.

157. Owners with wooded areas as part of their land are concerned about the
destruction to vegetation that the towers would bring. Tr. 707.

158. The removal of forest areas will change animal habitats and plant life. Tr.
945.

159. There would be less environmental impact if instead of paralleling the

proposed line through Franklin County with a West Penn Power and/or MAIT-owned
transmission line, the project utilized the same ROW as existing transmission lines. Tr. 700-750.

L. Economic Impact

160. The Kauffman’s farm at 4220 and 4297 Olde Scotland Road,
Chambersburg will be adversely affected economically by the Route C, West line as it will cut
through their faming fields along I-81. PUC Exhibits 54-70, Tr. 1153-1165.

39
 161. Route C - West at mile marker 19 on I-81, will reduce the value of Fred
Byers’ rental property as the easement goes two feet over the farmhouse, and will overlap a
current easement held by West Penn Power for its overhead line. Tr. 1168-1169, PUC Exhibits
71-83.

162. Benedict’s Produce will sustain economic impact if the Route C West line
is constructed at 1883 Ragged Edge Road, Chambersburg, as the proposed route including
monopoles goes through the middle of his vegetable/produce growing field. Tr. 1173-1187,
PUC Exhibits 82-97.

163. The owners of Benedict’s Produce will likely sustain economic loss as a
result of construction ruining their ability to plant, grow and harvest fruits and vegetables, which
they in turn sell to 100 Giant Foods grocery stores. Tr. 1185-1196, PUC Exhibits 82-97.

164. The soils that will be affected by the project represent one of the largest
contiguous areas of high-quality soil in Pennsylvania. Tr. 752- 760.

165. Todd Sommer, owner of Sommer Springs Farms and a supervisor for a
utility company, has personally experienced utility companies bringing in their own crew after
promising to hire local. Tr. 610.

166. The Owl’s Club is affected by an eminent domain application in Franklin

County regarding a 38-acre property used for trout fishing and other recreational activities. Tr.
1682-1683.

167. The Owl’s Club requests the Commission veto the project or at least
require Transource to propose a “piggy-backing” of the existing infrastructure already on the
property. Tr. 1684, PUC Exhibits 404-407.

168. “The Pricing of Power Lines: a Geospatial Approach to Measuring

Residential Property Values” authored by David Wyman and Christopher Mothorpe is a

40
study/report published in the American Real Estate Society, a trade journal, Volume 40, Issue
No. 1 of 2018, which used a sample of 5, 455 vacant lots sold in Pickens County, South
Carolina, uncovering substantive pricing discounts of 44.9% for properties adjacent to power
lines, and a pricing discount of 17.9% for non-adjacent vacant properties up to 1,000 feet from
the power lines. Tr. 1681-1691, PUC Exhibit 408.

169. Clint Barkdoll, as an individual, expressed concern that appraisers will

rely upon the studies’ findings and landowners “will rush into the County tax assessment office
and file a tax appeal” based on this study, Tax Assessment Boards and the Courts are going to be
required to grant lower tax assessment values, and they will “all pay for that in higher taxes
and/or cuts to programs.” Tr. 1686-1689.

170. James Quesenberry, Jr. is a York realtor who sells lots, farms, and
residential homes and is aware that peoples’ perceptions of transmission lines has an effect on
sale ability and values. Tr. 125-126.

171. The proposed lines will likely negatively affect homeowners’ real estate
property values. Tr. 668-672, 678, 685- 686, 689- 691, 701, 705, 710, 762, 820, 830, 842, 851-
859, 879, 915, 920, 937, 957, 1011, 1022, 1023, 1062, 1067, 1068, 1079, 1134.

172. Patrice Nitterhouse is a real estate developer who testified to concerns as

to how the project will negatively affect the value of her property and her business as a
developer. Tr. 762 - 763.

173. Colby Nitterhouse rejected a $38,000 offer for a ROW through his
property as he intends to subdivide and develop it for his children in the future. Tr. 1310, PUC
Exhibits 192-197.

174. Carol A. Pugh from Franklin County asked how the project will affect her
property value and the answer she received was, “there’s too many variables to know.” Tr. 798.

41
 175. Project 9A will diminish the historical and tourism value of Georgiana
Horst’s farm, which is known as a Bicentennial Farm by the Department of Agriculture. Tr. 881.

176. Property owners in Franklin County with preserved land subject to

conservation easements object to the project. Tr. 672, 674, 850-851.

177. Business owners and property owners testified to concerns over the effect
on farm animals, growth of vegetation, crops and produce with the construction of the
monopoles. Tr. 668- 669, 846 - 847, 850.

178. Project 9A will negatively affect local businesses and economic growth in
York and Franklin Counties. Tr. 682, 694- 695, Tr. 715- 716, 880, 1059.

179. Roy Cordell is concerned he will not be able to access fields on his
property for farming hay and other crops during construction of monopoles and lines on his 99+
acre property due to a “zig-zag” pattern on the maps. Tr. 1321-1324, PUC Exhibits 199-215.

180. Homeowners David Siegrist, Sharla Dunlap, Kristyn Martin and Ashley
Hospelhorn on Hidden Valley Road, Waynesboro are concerned of reductions in the appraised
values of their homes as well as of losing trees, a viewshed, and they have health concerns about
residing so close to a second transmission line behind the road’s cul-de-sac especially because
there is already one existing. Tr. 1360-1376, PUC Exhibits 264-286.

181. Sharla Dunlap owns property that does not show up on Transource’s map
of the project and the line will be approximately 300 feet from her back porch. Tr. 826.

182. Franklin County is known for its agriculture, wildlife recreation, scenery,
animal habitats, and historical features like the Underground Railroad and the IEC transmission
lines will affect the tourist attraction to Franklin County. Tr. 943- 944-946.

42
 183. Heather Stine’s family of Franklin County, rents land to a local farmer
who is certified organic with economic/environmental concerns over the spraying on the land
that could affect revenue. Tr. 1079.

184. Many homeowners have valid concerns over the damage of fertile land
being compacted or destroyed, trees, and crops when it comes to the construction and
maintenance of the towers. Tr. 672, 675, 706-707, 800, 879- 880, 1019-1020.

185. Historical artifacts and sites in Franklin County may be destroyed with the
construction of the monopoles. Tr. 669- 670.

186. The proposed power line will be less than 250 feet from Ruth Frech’s
house. Tr. 841.

187. Fred Rice is on the Guilford Township Zoning Board and they have a
zoning law that a building cannot be over 50 feet high but the towers are going to be 130 feet. Tr.
877.

188. Georgiana Horst, co-owner of Horst Seed Hybirds, has no other retirement
plan available to her with the exception of her farm that is her business. Tr. 881.

189. Travis Schooley, a chief water operator, engineering coordinator and grant
writer for Quincy Township, has not received any information, map update, or permits, regarding
the project, as they should according to the local ordinances. Tr. 888.

190. Heather Stine family owns land on the proposed route where it is believed
to be a Native American Indian Burial site. Tr. 1078.

191. Leslie Bowman will be affected by this project and already has monopoles
on their property. Tr. 1109.

43
 192. The project would adversely impact the Chambersburg School District’s
Tim Cook Memorial Cross Country Course, which is used by both the middle school and high
school boys and girls running teams. Chambersburg hosts many cross country meets from
August – October that may have as many as 1,000 people and 300-400 cars to park at a meet.
Tr. 1223.

193. The proposed power line would be on the Falling Springs Elementary
School property parallel to and along the edge of the Tim Cook Memorial Cross Country Course,
a 5000 kilometer/ 3.1 mile course. Tr. 1225.

194. Sarah Herbert is the building principal at Sinking Springs Elementary

School. Tr. 1226.

195. Approximately 36 faculty and 275 students attend Falling Springs

Elementary School on a daily basis when school is in session. Tr. 1277.

196. The proposed power line would be approximately 700 feet from the
elementary school building according to Transource’s map. Tr. 1228-1230.

197. Superintendent Padasak and the school board received some concerns
from parents about the proposed line. Tr. 1230-1233.

198. Members of the public also run and walk the cross country course. Tr.
1235, 1238-1239.

199. Construction on the line between the months of August through October
would interfere with the cross country season and would require the school district to relocate the
activity at a cost of at least $1,000 to bus the student-athletes elsewhere. Tr. 1236-1237.

200. Thirty-one student-athletes, parents, and alumni from the cross country
teams submitted letters dated in November 2018 opposing the project. Nitterhouse Exhibit 1.

44
 201. Skelly Meadows is Falling Spring fed and has unique fly hatches, which
support wild trout in high-value, blue-ribbon trout stream. Tr. 1245-1246.

202. Transource intends to drill for monopoles directly above the springs along
Falling Spring Road. Tr. 1257.

203. The springs could be damaged by blasting or changing of the rock

formations underneath and by defoliation around the springs. Tr. 1248-1257.

204. The trout in the Falling Spring will be negatively affected if the Spring is
defoliated as lack of foliation will likely result in higher water temperatures and trout do not
tolerate warm water. Tr. 1255.

205. Jason Forrester farms organic crops such as corn, hay, soybeans on Allan
Stine’s property, which is adjacent to the cross country course. Tr. 1259-1261.

206. If Transource’s project were to cross Allan Stine’s property, that could
cause Mr. Forrester to lose organic certification as Transource’s construction trucks could carry
contaminants onto the fields. Tr. 1262-1265.

207. Allen and Lori Rice run a 100-acre farm with 8,000-10,000 head of cattle
and 40-50 employees in Franklin County. Tr. 1272-1273. PUC Exhibits 162-191.

208. Allen and Lori Rice are concerned about the effect the proposed line
would have going over their high-temperature composting facility. Tr. 1276.

209. Mr. and Mrs. Rice’s employees work on large farm equipment and they
are concerned with stray voltage shocking them as the work in all kinds of weather conditions.
Tr. 1277-1278, 1286-1287, PUC Exhibits 162-191.

45
 210. Mr. and Mrs. Rice are concerned their heifers may have spontaneous
abortions due to higher electricity in the area they are trying to raise their animals. Tr. 1282.

211. Mr. and Mrs. Rice are concerned the proposed project may negatively
affect their well water. Tr. 1282-1283, 1291-1292.

212. Mr. and Mrs. Rice’s tractors are steered by GPS, and they will likely
become unreliable if Transource builds transmission lines over their property. Tr. 1289-1290.

213. Daniel Long is concerned the new transmission line parallel to an existing
line will interfere with farming crops and will have a negative economic impact on the value of
his property at 9949 Wayne Highway, Waynesboro. Tr. 1377-1381. PUC Exhibits 287-291.

214. Laura Mueller testified that the proposed towers would be “out of scale”
with the beautiful landscape in Franklin County and she expressed concerns over transmission
lines sparking fires. PUC Exhibit 413.

M. Availability of Reasonable Alternatives

215. The competitive model that PJM uses for resolving issues such as the
congestion on the AP South Interfaces4 is referred to as a sponsorship model, where PJM looks at
proposals that are submitted, identifies a solution, and the party who has submitted that proposal or
sponsored that proposal is then designated to construct and later own, maintain and operate that
facility. Tr. at 2272-2273.

216. Under PJM’s sponsorship model, PJM can only review submitted
proposals; and does not consider other solutions including the existence and potential upgrade of
parallel transmission lines/facilities to a proposed project as well as alternative energy solutions
designed to meet an additional need for transmission service. Transource St. 7-R at 27-28.

4
The AP South Reactive Interface is a set of four 500 (kV) transmission lines originating in West Virginia
and terminating in Maryland and Virginia. OCA R.B. 1.

46
 217. All evaluated solutions to congestion on the AP South Reactive Interface
were transmission-based solutions. Transource St. 8-R, Exh. TH-3R at 17.

218. PJM cannot require generation to be built. Transource St. 7-RJ at 8.

219. Sufficient low-cost generation in the constrained side of a congestion

constraint can mitigate congestion. Tr. at 2648-2649.

220. There are available non-wires alternatives that may address congestion on
the AP South Reactive Interface including energy conservation, energy efficiency, demand
response, solar resources, wind energy resources, and renewable energy storage. OCA St. 3 at
15-17.

221. PJM did not adequately consider energy efficiency resources, solar and
wind renewable resources in combination with energy storage systems, and distributed
generation resources. OCA St. 3 at 17-19.

222. In 2018, the Virginia General Assembly passed the Grid Transformation
and Security Act of 2018, which became effective in March 2018, and finds that additional 5,000
megawatts (MW) of utility-scale solar and wind resource facilities are in the public interest, and
encourages demand-side management programs capable of reduce customers’ overall annual
energy usage by 805 gigawatt-hours (GWh) and system peak demand by 304 MW by 2033.
OCA St. 3 at 19-20.

223. The Maryland Legislature passed a law in April 2017 that mandated a 2%
per year reduction in electric energy use. With Maryland’s electric energy use in 2016 at over
93,000 GWH, the 2% mandate would be 1,868 GWH. OCA St. 3 at 24.

224. The District of Columbia’s Department of the Environment conducted an

analysis wherein they quantified the economic energy efficiency potential in the District of
Columbia to be 5,537,521 MWh/yr. in 2022. In addition the District of Columbia’s Department

47
of the Environment estimated that there is a technical potential of 2,498,000 MWh/year for
rooftop PV and Urban Utility scale PV potential in the District of Columbia. OCA St. 3 at 22-
24.

225. According to the United States Department of Energy 2016 Technical

potential study, there is 7,861 MW’s of CHP technical potential in the District of Columbia,
Maryland, and Virginia.

226. PJM has not updated its modelling to include the Virginia Grid
Transformation and Security Act of 2018, the 2017 Maryland law, or the Clean Energy D.C.
Omnibus Act of 2018. Transource St. 7-R at 30.

N. Eminent Domain

227. Transource filed 133 Eminent Domain Applications on or about May 15,
2018.

228. Forty eminent domain applications pertained to properties in York County,

and the remaining ninety-three pertained to Franklin County.

229. Since May 2018, Transource has acquired ROW easements with many of
these landowners and withdrew fifty-six eminent domain applications, including an application
against West Penn Power Company at A-2018-3002129, deemed withdrawn on December 31,
2018. See Fifth and Sixth Prehearing Orders.

230. West Penn Power (a losing bidder to the IEC project) initially protested
the eminent domain application and intended to present testimony at the hearing; however, the
transmission operators were able to agree to a ROW. Sixth Prehearing Order.

48
 231. As a result of its agreement with PPL, Citizens and York County Planning
Commission, Transource claims it has secured ROWs in York County necessary to complete
that portion of the project.

232. Approximately seventy-seven eminent domain applications, however,

remain pending against: Chambersburg Area School District, at A-2018-3002055, Guilford
Water Authority at A-2018-3002048, DC Farms at A-2018-3002051, J. Ross McGinnis at A-
2018-3001925, McGinnis Partnership at A-2018-3001929, the Patriot Federal Credit Union at
A-2018-3002108, and Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc. at A-2018-3002103, among others.

O. Zoning Exemption for Buildings/Shelters

233. No party argues against the zoning exemption for buildings/shelters to

house substation equipment in this proceeding.

III. DISCUSSION

Applicant Transource is an electric transmission company and public utility

subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Commission. 66 Pa. C.S. § 102. Transource Energy,
LLC is the parent company of Transource. American Electric Power (AEP) in partnership with
Evergy are the parent corporations to Transource Energy, LLC.

Transource has no customers in Pennsylvania; however, the parent company,

Transource Energy, LLC, was awarded a contract with PJM to construct the IEC Project as a
market efficiency project in portions of York and Franklin Counties as well as in Maryland in
order to address perceived congestion in the Baltimore, Maryland – Washington D.C. areas
outside of Pennsylvania.

Joint Applicant PPL to the IEC East Amended Application is a public utility and
electric distribution company offering transmission services operating in the East portion of the
IEC project, and is subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Commission. 66 Pa. C.S. § 102.

49
PPL furnishes electric distribution, transmission, and supplier of last resort services to
approximately 1.4 million customers in a service area that includes approximately 10,000 square
miles covering all or portions of twenty-nine counties in eastern and central Pennsylvania. PPL
is a member of PJM Interconnection, LLC.

The consolidated proceedings before the Commission are applications of

Transource at A-2017-2640200 for approval of the siting and construction of a 230 kV
transmission line associated with the IEC – West Project in Franklin County and at A-2017-
2640195, the Joint Application of Transource and PPL filed in January 2020, for approval of the
siting and construction of a 230 kV line associated with the IEC-East Project in York County.
Specifically, for the West Portion, the Company proposed to construct a Rice Substation in
Franklin County and a new 230 kV transmission line extending 28.8 miles to connect the
existing Ringgold Substation located near Smithsburg, Washington County, Maryland to the
proposed Rice Substation in Franklin County, Pennsylvania, also known as the Rice-Ringgold
230 kV Transmission Line (collectively, the West Portion of the IEC Project). IEC West
Application at 10-11. Of the 28.8 miles of the proposed Rice-Ringgold 230 kV Transmission
Line, 24.4 miles will be located in Pennsylvania and this is the portion the Company is seeking
approval to construct from this Commission, in addition to the Rice Substation. Id. at 11. With
respect to the East Portion, the Company originally proposed to construct a Furnace Run
Substation in York County and a new 230 kV transmission line extending 15.7 miles to connect
the existing Conastone Substation located near Norrisville, Harford County, Maryland to the
proposed Furnace Run Substation in York County, also known as the Furnace Run-Conastone
230 kV Transmission Line (collectively the original configuration of the East Portion of the IEC
Project). IEC East Application at 10-11. Of the 15.7 miles of the proposed Furnace Run-
Conastone 230 kV Transmission Line, 12.7 miles were to be located in Pennsylvania. Id. at 11.

As support for the IEC Project, the Company asserts that the IEC Project is a
market efficiency project designed to relieve congestion on the AP South Reactive Interface, a
set of four 500 kV transmission lines that originate in West Virginia and terminate in Maryland.
Transource St. 3 at 7-8. The Company’s evidence relies on the determinations that PJM made
during its Regional Transmission Expansion Plan (RTEP) process. IEC West Application, Att. 2

50
at 2. PJM conducts a market efficiency analysis during its RTEP to find areas where congestion
exists and seeks solutions to reduce congestion. Id. at 2-3. In this instance, PJM identified a
constraint caused in part by the inability for additional electricity to flow East and South of the
AP South Reactive Interface, which caused load-serving entities in Virginia, Maryland, and
Washington D.C. to rely on higher-cost generation, rather than low-cost generation North and
West of the constraint. Transource St. 3 at 25. The Company asserts that alleviating this
constraint will lead to a more efficient use of generation resources across the PJM region and
lower wholesale power prices for load-serving entities in Virginia, Maryland, Washington D.C.,
and a portion of Western Pennsylvania. Id. PJM’s basis for selecting the IEC Project is that it
exceeded the 1.25:1 benefit-cost threshold required under PJM’s Operating Agreement for
market efficiency projects, purportedly providing the most benefits of the projects submitted.
Transource St. 3 at 31.

Transource and PPL seek approval for the siting and construction of the
transmission lines, findings that the exercise of the power of eminent domain to acquire ROWs
across tracts of land is necessary or proper for the service, accommodation, convenience or
safety of the public, and a finding that a building to shelter control equipment at the Furnace Run
Substation in York County and at the Rice Substation in Franklin County are reasonably
necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public. A substantial portion of the IEC East
Project is designed to utilize ROW already owned by PPL, thus minimizing the necessity to exert
eminent domain over all of the proposed area. The genesis of this proposed project is discussed
in the “Need” portion of the Discussion, below.

The basic threshold issue is whether Transource and PPL have demonstrated by
substantial evidence that the project is needed. If the answer is yes, then the discussion can
proceed to whether the routes selected are appropriate in terms of location, safety, health and
environmental impacts, and costs, whether the eminent domain applications and shelter petitions
for zoning exemptions should be granted, and whether the Company may begin construction
before all other permits have been obtained.

51
A. Legal Standards

1. Burden of Proof

The proponent of a rule or order in any Commission proceeding has the burden of
proof, 66 Pa. C.S. § 332, and Transource, as the Applicant, has the burden of proving its case by
a preponderance of the evidence, or evidence which is more convincing than the evidence
presented by the other parties. The proponent’s evidence must fairly outweigh the probative
value of any proof offered against its claim. Se-Ling Hosiery v. Margulies, 364 Pa. 45, 70 A.3d
854 (1950); Samuel J. Lansberry, Inc. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 578 A.2d 600 (Pa. Cmwlth.
1990).

Additionally, any finding of fact necessary to support an adjudication of the

Commission must be based upon substantial evidence, which is such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Mill v. Comm., Pa. Pub. Util.
Comm’n, 447 A.2d 1100 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982); Edan Transp. Corp. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 623
A.2d 6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993), 2 Pa. C.S. § 704. More is required than a mere trace of evidence or
a suspicion of the existence of a fact sought to be established. Norfolk & W. Ry. V. Pa. Pub. Util.
Comm’n, 489 Pa. 109, 413 A.2d 1037 (1980); Erie Resistor Corp. v. Unemployment Com. Bd. Of
Review, 166 A.2d 96 (Pa. Super. 1960); Murphy v. Pa. Dept. of Pub. Welfare, White Haven Ctr.,
480 A.2d 382 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984).

The parties disagree on whether the burden of going forward shifts from one party
to another. Transource argues that the “burden” shifts to the opponent if the applicant sets forth
a prima facie case, and the OCA argues that the “burden of proof” never shifts from the applicant
to show need for this project. Transource M.B. at 17, OCA M.B. at 1-2. OCA contends the
burden of production may shift between parties during the course of a hearing; however, the
burden of persuasion never leaves the party on whom it is originally cast. OCA RB at 7 citing
Nolan Wenger v. UGI Utils., Inc. – Gas Division, Docket No. C-2008-2076768, 2009 Pa. PUC
LEXIS 162 at 9 (Initial Decision entered September 18, 2009) and Riedel v. Cnty. of Allegheny,

52
633 A.2d 1325, 1328 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993). I agree with OCA’s description of the burden of proof
in this proceeding.

2. Standards for Siting Applications

The parties differ regarding exactly what the Company must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence. OCA cites Sections 332(a) and 1501 of the Public Utility Code,
66 Pa. C.S. §§ 332(a) and 1501. Pursuant to Sections 332(a) and 1501 of the Public Utility
Code, the Company has the burden of proof to demonstrate that the IEC Project is necessary to
maintain adequate, efficient, safe, and reasonable service and facilities. 66 Pa. C.S. §§ 332(a),
1501. Under the Commission’s Regulations, the Company must demonstrate a need for the
transmission line among other factors pursuant to 52 Pa. Code § 57.76(a). In light of the
Commission’s obligations under the Environmental Rights Amendment as outlined in Pa. Envt’l
Defense Foundation v. Commonwealth, 161 A.3d 911, 930 (Pa. 2017) (PEDF), the Company has
a heavy burden to meet each of the statutory and regulatory requirements for a transmission
siting project that infringes upon the environmental rights of Pennsylvanians.

In addition, Section 1501 of the Public Utility Code provides in pertinent part:

§ 1501. Character of service and facilities.

Every public utility shall furnish and maintain adequate,

efficient, safe, and reasonable service and facilities, and shall make
all such repairs, changes, alterations, substitutions, extensions, and
improvements in or to such service and facilities as shall be
necessary or proper for the accommodation, convenience, and
safety of its patrons, employees, and the public. Such service also
shall be reasonably continuous and without unreasonable
interruptions or delay. Such service and facilities shall be in
conformity with the regulations and orders of the commission . . . .

66 Pa. C.S. § 1501, See also PPL Main Brief at 18.

This statute requires Transource to furnish adequate facilities. The Commission

granted a certificate of public convenience but did not predetermine a need for the project. In the

53
instant proceeding, Transource may not construct the IEC project unless it can show that the
project is necessary or proper, and in conformity with the regulations issued by the Commission,
which govern transmission line siting, discussed below. Falling short of proving the project is
necessary or proper for the accommodation, convenience and safety of its patrons, employees
and the public would be a violation of Section 1501 as unnecessary change constitutes
inadequate service to the public. The proper standard is determined by applying the threshold
“necessary or proper” standard in Section 1501 and reviewing the application in the context of
compliance with the Commission’s regulations.

Similarly, Section 57.76 of the Commission’s regulations provides:

§ 57.76. Determination and order.

(a) The Commission will issue its order, with its opinion, if
any, either granting or denying the application, in whole or in part,
as filed or upon the terms, conditions or modifications, of the
location, construction, operation or maintenance of the line as the
Commission may deem appropriate. The Commission will not
grant the application, either as proposed or as modified, unless it
finds and determines as to the proposed HV line:

(1) That there is a need for it.

(2) That it will not create an unreasonable risk of

danger to the health and safety of the public.

(3) That it is in compliance with applicable statutes

and regulations providing for the protection of the natural
resources of this Commonwealth.

(4) That it will have minimum adverse

environmental impact, considering the electric power needs of
the public, the state of available technology and the available
alternatives.

(b) A Commission order granting a siting application will be

deemed to include a grant of authority, subject to the provisions of
law, to locate and construct the proposed HV transmission line
within a corridor consisting of the area of 500 feet on each side of
the centerline of the proposed HV transmission line unless the
applicant requests and the Commission approves a corridor of a

54
 different size. A proposed HV transmission line may not be
constructed outside the corridor, except upon petition to and
approval by the Commission.

52 Pa. Code § 57.76 (emphasis added). See also, In re: Application of Trans-Allegheny
Interstate Line Co., Docket No. A-110172 (Opinion and Order entered December 12, 2008)
(TrAILCo).5

The four prongs in Section 57.76 provide the structure for the Commission’s
evaluation. In determining whether the Company has satisfied the four prongs, the Commission
may consider evidence enumerated in another regulation, Section 57.75. This section provides,
in relevant part:

§ 57.75. Hearing and notice.

***

(e) At hearings held under this section, the Commission will

accept evidence upon, and in its determination of the application it
will consider, inter alia, the following matters:

(1) The present and future necessity of the proposed

HV line in furnishing service to the public.

(2) The safety of the proposed HV line.

(3) The impact and the efforts which have been and
will be made to minimize the impact, if any, of the proposed HV
line upon the following:

(i) Land use.

(ii) Soil and sedimentation.
(iii) Plant and wildlife habitats.
(iv) Terrain.
(v) Hydrology.
(vi) Landscape.

5
The TrAILCo case was determined to be driven by economics and not reliability, where the costs would
outweigh any benefits which might be achieved. The Commission found that the potential costs of greenhouse
emissions, DSM, and energy efficiency alternatives and whether the proposal was built to facilitate west-to-east
transfers of generation were appropriate factors to be weighed. Id. at 29.

55
 (vii) Archeologic areas.
(viii) Geologic areas.
(ix) Historic areas.
(x) Scenic areas.
(xi) Wilderness areas.
(xii) Scenic rivers.

(4) The availability of reasonable alternative routes.

52 Pa. Code § 57.75(e).

This regulation enumerates the information which is considered to be relevant in

evaluating the standard set forth in 52 Pa. § 57.76(a). In addition, case law has evaluated this
standard and holds that, when a project will affect the environment:

The Commission is constitutionally obligated to evaluate whether a

proposal to locate and construct high voltage transmission lines
ensures the protection of the environment whenever the issue of
damage to the environment is raised. Pa. Const of 1968, Art. I §
27. This requirement is satisfied when the Commission is able to
determine that all applicable statutes and regulations relevant to the
protection of the environment have been complied with, that a
reasonable effort has been made to reduce the impact on the
environment to a minimum, and that the environmental harm is
clearly outweighed by the benefits to be derived from the facilities
to be constructed. Payne v. Kassab, 312 A.2d 86 (Pa. Cmwlth.
1973), aff’d, 323 A.2d 407 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1974), and aff’d, 468 Pa.
226, 361 A.2d 263 (1976).

Application of PPL Elec. Utils. Corp. filed Pursuant to 52 Pa.Code Chapter 47, Subchapter G,
for Approval of the Siting and Constr. of the N. Lancaster Honey Brook #1 & #2 138/69 kV
Transmission Lines in Lancaster Cnty., Pa., Docket No. A-2014-2430565 (R.D. dated Feb. 27,
2015 at 42; Final Order entered April 23, 2015, adopting RD).

The Company argues that it has satisfied the regulatory and statutory
requirements for the Applications. Whereas, OCA, STFC and Franklin County argue that key
elements of those regulatory requirements are unfulfilled, and therefore, the Applications cannot
be granted. This Recommended Decision reviews the evidence as it relates to the required four-
pronged test in 52 Pa. Code § 57.76(a), above. As the regulation states, the first element to be

56
established is “need,” 52 Pa. Code § 57.76(a)(1), specifically the “present and future necessity of
the proposed HV line in furnishing service to the public.” 52 Pa. Code § 57.75(e)(1). If need is
not proven, then no further analysis need be done and the application can be denied and
dismissed.

3. Standards for Eminent Domain

There is a dispute regarding the appropriate standard for the exercise of eminent
domain because some of the properties to be condemned are subject to conservation easements.
Franklin County argues that this instant proceeding should be stayed and Transource should be
directed to seek approval from the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County – Orphans Court
Division and Court of Common Pleas of York County – Orphans Court Division regarding its
plans to condemn certain lands subject to conservation easements pursuant to Act 45. Under Act
45, the orphans’ court must deny condemnation of a land subject to a conservation easement
unless there is no reasonable and prudent alternative. 26 Pa.C.S.A. § 208(d) (emphasis added).

Franklin County argues that it was legal error for the ALJs not to stay the case for
the orphans’ courts to make a determination as to whether Transource was required to obtain
prior approval of the condemnation of land subject to conservation easements under Act 45, and
if so, whether there was no reasonable and prudent alternative in order to effectuate the purpose
of Act 45. Franklin County argues that while the exemptions in section 208(a) of Act 45 may be
to prevent repetitive review of the same condemnation by multiple regulatory agencies, the
condemnation must be reviewed using the standard set forth in Act 45 to ensure that there is no
reasonable and prudent alternative to the condemnation of these protected lands. See In re
Condemnation of Springboro Area Water Auth. of Prop. of Gillette, 898 A.2d 6, 11 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2006).

Before Franklin County intervened in this proceeding, STFC and Citizens argued
the same and consideration was given to staying these proceedings for a finding of the ALCAB
and local government bodies regarding the proposed routes in York and Franklin Counties. No
stay was issued because although the Commission has not yet determined whether there is a need

57
for the project, the Commission did issue a certificate of public convenience to Transource,
granting it public utility status, and if the Commission deems that the project is necessary and
that there is a need, then Transource likely will circumvent the Orphans Court and ALCAB as
there is an exception for public utility facilities. On June 24, 2018, Act 45 of 2018 (“Act 45”)
was signed into law. Act 45 amends Title 26 (Eminent Domain) of the Pennsylvania
Consolidated Statutes. Section 208 provides for eminent domain of land subject to conservation
easement.

With the 2018 amendment, Act 45 provides in pertinent part:

§ 208. Eminent domain of land subject to conservation easement

(a) Approval required. Except as provided in subsection (g), no

political subdivision, authority, public utility or other body having or
exercising powers of eminent domain shall condemn any land subject to a
conservation easement for any purpose, unless prior approval has been
obtained from the orphans’ court of the county in which the land is
located. The condemnation approval specified by this subsection shall not
be required for an underground public utility facility that does not
permanently impact the open space benefits protected by the conservation
easement. The condemnation approval specified by this subsection shall
not be required for any public utility facility or other project that is subject
to approval by a federal agency, the necessity for the proprietary and
environmental effects of which has been reviewed and ratified or approved
by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission or the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, regardless of whether the right to establish and
maintain such underground or other public utility facility is obtained by
condemnation or by agreement with the owner.

(b) Determination of blight. The exercise of eminent domain powers

based on a condition of land subject to a conservation easement shall not
be authorized under section 205 (relating to blight) unless the orphans’
court determines the exercise is necessary to protect the health and safety
of the community.

(c) Notice. Any condemnor wishing to condemn property, the approval

for which is required under this section, shall at least 30 days prior to
taking such action, notify the orphans’ court that the action is
contemplated.

58
 (d) Review. The orphans’ court shall review the proposed
condemnation and approve the proposed condemnation only if the court
determines there is no reasonable and prudent alternative to the utilization
of the land subject to a conservation easement for the project.

(e) Findings and decisions. The orphans’ court shall render findings
and decision of the court’s review under subsection (d) and shall report the
findings and decisions to the proposed condemnor.

(f) Injunctions. The orphans’ court may request the Attorney

General to bring an action to enjoin a condemnor from violating any
provision of this section.”

26 Pa. C.S. §§ 208(a)–(f)(emphasis added).

Although portions of the land encompassed by the pending Condemnation

Applications filed by Transource are agricultural and subject to conservation easements, Act 45
specifically excludes “public utility facilities” from the required approval. I can see where there
might be a dispute as the utility was granted a certificate of public convenience before a need for
the proposed transmission service project was determined by the Commission and because
Transource does not currently have any facilities or operations in the State of Pennsylvania.
However, I am not persuaded to recommend a stay of the instant proceedings now pending an
outcome in the Orphan’s Courts of York and/or Franklin Counties. My interpretation of Act 45
is that the proposed IEC Project falls within the meaning of a “public utility facility” as it is
subject to review by the Commission.

Therefore, the approval required under Act 45 does not apply to the Siting
Applications and Condemnation Applications filed by Transource. Act 45’s exclusion of public
utility facilitates from the required approval mirrors the exclusion for public utility facilities in
the Agricultural Area Security Law. See 3 P.S. § 913(b). See, e.g., In re Condemnation of
Springboro Area Water Auth., 898 A.2d 6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006). Therefore ALJ Calvelli and I
did not stay the instant proceedings or direct Transource to seek approval from any orphan’s
courts prior to hearings being held in this matter.

I agree with Transource that Section 1511 of the Business Corporation Law of
1988 (BCL) applies to the instant case. Section 1511 grants public utility corporations, such as

59
Transource, the power to take and condemn property for the purpose of providing electricity to
the public. See 15 Pa. C.S. § 1511(a)(3). I agree that the scope of the Commission’s review is
pursuant to Section 1511, a provision of the Business Corporation Law, 15 Pa. C.S. § 1511(c),
which applies to public utility corporations. Transource must show that the exercise of eminent
domain is “necessary or proper for the service, accommodation, convenience or safety of the
public” to support the taking. If such takings are necessary to provide electrical service to
members of the public who would otherwise be unserved by public electric utilities, they are for
a public purpose. Condemnation by Valley Rural Elec. Coop., 982 A.2d 566 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2009).

The certificate of public convenience Transource holds is narrowly tailored for

one specific project and the Commission expressly declined to predetermine that public need
existed for additional electric transmission services in Franklin and York Counties. Further, the
Commission made no determination of need for the IEC Project. Although the Commission
approved a settlement and granted a certificate of public convenience, which generally requires a
finding of public need for additional service within a service territory, the Commission
specifically removed language from the Initial Decision to avoid any “predetermination of need.”
See Application of Transource Pennsylvania LLC, Docket No. A-2017-2587821 (Opinion and
Order entered January 23, 2018).

Additionally, the Commission made no determination regarding the siting of the

transmission lines and did not consider the environmental effects or impact on conserved
agricultural land, property values, etc. along these proposed routes. The instant proceeding
developed such a record regarding need for transmission service in the areas most affected by the
building of proposed transmission lines as well as within the regional transmission organization’s
service territory. The costs and benefits to the IEC project as well as alternative feasible routes,
environmental studies6, evidence regarding impact on preserved agricultural property, other
properties, businesses, schools, local government, and individuals are considered.

6
Environmental studies include surveying for bog turtles, a federally threatened species in Pennsylvania.

60
 Before a public utility may seek to exercise the authority to condemn property for
an aerial transmission line, it must obtain approval from the Commission pursuant to Section
1511(c), which provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

(c) Public Utility Commission approval.--The powers conferred by

subsection (a) [for the running of aerial electric facilities] may be
exercised to condemn property … only after the Pennsylvania Public
Utility Commission, upon application of the public utility corporation, has
found and determined … that the service to be furnished by the
corporation through the exercise of those powers is necessary or proper for
the service, accommodation, convenience or safety of the public. . . .

15 Pa. C.S. § 1511(c).7 Thus, on an application for condemnation, the Commission must
determine whether the proposed service, i.e., the transmission or distribution of electricity to or
for the public that will be provided to the public if the subject property is condemned, is
necessary or proper for the service, accommodation, convenience, or safety of the public.

The Commonwealth Court has explained that the Commission’s only role under
15 Pa.C.S. § 1511 is to consider if the project is necessary or proper for the benefit of the public,
and that the Commission is expressly barred from considering the power of the utility to
condemn. SEPTA v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 991 A.2d 1021, 1023 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010).
Therefore, the Commission does not determine whether to grant a condemnation application on
the basis of the legal authority, scope, validity, damages, or the willingness of a condemnee to
negotiate.

7
The BCL restricts the authority of a public utility to take and condemn property for the purpose of
providing electricity to the public by providing that the public utility’s condemnation authority shall not be used to
condemn:

(i) Any dwelling house or, except in the case of any condemnation for
petroleum or petroleum products transportation lines, any part of the
reasonable curtilage of a dwelling house within 100 meters therefrom
and not within the limits of any street, highway, water or other public
way or place.

(ii) Any place of public worship or burying ground.

15 Pa.C.S. § 1511(b).

61
 The Pennsylvania Appellate Courts have interpreted Section 1511 as requiring a
condemning utility to show that the proposed transmission line is necessary or proper and that it
has not acted wantonly, capriciously, or arbitrarily in selecting the proposed ROW. Dep’t of
Envtl. Res. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 335 A.2d 860 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1975), aff’d., 473 Pa. 378, 374
A.2d 693 (1977); Dickson v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 89 Pa. Super. 126 (1926). The selection of the
ROW is a matter for the public utility in the first instance and, while the route selection must be
reasonable, it need not be the “best alternative” in terms of reducing or eliminating
inconvenience to particular landowners. Stone v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 162 A.2d 18 (Pa.
Super. 1960). For example, in Paxtowne v. Pa. Pub. Util Comm’n, 398 A.2d 254, 256 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 1979), the route selected by the public utility was affirmed. In order to establish that
the selected route was reasonable in comparison with two alternative routes, the public utility
established the following:

[T]hat the proposed route was selected over alternative routes because the
topography of petitioner’s property was superior with regard to land use,
environmental and engineering considerations; and that the selection of
other routes would be more costly in acquiring rights-of-way from
additional property owners.

Id. at 256. The Court went on to hold that, although the proposed route clearly impacted
the petitioner’s property, when balanced against the utility’s evidence, there was no
indication that the utility’s selection of the proposed route was done wantonly,
capriciously, or arbitrarily.

As stated before in the Fourth Prehearing Order in this case, I am not inclined to
recommend staying the procedural schedule in this case pending Transource obtaining
any pre-approval from the Orphans’ Courts or the ALCAB.

A public utility may condemn property to provide electricity under Section 1511
of the BCL. PPL has filed its five remaining Condemnation Applications, under this section:

(a) General rule. -- A public utility corporation shall … have

the right to take, occupy and condemn property for one or more of

62
 the following principal purposes and ancillary purposes reasonably
necessary or appropriate for the accomplishment of the principal
purposes:

****

(3) The … transmission … distribution or furnishing of …

electricity … to or for the public.

15 Pa.C.S. § 1511(a)(3).

Section 1511(b) of the BCL restricts the authority of a public utility to take and
condemn property for the purpose of providing electricity to the public, stating, in pertinent part,
as follows:

The powers conferred by subsection (a) shall not be exercised:

(1) To condemn for the purpose of constructing … aerial

electric transmission … lines:

(i) Any dwelling house or, except in the case of any

condemnation for petroleum or petroleum products transportation
lines, any part of the reasonable curtilage of a dwelling house
within 100 meters therefrom and not within the limits of any street,
highway, water or other public way or place.

(ii) Any place of public worship or burying ground.

15 Pa.C.S. § 1511(b).

Before a public utility may seek to exercise its statutorily granted authority to
condemn property for the purposes of constructing aerial transmission or distribution facilities, it
must obtain a finding from the Commission that the taking is “necessary”:

(c) The powers conferred by subsection (a) [for the running of

aerial electric facilities] may be exercised to condemn property …
only after the Pennsylvania Utility Public Commission, upon
application of the public utility corporation, has found and
determined … that the service to be furnished by the corporation
through the exercise of those powers is necessary for the service,
accommodation, convenience or safety of the public.

63
15 Pa.C.S. § 1511(c). Where the record establishes that the public utility’s route selection was
reasonable, considering all the factors involved in the selection of a line, the degree of
inconvenience to a landowner does not constitute grounds for withholding the exercise of the
power to condemn the easement. Paxtowne v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 398 A.2d 254, 256 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 1979).

4. Standards for Shelter/Building Petitions

There are no disagreements regarding the standard, Section 619 of the

Municipalities Planning Code (MPC),8 53 P.S. § 10619, which provides the standard for
approval of the siting of a public utility “building,” such as a substation control equipment
building. Section 619 of the MPC provides as follows:

This article shall not apply to any existing or proposed building, or

extension thereof, used or to be used by a public utility
corporation, if, upon petition of the corporation, the Pennsylvania
Public Utility Commission shall, after a public hearing, decide that
the present or proposed situation of the building in question is
reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public.
It shall be the responsibility of the Pennsylvania Public Utility
Commission to ensure that both the corporation and the
municipality in which the building or proposed building is located
have notice of the hearing and are granted an opportunity to
appear, present witnesses, cross-examine witnesses presented by
other parties and otherwise exercise the rights of a party to the
proceedings.

53 P.S. § 10619. Thus, a public utility building that is reasonably necessary for the convenience
or welfare of the public is exempt from local zoning ordinance provisions under the MPC. Del-
AWARE Unlimited, Inc. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 513 A.2d 593, 596 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986).
Further, Section 619 of the MPC does not require a utility to prove that the site it has selected is
absolutely necessary or that it is the best possible site. O’Connor v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 582
A.2d 427 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990). If the evidence of record demonstrates that the site chosen is

8
PPL Electric MB footnote 11: Act of July 31, 1968, P.L. 805, as amended, 53 P.S. § 10619.

64
reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public, the Commission should grant
the necessary findings under Section 619 of the MPC. Id. at 433.

The Commission’s policy statement regarding local land-use plans and ordinances
provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

To further the State’s goal of making State agency actions

consistent with sound land-use planning … the Commission will
consider the impact of its decisions upon local comprehensive
plans and zoning ordinances. This will include reviewing
applications for:

(1) Certificates of public convenience.

(2) Siting electric transmission lines.

(3) Siting a public utility “building” under section 619 of the

Municipalities Planning code (53 P.S. § 10619).

(4) Other Commission decision.

52 Pa. Code § 69.1101.

B. Need for the Proposed Transmission Line

1. Transource’s Position

Transource argues that while the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
has jurisdiction over transmission planning, the Commission has jurisdiction over the siting of
the HV transmission lines. 52 Pa. Code § 57.71. FERC Order 1000 is not intended to preempt
or conflict with Pennsylvania’s authority over siting, permitting and construction of transmission
facilities. FERC Order 1000, ¶ 107, FERC Order 1000-A, ¶ 186.

Transource argues that there is need for Project 9A as amended because PJM used
a PROMOD software model that showed inefficiency in the wholesale electric market.
Specifically, there was congestion in the AP South and Related Constraints in the 2014/2015

65
Long-Term Window. Transource St. No. 3, p. 7. According to Transource, economic
transmission cost constraints across the AP South interface totaled approximately $800 million
from 2012 through 2016. Transource Ex. No. TH-RR, p. 2. In addition, PJM models continued
to identify significant congestion on the AP South and related constraints in long-term simulation
results. Transource St. No. 8-R, p. 7.

Transource argues that because PJM solicited competitive proposals in the

2014/2015 Long-Term Window to address these congestion issues and selected Transource’s
Project 9A over 40 other market efficiency proposals, as it had the highest benefit-to-cost ratio,
need for the project has been proven. Transource St. No. 8-R, p. 7, 12.

Transource offered the testimony of its witness, Mr. Weber, to refute the
testimony of Franklin County’s witness McGavern, who testified the cost/benefit analysis was
flawed due to the reliance on outdated data. Mr. Weber testified that costs estimates are
reviewed quarterly and that the latest comprehensive cost update was provided to PJM in April
2020. Transource St. No. 1AA-RJ, p. 3. The costs in this update were consistent with the costs
used by PJM to calculate the benefit to cost ratio for Settlement 9A. In addition, Transource has
confirmed over 60% of its costs for Settlement 9A through a combination of actual expenditures,
binding bids and contracts with vendors. Transource St. No. 1AA-RJ, p. 4.

Further, Transource argues that the Project 9A was re-evaluated by PJM multiple
times and has passed the benefit-to-cost ratio every time. The chart below identifies all the times
that Project 9A was evaluated and the resulting benefit- to-cost ratio.

IEC Evaluation Benefit/Cost Ratio

Original
August 11, 2016-Board Presentation 2.48
Re-Evaluation No. 1
September 14, 2017-TEAC Presentation 1.3

Re-Evaluation No. 2 1.32

February 8, 2018 – TEAC Presentation
Re-Evaluation No. 3
September 13, 2018 – TEAC Presentation 1.42

66
Ratio Update
October 16, 2018 1.4
Re-Evaluation No. 4
February 2019 2.17
Re-Evaluation No. 5
October 17, 2019 2.1

See Transource St. No. 8-R, p. 14; Transource St. No. 8-RJ, p. 3; Transource Ex. No. TJH-AA2,
p. 7.

The benefit-cost ratio for Project 9A has always exceeded 1.25. PJM witness
Horger provided the following results in his Supplemental Testimony in support of the Amended
Application:

NPV $(M)
BGE/PPL NPV $(M)
Updated Mid-Cycle Base Case Validated Costs Including 25%
Cost Adder
Total Cost for Project 9A as modified by Settlement $478.48 $496.17
Benefit-to-Cost Ratio for Project 9A as modified by 1.66 1.60
Settlement
Present $ (M)
Sensitivity Case – 1% Load Decrease (Peak and Energy) BGE/PPL Present $ (M)
Validated Costs Including 25%
Cost Adder
Total Cost for Project 9A as modified by Settlement $478.48 $496.17
Benefit-to-Cost Ratio for Project 9A as modified by 1.52 1.46
Settlement

Transource St. No. AA-3, p. 4.

Transource contends that Settlement 9A has a benefit-cost ratio of 1.66 based

upon estimated costs and 1.6 with a 25% cost adder. In addition, Settlement 9A has a benefit-to-
cost ratio of 1.52 with a 1% load decrease and a benefit-cost ratio of 1.46 with a 1% load
decrease and 25% cost adder.

In support of its position, Transource also offered the testimony of witness

Herling who testified that congestion and reliability issues are related:

67
 [W]hile reliability is not a driver of the Project, PJM has identified
reliability criteria violations that would result and would have to be
resolved if the Project is not constructed. This is not particularly
surprising. History has shown that RTEP projects justified on the
basis of reliability have also shown economic benefit by mitigating
congestion.

Transource St. No. 7-R, p. 21, lines 3-7.

Transource argues that Settlement 9A provides significant reliability benefit to the

PJM transmission system, including Pennsylvania and Maryland. The Project resolves five
significant reliability violations that were identified by PJM in an RTEP 2023 study year case
generator deliverability analysis. These five reliability violations are listed below:

Facility Name Limiting Equipment Loading

Three Mile Island 500/230 kV Transformer Transformer 117%
Peach Bottom-Conastone 500 kV Line Conductor 109%
Hunterstown-Lincoln 115 kV Line Conductor 123%
Lincoln Tap-Lincoln 115 kV Line Conductor 120%
Lincoln-Straban 115 kV Line Conductor 104%

Transource St. No. 7-R, p. 21.

Mr. Herling testified that the Peach Bottom-Conastone 500kV Line is an N-0
violation. The other violations are N-1 violations. Transource St. No. 7-RJ-SUPP, p. 2. An N-0
violation is a violation that is projected to occur under normal operating conditions with no
contingencies. An “N-1” or “N MINUS 1” violation is an overload that occurs following a single
contingency, i.e., when one system element is taken out of service. Transource St. No. 7-RJ-
SUPP, p. 2.

Transource argues that if Settlement 9A is not constructed, PJM would be

required to seek alternative solutions to address the reliability violations. Mr. Herling testified
that NERC and PJM Planning criteria require PJM to develop solutions to all identified
reliability criteria violations to avoid “reliability consequences.” Transource St. No. 7-R, pp. 24-
25. Mr. Herling further explained that solutions for violations on 500kV facilities are not
typically small in scope or cost. Transource St. No. 7-R, p. 25. The identified reliability

68
violations that will be resolved by Settlement 9A are identified to occur in 2023. Transource St.
No. 7-R, p. 21. Transource argues that if Settlement 9A is not constructed, there is not sufficient
time to address the reliability violations by 2023.

In support of its position, Transource offered the testimony of Mr. Herling who
testified that any proposed solutions would need to go through the RTEP process and be
approved by PJM. Tr. 2972. In addition, they would have to be approved by their respective
state commissions. Any approved project would not likely be constructed and placed into
service until 2025 or 2026, assuming no substantial regulatory delay. Tr. 2977. This is two to
three years after the identified reliability violations in 2023, and too late to resolve them.

Mr. Herling testified as follows:

Operational procedures include a variety of things. Obviously that

would include all manner of re-dispatch. It would include a series
of emergency procedures where we could invoke different types of
emergency load reductions, even including the possibility of
having to institute load shedding in parts of the system that are
affected by the constraint.

So if you have constraints on a 500 kV line, you could have a

potentially broad area where we might have to reduce customer
load in order to manage that constraint.

If it's a 115 kV facility, we would probably identify a much more

targeted local area where we would have to shed customer load to
manage that constraint.

Tr. 2970, lines 2-14.

In addition to the market congestion and reliability benefits described above,

Transource contends that Settlement 9A provides significant additional benefits to Pennsylvania
including: 1) providing Pennsylvania generators with greater access to markets; 2) mitigation of
extreme weather/load events; 3) increased import/export capability between capacity zones in
PJM; 4) enhanced competition in the PJM market; 5) additional jobs; 6) increased tax revenues;
and 7) increased economic activity. Transource St. No. 10-R, Redacted, pp. 8, 25-26.

69
Transource witness Chang provided an estimate of the jobs supported, economic activity
supported and tax revenues generated by the IEC Project. Transource St. No. 10-R, Redacted,
pp. 26-27.

Transource argues that being part of PJM and participating in regional planning
provides substantial benefits to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Regional transmission
planning across the PJM zones reduces the need for additional generation by up to $3.78 billion
annually. The regional transmission system helps to maintain reliable service across the region
during periods of extreme weather and when there is sudden loss of large generation. Interstate
transmission lines allow the lowest-cost power to reach the greatest number of people.
Transource witness Horger testified as follows:

PJM’s grid has electricity reserve margins that ensures PJM can
maintain reliability (i.e. keep the lights on) under extreme
conditions. Project 9A ensures the grid maintains an adequate level
of reserves by providing access to new efficient generation
resources in PJM and Pennsylvania that are currently restricted to
certain areas of the network because of transmission limitations:
…
The area served by PJM accounts for 21 percent of the U.S. Gross
Domestic Product. Thus affordable wholesale electricity prices
have an outsized impact on the economic productivity of our
region and the nation. States such as Pennsylvania that have
elected to rely on market forces to stimulate the entry and exit of
generators have cultivated some of the most attractive
environments for new resource development and investment in the
U.S. For example, the top three states in PJM with generation
projects under consideration are Ohio (20,000+ MW),
Pennsylvania (18,000+ MW) and the PJM portion of northern
Illinois (15,000+ MW). This is no accident. Policies have enabled
these states to nurture a vibrant market for generator development
that attracts billions of dollars of private investment – more than
$17 billion in Ohio and Pennsylvania alone. These investments in
new generation are further incented with the construction of the
Transource project;
…
New technologies tend to improve efficiency, and PJM’s current
generation mix is 30 percent less carbon-intensive than 10 years
ago. On average, producing one megawatt of power in PJM emits

70
 13 percent less carbon dioxide than it did 10 years ago. Emissions
reductions are largely the result of the competitive markets
encouraging the free entry of new, competing technologies.
Removal of transmission bottlenecks with transmission upgrades,
such as that of Project 9A provides access to more of this
technology.

Transource St. No. 8-R, pp. 18 – 19.

Former Chairman/Commissioner James Cawley also testified for Transource as follows:

Localized planning to ensure only safe and reliable service in

Pennsylvania would significantly increase transmission and
generation costs, as well as work to erode or negate the significant
benefits and reasons that utilities within Pennsylvania expected
when they ceded local grid and market control to PJM with the
expectation of higher benefits through the operation of a regional
market

Transource St. No. 9-RJ, p. 9, lines 17 – 22.

Transource contends that PJM’s benefit to cost methodology aligns payment of

costs with zones that benefit. Mr. Herling testified that it is appropriate that the regions that
benefit from the deployment of market efficiency projects are the regions paying for the
upgrades. Pursuant to PJM’s cost allocation methodology, if a Pennsylvania zone does not
receive congestion benefits from the Project, it will not pay for the Project.

Transource argues that in resolving congestion issues, it is not appropriate to

consider higher costs that would result in unconstrained regions because the costs in
unconstrained regions are artificially low due to the congestion constraints. Transource offered
the testimony of former Chairman of the Commission, James Cawley on this issue, who testified
as follows:

[N]o customer or group of customers is entitled to lower cost

generation created by congestion constraints. When there is a
constraint or bottleneck, the wholesale market is not functioning as
intended, which results in a disparity of prices in front of and
behind the bottleneck/constraint. Customers in front of the

71
 bottleneck are paying artificially low prices and customers behind
the bottleneck are paying artificially high prices. The so-called
“benefits” of congestion, i.e., the fact that customers in front of the
constraint are paying lower than competitive prices, are not
benefits at all. They are the inefficient and uneconomic
consequences of the bottleneck, which are being paid for through
higher prices by those customers taking power behind the
constraint. The purpose of the Project is to reduce this congestion
and provide a more open and efficient market and levelized and
competitive prices.

Transource St. No. 9-R, p. 6, lines 10-20.

Transource argues that other parties’ proposals to include higher prices in the
unconstrained area in the benefit-to-cost ratio is unreasonable because it perpetrates
discriminatory rates (presumably in the unconstrained region of Pennsylvania).

Transource does not deny that congestion in the AP South has fluctuated and
decreased; however, it argues that congestion shifts among interfaces, and there are multiple
constraints in the area that are mitigated by Settlement 9A. Mr. Horger explained this issue in
his testimony, stating as follows:

The congestion on the AP South Interface is one of the, but not the
only, area of congestion alleviated by the Project 9A inclusive of
the IEC project because congestion often shifts and there are
multiple constraints in the same area that are impacted by the
upgrade provided by the Project. PJM’s 2014/2015 Long-Term
Proposal Window sought proposals for many congested facilities
as identified in PJM’s simulations. Although the AP South
Interface was the major congestion point that Project 9A inclusive
of the IEC Project resolved, the Project also relieves congestion in
other areas. For example, in PJM’s operations, PJM typically does
not experience congestion on the AP South, AEP-Dominion,
Conastone – Peach Bottom, and Graceton-Safe Harbor interfaces
at the same time; when one of these areas is constrained the others
typically would not be, but all areas are persistently constrained.
One of the distinct advantages of Project 9A inclusive of the IEC
Project that also speaks to the Project’s benefits is that the Project
does not just mitigate congestion in one interface—it mitigates the
problem in all of these areas. Indeed, in PJM’s evaluations and
summary of Project 9A inclusive of the IEC Project, PJM

72
 identified the Project’s impact in multiple areas as one of the
Project’s advantages.

Transource St. No. 3AA-RJ, p. 8, lines 148-162.

Additionally, Transource offers the testimony of Mr. Horger, who testified that
the actual level of congestion on the AP South and related interfaces for 2019 is consistent with
the congestion forecasted by PJM in 2015. Transource offered the below chart as evidence to
support this opinion.

Transource St. No. 3AA-RJ, p. 11.

Additionally, Transource argues that recent load reductions since March 2020 due
to reduced energy consumption because of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions do not reduce the
need for Settlement Project 9A. The load reductions due to COVID-19 are temporary and not
long term. PJM’s most recent forecast shows a minimal peak load reduction of 2/10ths or
3/10ths of a percent in 2023 and by 2025, no reduction at all. Tr. 2956. Market efficiency
planning is conducted over a 15-year window. Tr. 2937. The PJM system often experiences
fluctuations in load. Tr. 2938. A temporary reduction in load does not affect long-term
transmission planning. The recent reductions in load due to COVID-19 do not affect the need
for Settlement Project 9A.

73
 Transource argues that there is no dispute in this proceeding that Project 9A and
Settlement 9A solve NERC reliability violations. Solving these reliability violations is a
significant additional benefit of Project 9A. Mr. Herling summarized his conclusion as follows:

The reliability benefits fortify PJM’s already well-grounded justification

for its recommendation of the IEC Project as the more efficient, cost
effective market efficiency project among the proposed solutions.

Transource St. No. 7-RJ-SUPP., p. 6, lines 6-8.

Transource argues that congestion and reliability issues are often related. There is
no need to conduct a separate study or solicit other proposals to address the reliability violations
that will be resolved by Project 9A or Settlement Project 9A.

2. OCA’s, Franklin County’s and STFC’s Positions

OCA contends that whether or not regional congestion concerns meets the ‘need’
standard has not yet been answered by this Commission or appellate courts. In support of its
position, Transource cites to the TrAILCo proceeding stating that, “the Commission determined
that…the ‘Commission has an obligation to enhance regional reliability and mitigate
transmission constraints in order to reduce congestion for ratepayers in Pennsylvania and
adjacent jurisdictions.”’ Transource M.B. at 21 (emphasis in original).9

OCA contends that there is an important distinction, however, between TrAILCo

and the instant proceeding. OCA does not dispute the benefits of regional transmission planning,
but has taken issue with whether the benefits of this Project are sufficient to meet Pennsylvania
standards. OCA argues there are several materially distinguishing factors between Susquehanna-
Roseland and the instant proceeding. In Susquehanna-Roseland, the Commission approved a
transmission project designed to resolve reliability violations, reduced congestion for

9
The Company also attempts to compare this proceeding to the Susquehanna-Roseland proceeding where
the Commission recognized the benefits of regional transmission planning. Transource M.B. at 22-23; see also
Approval of the Siting and Constr. of the Pa. Portion of The Proposed Susquehanna-Roseland 500 kV Transmission
Line in Portions of Lackawanna, Luzerne, Monroe, Pike and Wayne Cntys., Pa., Docket No. A-2009-2082652,
2010 Pa. PUC LEXIS 434 at *44 (Opinion and Order entered Feb. 12, 2010) (Susquehanna-Roseland).

74
Pennsylvania ratepayers, and incorporated the modernization of old transmission line avoiding
significant expenditures to replace those facilities as a standalone project. Id., at *64-68. The
IEC Project, however, was not designed to resolve reliability concerns, but only addresses
economic congestion, will increase wholesale power prices to Pennsylvanians by approximately
$400 million over a period of 15 years on a net basis, and only provides net benefits of $32.5
million to the PJM region over that same period of time.

Additionally, OCA and STFC discussed at length the Commission’s obligations

under the Environmental Rights Amendment, as set forth in the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania’s decision in PEDF. In rejecting the Payne test, the PEDF Court explained that
Article I, Section 27 requires a constitutional analysis beyond the three-part test, and requires
application of the trust jurisprudence. PEDF. OCA M.B at 15-22, STFC M.B. at 4-11. To
ensure that the Commission’s constitutional obligations are met in this proceeding, the Company
has a heavy burden to meet the constitutional requirements set forth in PEDF. Citing to Del.
Riverkeeper Network v. Sunoco Pipeline, L.P., 179 A.3d 670 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (Sunoco). The
Commission’s exclusive authority to regulate the siting of utility infrastructure remains intact.
The Commission, however, is bound by the constitutional obligations set forth in PEDF and
must ensure that it meets those obligations. Frederick v. Allegheny Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd.,
196 A.3d 677, 694 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018).

OCA and STFC assert that the PEDF decision imposes a heavy burden on the
Company to satisfy the Commission’s constitutional obligations. OCA M.B. at 21-22, STFC
M.B. at 6-8. That is, the government must refrain from permitting the degradation of the right to
clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic, and esthetic values
of the environment and Pennsylvania’s public natural resources where such degradation is
unreasonable, does not further a legitimate state interest, or does not benefit the citizens of this
Commonwealth. OCA M.B. at 18.

Franklin County argues that the authority for which Transource cites in support of
its position that the need to address congestion alone is sufficient for a State Commission to find
there is a need for an HV transmission line is misconstrued. Franklin County argues the

75
benefit/cost analysis is flawed as the cost estimates used to evaluate Project 9A are based upon
outdated data from 2014. In support of its position, Franklin County offered testimony of its
witness, Mr. McGavran, who suggested that the cost estimates used for Settlement 9A were from
2014. Franklin County St. No. 1, pp. 8, 10.

STFC argues Transource relies on a false equivalence to make the argument that
the Commission should approve its application. The Commission’s standards for approval of an
application involve more than determining whether Transource complied with the FERC tariff
and PJM process that ultimately selected the IEC Project. Further, the responsibility of
providing alternative routes is upon the applicant, not the protestant. An applicant needs to meet
the statutory standard to prove that it is entitled to the relief request.

STFC also argues that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected the Payne test in
PEDF. The Payne test is “ill-fitted” to the language of Article I, Section 27 and has
“frustrate[ed] the development of a coherent environmental rights jurisprudence.” Id. at 930
citing Robinson Twp v. Commonwealth, 83 A.3d at 964 (Pa. 2013). In rejecting the test, the
PEDF Court explained that Article I, Section 27 requires a constitutional analysis beyond the
three-part test, and requires application of the trust jurisprudence. Transource fails to
acknowledge the impact of the Article I, Section 27’s articulation of the people’s rights and the
government’s duties.

Article I, Section 27 was unanimously adopted by the General Assembly in the

1969-1970 and the 1971-1972 legislative sessions, and was ratified by the citizens of
Pennsylvania by a 4-to-1 margin on May 18, 1971. As the PEDF Court rightly noted, “the
decision to affirm the people’s environmental rights in a Declaration or Bill of Rights, alongside
political rights, is relatively rare in American constitutional law. In addition to Pennsylvania,
Montana and Rhode Island are the only other states of the Union to do so.” PEDF, 161 A.3d at
918; See Pa. Const. art. I, § 27 (1971); Mt. Const. art. II, § 3 (1889); R.I. Const. art I, § 17
(1970).

76
 STFC argues that the Environmental Rights Amendment articulates the people’s
rights and the government’s duties:

The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the
preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of
the environment. Pennsylvania's public natural resources are the
common property of all the people, including generations yet to
come. As trustee of these resources, the Commonwealth shall
conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people.

Pa. Const. art. I, § 27. This express statement of rights and obligations in the Environmental
Rights Amendment is “with respect to the conservation and maintenance of our public natural
resources.” PEDF, 161 A.3d at 916. See also, Robinson Township case.

Accordingly, experience led directly to the adoption of Art I, Section 27 and the
Declaration of Rights, of the Pennsylvania Constitution. This unique placement of protection of
the citizens’ environmental rights on par with the most sacred rights of individuals in the state
Constitution impacts “all branches and levels of government”. PEDF at 919.

STFC contends that Transource’s citation to a 1960 Pennsylvania Superior Court

case for support that public convenience and necessity considerations include a “regional
element” is misplaced as the caselaw upon which Transource relies, Stone v. Pa. Pub. Util.
Comm’n, 162 A.2d 18 (Pa. Super. 1960) and Dunk v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 232 A.2d 231 (Pa.
Super 1967), predates the adoption of the Environmental Rights Amendment.

STFC argues Transource’s witness Cawley’s “reciprocal altruism” opinion (Tr. at

2443) that states should be precluded from operating as “silos” at the wholesale level, is non-
persuasive since Maryland banned hydraulic fracturing in 2017 – the same year that the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court confirmed Art I, Section 27 jurisprudence in PEDF. See MD
Code, Environment § 14-107.1. Maryland banned the industrial activity that Transource Witness
Horger alleges will increase as a result of the proposed IEC Project, because of the removal of
the “inefficiencies…which is the congestion.” Tr. at 2636.

77
 STFC collaterally attacks the Commission’s January 23, 2018 Opinion and Order
granting a certificate of public convenience to Transource conferring upon it status as a public
utility to: a) begin to furnish and supply electric transmission service to or for the public within a
transmission service area from the new Rice Substation in Franklin County, Pennsylvania to the
Pennsylvania/Maryland border for PJM Project 9A, baseline upgrade numbers b2743 and b2752;
and b) begin to furnish and supply electric transmission service to or for the public within a
transmission service area from the new Furnace Run Substation in York County Pennsylvania to
the Pennsylvania/Maryland border for PJM Project 9A, baseline upgrade numbers b2743 and
b2752.

STFC argues Transource was improperly relieved of the burden of proving the
need for a certificate of public convenience (CPC) in the first step of the process. Transource
filed its applications in December 2017, after it had reached a settlement agreement on the
certification docket, Docket No. A-2017-2587821. The Commission’s decision specifically
noted that the Application “brings a new type of entity to the Commonwealth” and that the
Commission is being asked to “certificate a company as a public utility as a necessary step prior
to consideration of the siting and construction of the project this company was formed to carry
out.” Removing Transource’s burden to demonstrate need for approval of the CPC shifts the
burden from the applicant seeking approval of a new transmission line. The applicant utility
bears the burden of proof in proving a need for the certificate of public convenience.

STFC argues that Transource amended one of its Applications (pertaining to York
County), and the Applicant’s CPC does not conform to the Amended Application. To allow
siting applications after a certificate of public convenience is granted to operate in a very
narrowly delineated service area is problematic for two reasons. First, it suggests that the
adjudication is not a final order within the meaning of the Administrative Agency Law as the
scope of the authority is limited to corridors yet to be in existence--i.e., the substations and routes
of the transmission lines are not yet approved by the Commission, much less built. Second, the
Commission essentially retained jurisdiction to make this determination of need for the project;
thus, the Commission’s approval of the CPC is interlocutory because the Commission retained
jurisdiction to reject the project. The question of need was specifically deferred in 2018 on

78
approval of the Order, and stricken from the original ALJ approval of the settlement (See
December 21, 2017 Motion of Commissioner Sweet, at ¶ 2; striking portion of August 31, 2017
Approval at P. 14).

STFC contends that the CPC was issued for a specific project-need for the CPC
was found by the ALJ to be only for the specific project as a prerequisite for the issuance of a
CPC that was uncontested pursuant to settlement conditions, but the Commission removed the
determination on the need for additional transmission service in York and Franklin Counties
from its final opinion and order.

STFC argues that Transource relies on the very same certificate for authority that
there is a need for it to have the power of eminent domain. Project 9A has not been approved by
the Commission, and it is the only service that Transource is authorized to furnish. As such,
Transource has an ineffective CPC because it refers to a project that has not yet been approved
by the Commission.

STFC argues that the sequenced approach to approval in this novel instance has
the effect of improperly shifting the burden to the intervenors or the Commission to show that
there are deficiencies in the application when nothing in the Code or the regulations in 52 Pa
Code authorizes the issuance of a certificate of public convenience without sufficient supporting
information on the merits of the proposed application.

In January of 2019, a new Application was filed for a Reconfigured 9A project.

The CPC that Transource has is issued specifically for “PJM Project 9A, baseline upgrade
numbers b2743 and b2752, and for baseline upgrade number b2743 and b2752”. The Amended
Application demonstrates that PJM has now applied different numbers to the Project., b2743.2-8
and b2752.1-9. (See TJH-AA2). Transource is asking the Commission to approve the first
market efficiency project under FERC Order 1000. Transource’s current situation is unusual.
Transource holds a limited certificate of public convenience that does not allow it to do anything
other than file an application because Transource may only provide service on one particular
project, for which the Commission has yet to determine need.

79
 STFC argues Transource must show it has received the required permits from the
Pennsylvania Department of Environment Protection (PaDEP) at a minimum that the project can
be completed. Instead, Transource contends that it will meet a number of regulatory
requirements, if the Commission approves the application. However, there is no evidence that
any of these requirements have been met. The litany includes U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) surveys for bald eagles, PFBC coordination regarding native wild trout population and
Stormwater controls, wetland delineation and approval from United States Army Corps Of
Engineers (USACOE), and PaDEP, as well as Chapter 102 E & S permitting from PaDEP.

3. Disposition

I agree with OCA, STFC, and Franklin County that the ‘need’ element pursuant to
52 Pa. Code § 57.76 required to approve the applications has not been shown by a preponderance
of the evidence. Accepting as true Transource’s assertion that PJM saw a need in 2015-2016 to
remove a congestion constraint in the AP South Interface, this assertion alone does not satisfy the
‘need’ requirement for additional transmission service in York and Franklin Counties within the
meaning of the Commission’s siting regulations. The Commission owes the public a duty to
analyze the project pursuant to Commission regulations, relevant caselaw and the Public Utility
Code. Even though PJM’s proceedings are open to stakeholders prior to the project being
selected, this is not the same as due process before this Commission in a siting, eminent domain,
or a certificate of public convenience application proceeding.

The scope of inquiry for determining ‘need’ is broad and includes consideration
of many factors. TrAILCo, 2008 Pa. PUC LEXIS 60 at *128-129 (Rec. Dec. entered Aug. 15,
2008) (TrAILCo Recommended Decision). More specifically, the “inquiry to determine whether
a public need for a transmission project exists depends on the specific facts presented regarding
each project and upon the future impacts or consequences within a broad context.” TrAILCo
Recommended Decision at *127, affirmed TrAILCo Order at *48.

80
 While the proposed facilities in TrAILCo provided some congestion benefits to
Pennsylvania, the 502 Pennsylvania Junction facilities were selected by PJM to primarily address
reliability violations on the Pruntytown-Mt. Storm 500 kV line and the Mt. Storm-Doubs 500 kV
line, not congestion concerns as in Project 9A.10 TrAILCo Recommended Decision at *14-15. In
the subsequent appeal, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania declined to answer whether
congestion benefits on their own are sufficient to meet the ‘need’ standard, noting that the
Commission approved the 502 Pennsylvania Junction facilities to address reliability concerns.
TrAIL Appeal, 995 A.2d at 486-87. Accordingly, neither the Commission, nor appellate courts,
have addressed this issue. This is a case of first impression.

The Electricity Generation Customer Choice and Competition Act (Act) was
enacted by the General Assembly to restructure the electric utility industry but not deregulate it
altogether. Tr. at 2429-30; see also 66 Pa. C.S. § 2804. As part of that Act, the General
Assembly required the Commission to “work with the Federal Government, and other states in
the region…and with the independent system operator…to ensure the continued provision of
adequate, safe, and reliable electric service to the citizens and business of this Commonwealth.”
66 Pa. C.S. § 2805(a) (emphasis added). The statute, however, does not mention the term
‘congestion,’ and also declares that the primary goal of such regional coordination is to ensure
adequate, safe, and reliable electric service to the citizens and businesses of Pennsylvania. Id.
The Commonwealth Court’s decision in the TrAIL Appeal regarding regional concerns and
Section 2805 of the Public Utility Code rests solely on the need to ensure a reliable regional
transmission system:

10
Economic and environmental impacts surrounding the 502 Pennsylvania Junction Facilities substantially
differ from the potential impacts at issue in this proceeding. Out of the 241 miles of proposed transmission line
related to the 502 Pennsylvania Junction Facilities, only 1.2 miles were proposed to be located in Western
Pennsylvania. TrAILCo Order at *68. In addition, as support for the proposal in that proceeding TrAILCo argued
that “wholesale prices in the east are expected to go down while wholesale prices in the west will increase slightly
"as a result of the initial resolution of congestion" but that any increases will be more noticeable in Ohio than
Pennsylvania and will be entirely dependent on the types of generation that are built.” TrAILCo Order at *40-41.

In contrast, the IEC Project, as modified by the Settlement in this proceeding, will result in the construction
of a brand new transmission line in Franklin County, Pennsylvania, approximately 14 miles of which will be located
on presently unencumbered land in Franklin County, as well as two brand new substations in Franklin and York
Counties. See OCA M.B. at 68. Moreover, PJM projects that construction of the IEC Project will only provide net
economic benefits of $32.5 million over a period of 15 years, with wholesale power prices increasing by
approximately $812.5 million over that same period of time. See OCA M.B. at 63-64. Pennsylvania alone will
experience a net increase of approximately $400 million in wholesale power prices from construction of the IEC
Project, the highest of any state in the PJM region. OCA M.B. at 67.

81
 The PUC did not err or commit an abuse of discretion in finding a
public need for the 502 Facilities based on regional reliability
factors. The Code does not define need; however, Pennsylvania
courts have recognized that there is a need for regional electric
service reliability and a reliable regional transmission system.
Moreover, the General Assembly has recognized the importance of
ensuring the reliability of electric transmission systems, including
regional transmission systems, and the provision of sufficient
electrical power at an affordable rate.

***

Finally, Section 2805 recognizes the need for the PUC and
Pennsylvania utilities to work with generators, transmission
companies, and distribution companies in the surrounding region,
as well as the Federal Government and its agents to ensure safe and
reliable electric service. Accordingly, we conclude that ensuring
the "reliability" of an electrical transmission system, like the PJM
Region, is necessary and proper for the accommodation,
convenience, and safety of its patrons, employees, and the public.

TrAIL Appeal, 995 A.2d at 485-86.

Thus, the Commission’s inquiry into ‘need’ is broad and must give weight to the
impacts incurred by Pennsylvania, both economic and environmental. I agree with STFC,
Franklin County and OCA that consideration should be given to any proven substantial costs and
on the economic and environmental impacts to Pennsylvania. See Robinson Twp v.
Commonwealth, 623 Pa. 564, 658, 83 A.3d 901, 958 (2013).11

While the Commission may consider regional needs when assessing whether a
proposed high-voltage transmission line is ‘necessary,’ it is not required to make a determination
on this basis alone.12 As OCA, Franklin County, and STFC argue, in Energy Conservation

11
Application of Pennsylvania Electric Company Seeking Approval to Locate, Construct, Operate and
Maintain a High-Voltage Transmission Line Referred to as the Bedford North-Central City West 115 kV HV
Transmission Line Project, Docket No. A-2016-2565296 (Opinion and Order entered Mar. 8, 2018 at 14) (access
available at http://www.puc.pa.gov/pcdocs/1556807.docx) (Bedford North-Central City West 115 kV).
12
See Application of PPL Electric Utilities Corporation, for Approval to Rebuild Approximately Six Miles of
the Breinigsville-Alburtis 500 kV Transmission Line in Lower Macungie and Upper Macungie Townships, Lehigh
County, Pennsylvania, Docket No. A-2019-3007945, Order at 16 (Order entered Aug. 14, 2019) (“The Commission

82
Council of Pa. v. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 995 A.2d 465 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2010), the Commonwealth
Court held that the need must address reliability issues necessary for finding a public need for a
proposed HV transmission line and substation. The Court did not address the issue of
congestion. In the instant case, the record shows no need because the project is primarily
designed to address a congestion issue that no longer exists. I am also persuaded by the credible
testimony of Mr. McGavran that outdated data from 2014 is still being used to support the need
element. Also, the record shows the project would be detrimental economically and
environmentally to Pennsylvania interests, thus, negating a need for the project. Economic and
environmental impacts are discussed under separate headings.

Only recently did PJM add the phrase “related constraints” to the AP South
Reactive Interface. Throughout the majority of the proceedings, the exclusive reason for the
project was to alleviate congestion on the AP South Interface and now Transource ignores much
of the drastically reduced congestion data after 2016 to support its argument because this data
undermines the main reason for the project. Actual congestion costs were significantly less at
$56.2 million in 2015 and $14.5 million in 2019. OCA St. 2, p. 17, Table 3, Monitoring
Analytics, LLC 2019 State of the Market Report for PJM at p. 543. Transource misstates the
accuracy of PJM’s forecasted congestion as it combines the congestion of the APSRI interface
with purported “related constraints” and ignores any inaccuracies of PJM’s forecasted
congestion. The historical data shows that the IEC Project is not necessary pursuant to 66
Pa.C.S. § 1501. Building the Project 9A as amended by the partial settlement agreement would
be unreasonable service to ratepayers in Pennsylvania as the project is very costly, likely to raise
wholesale market prices in Pennsylvania, and because there is no demonstrable need for the
project. Additionally, based upon the credible testimony of many stakeholders/landowners and
government officials in this proceeding, there is substantial evidence to show the project would
have an unnecessary negative impact on the economics and environment in York and Franklin
Counties.

may consider ‘regional reliability needs’…) (available access at http://www.puc.pa.gov/pcdocs/1631551.doc)

(Breinigsville-Alburtis).

83
 In its Main Brief, Transource does not dispute that reliability “is not a driver” of
the Project. Transource M.B. at 51. Instead, Transource argues the two go hand-in-hand, thus
blurring the line between market efficiency projects to alleviate congestion versus reliability
projects. Transource argues that the Commission has recognized “[r]emoving congestion
resolves reliability violations”. Transource M.B. at 51.

As there is no longer significant congestion for the IEC Project to resolve on the
AP South Interface, following Transource’s reasoning, reliability should have improved in that
area. However, Transource makes no such contention, even though the two should go hand-in-
hand pursuant to Transource’s argument. Rather, Transource argues now that there is the
potential for reliability violations in the future if the applications and Settlement 9A are not
approved. Transource M.B. at 51.

Reliability projects and market efficiency projects are different. PJM runs
specific testing and analyses for reliability projects. It is undisputed that PJM did not perform its
full set of reliability tests on the IEC Project to confirm that the identified potential reliability
violations will actually occur in 2023. The reliability violations are only ‘potential’ reliability
violations that might occur if the IEC Project is not constructed. It is undisputed that none of the
projected reliability violations have occurred as of July 9, 2020 (the last day of evidentiary
hearings) and that the Project is not intended to be the best or most economical solution to
resolve any potential reliability violations.

Transource has insufficient evidence to show need because PJM did not conduct
reliability testing. PJM’s projections regarding congestion cost have not been consistently
accurate over time and there are not enough facts to support a finding of need when the
congestion concern initially raised in the applications is gone or fluctuating outside of
projections and the standard reliability tests were not performed by PJM. Further, the
benefit/cost calculation seems to have changed since 2014 in addition to the congestion cost
figures. This makes it difficult to compare benefit/cost ratios.

84
 Moreover, while the Federal Power Act (FPA) does grant FERC exclusive
jurisdiction over the interstate transmission of electric energy and electric wholesale rates, the
FPA limits FERC authority, including its designee, PJM, to “those matters which are not subject
to regulation by the States.” 16 U.S.C. § 824(a). FERC likewise recognizes this limitation
stating the following as part of Order No. 1000:

We acknowledge that there is longstanding state authority over

certain matters that are relevant to transmission planning and
expansion, such as matters relevant to siting, permitting, and
construction. However, nothing in this Final Rule involves an
exercise of siting, permitting, and construction authority. The
transmission planning and cost allocation requirements of this
Final Rule, like those of Order No. 890, are associated with the
processes used to identify and evaluate transmission system needs
and potential solutions to those needs. In establishing these
reforms, the Commission is simply requiring that certain processes
be instituted. This in no way involves an exercise of authority over
those specific substantive matters traditionally reserved to the
states, including integrated resource planning, or authority over
such transmission facilities. For this reason, we see no reason why
this Final Rule should create conflicts between state and federal
requirements.[13]

Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation by Transmission Owning and Operating Public
Utilities, 76 Fed. Reg. ¶ 49,842, 49,861 (Aug. 11, 2011) (FERC Order No. 1000). Thus, FERC’s
authority does not pre-empt the Commission’s determination in this proceeding. As further
indication of FERC’s limited role in approving transmission facilities, the U.S. Congress granted
FERC limited authority to “issue one or more permits for the construction or modification of
13
As further summarized by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals:

In Order No. 1000, the Commission expressly "decline[d] to impose obligations to build or
mandatory processes to obtain commitments to construct transmission facilities in the regional
transmission plan." More generally, the Commission disavowed that it was purporting to
"determine what needs to be built, where it needs to be built, and who needs to build it. As the
Commission explained on rehearing, "Order No. 1000's transmission planning reforms are
concerned with process" and "are not intended to dictate substantive outcomes." The substance of
a regional transmission plan and any subsequent formation of agreements to construct or operate
regional transmission facilities remain within the discretion of the decision-makers in each
planning region.

S.C. Pub. Serv. Auth. v. FERC, 762 F.3d 41, 57-58 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (internal citations omitted).

85
electric transmission facilities in a national interest electric transmission corridor [NIETC]
designated by the Secretary” under certain limited conditions.14 16 U.S.C. § 824p(b). As the
Applicant’s proposed Pennsylvania siting locations are not within an NIETC, FERC has no
jurisdiction in the siting of the IEC Project and the jurisdiction remains the Commission’s alone.

Pursuant to the constitutional, statutory, and regulatory standards of Pennsylvania,

the Commission has the exclusive jurisdiction over both whether the proposed transmission
infrastructure is needed and where it should be built. It is fully within the discretion of the
Commission under Pennsylvania law to determine whether a transmission facility has
sufficiently demonstrated that the proposed facility is “necessary or proper for the
accommodation, convenience and safety of…the public.” 66 Pa. C.S. § 1501.

Transource seems to be creating new reasons for the project. Transource now
argues that the IEC Project will primarily address congestion on the AP South Reactive Interface
and related constraints, including the Safe Harbor-Graceton, Conastone-Peach Bottom, and AEP-
DOM constraints. Transource M.B. at 66-68; Tr. at 2923-24. Transource argues that on a
combined basis, congestion on these four constraints has remained persistently high and that
PJM’s simulations accurately predicted congestion that would occur in 2019. Transource M.B.
at 67-68.

I am not persuaded by PJM’s projections regarding the four constraints. The

evidence shows that the IEC Project was designed and tailored to specifically address what at
that time was thought to be persistent congestion on the AP South Reactive Interface. PJM
initiated a long-term proposal window in 2014 (2014/2015 Long-Term Proposal Window)

14
One of those conditions is that the State commission or other entity traditionally responsible for the
approval of high-voltage transmission facilities within an NIETC has withheld approval for more than 1 year. 16
U.S.C. § 824p(b)(1)(C)(i). In denying plaintiff’s argument that this meant FERC could exercise jurisdiction over
facilities within an NIETC if a commission rejected the application, the Fourth Circuit held that “reading of the
entire provision reveals that Congress intended to act in a measured way and conferred authority on FERC only
when a state commission is unable to act on a permit application in a national interest corridor, fails to act in a
timely manner, or acts inappropriately by granting a permit with project-killing conditions.” Piedmont, 558 F.3d at
315.

86
seeking solutions to, among other things, persistent future congestion on the AP South Reactive
Interface. OCA M.B. at 36-37. As stated by Transource witness, Kamran Ali:

The 2014/15 RTEP Long Term Proposal Window solicited

proposals to address, among other things, a number of transmission
constraints on the AP South Reactive Interface. The AP South
Reactive Interface is a set of four 500 kV lines which originate in
West Virginia and terminate in Maryland and Virginia. The
primary goal was to reduce congestion on the AP South Reactive
Interface, which is one of the most historically congested flow
gates in PJM.

Transource St. 2 at 7 (emphasis added).15 Congestion on the AP South Reactive Interface cost
approximately $800 million between 2012 and 2016. Transource St. 3 at 25.

In response to the 2014/2015 Long-Term Proposal Window, Transource

submitted the IEC Project to specifically address congestion on the AP South Reactive Interface
and ensure that congestion did not occur elsewhere. As stated by Transource witness Ali:

The IEC-West Project was intended to directly address the

congestion on the AP South Reactive Interface described above.
However, it was determined that some of the same higher cost
generators that respond to the AP South Reactive Interface also
respond to other congested facilities that interconnect Pennsylvania
and Maryland. Thus, the construction of the IEC-West Project
alone would not fully address the congestion issue and, instead,
merely shift the congestion to other parts of the system. To avoid
additional, unacceptable congestion on other parts of the system
serving Pennsylvania and Maryland, the IEC-East Project was
developed to help offload those higher cost generating facilities.
The combination of both the IEC-West Project and IEC-East
Project are interdependent components needed to address the
congestion identified in PJM's 2014/15 RTEP Long Term Proposal
Window.

Transource St. 2 at 11 (emphasis added); Tr. at 2132-33 (Transource witness Weber indicating
that the problem statement to be solved during the 2014/2015 Long-Term Proposal Window was

15
See also, Transource St. 3 at 24-25.

87
to relieve congestion on the AP South Reactive Interface and not cause congestion elsewhere),
Tr. at 2381.

In its selection of the IEC Project, PJM indicated that the “Transource [P]roject
was approved by the PJM Board in 2016 as the more efficient, cost-effective project to address
persistent congestion identified in forward-looking economic studies on the AP-South Interface.”
Transource St. 8-R, Exh. TH-5R at 4 (emphasis added).16 Accordingly, contrary to Transource’s
claims, the IEC Project is a market efficiency project that was solicited to address high levels of
forecasted congestion on the AP South Reactive Interface, designed to alleviate that congestion,
and selected because of its ability to relieve that future simulated congestion.

Now, Transource is arguing that the IEC Project is needed and should be
approved on the basis that it primarily alleviates related congestion constraints, instead of what it
was originally designed to do. Transource has discussed at length the nature of congestion on
the AP South Reactive Interface and how the IEC Project is a unique solution, tailored to this
specific issue. Tr. at 2387-2388. However, Transource has provided very little evidence on the
nature of the related constraints, how the IEC Project has been optimized to address the related
constraints, and whether this is the best alternative to address related constraints’ congestion.17

I am persuaded by OCA’s argument that of the four facilities that Transource now
alleges that the IEC Project is needed to alleviate, the AP South Reactive Interface, AEP-DOM,
and Safe Harbor-Graceton constraints did not make the list of the top 25 most congested
facilities in the PJM Region during the first three months of 2020. OCA Hearing Exh. 6 at 559.
The Conastone-Peach Bottom constraint only incurred congestion costs of approximately $5.3

16
In the simulation that PJM performed in 2015, the PROMOD model simulated a congestion cost of $110
million occurring on the AP South Reactive Interface in 2019. Tr. at 2936. According to the simulation, the AP
South Reactive Interface had the highest congestion cost simulated in 2019 when compared to the Safe Harbor-
Graceton, Conastone-Peach Bottom, and AEP-DOM constraints. Id. In reality, Congestion on the AP South
Reactive Interface cost approximately $14.5 million in 2019, substantially lower than predicted by PJM’s forward-
looking models. Tr. at 2921. This indicates the erroneous assumptions that were used to calculate the benefit-cost
ratio that PJM relied upon when selecting the IEC Project for approval.
17
For example, Transource PA does not reference the AEP-DOM, Safe Harbor-Graceton, or Conastone-
Peach Bottom constraints in its case-in-chief. Transource St. 1-6.

88
million over that same period of time.18 Id. Moreover, there are two ongoing transmission
projects that may alleviate these related constraints without the need for constructing the IEC
Project: (1) the Hunterstown-Lincoln Re-build and (2) Project 5E. OCA M.B. at 105-06. These
two additional market efficiency projects appear to be designed to enhance several of the
facilities associated with the Conastone-Peach Bottom congestion constraint. Transource St.
AA3, Exh. TJH-AA1 at 19. PJM, however, has not performed an analysis to determine if the
Hunterstown-Lincoln Re-build and Project 5E would sufficiently alleviate these related
constraints without the need for the IEC Project. OCA Hearing Exh. 3, Transource Response to
OCA XLIII-12; Tr. At 2930.

Addressing congestion on the bulk electric system with transmission-based

solutions is problematic. As Transource witnesses have acknowledged, economic congestion
shifts frequently on the bulk electric grid among several constraints. Tr. at 2386; Transource St.
3AA-RJ at 8. This is evident in the PJM State of the Market Reports, which demonstrate high
variability among the top 25 most congested constraints in the PJM system. For example, the top
25 most congested constraints in the PJM system in 2014 are depicted in the chart below:

18
Most recently, in the latest PJM State of the Market Report providing data through the first six months of
2020, the AP South Reactive Interface and AEP-DOM have still not made the list of the top 25 most congested
facilities in the PJM region. See Monitoring Analytics, LLC, 2020, Q2 State of the Market Report for PJM: January
through June at 566, https://www.monitoringanalytics.com/reports/PJM_State_of_the_Market/2020/2020q2-som-
pjm.pdf (last visited Sept. 24, 2020). Congestion on the Safe Harbor-Graceton and Conastone-Peach Bottom
constraints has only cost approximately $10.9 million through the first six months of 2020. Id.

89
OCA Cross Exh. 7 at 2. Notably, the AEP-DOM, Safe Harbor-Graceton, and Conastone-Peach
Bottom constraints are missing in the year that PJM initiated the 2014/2015 Long-Term Proposal
Window.19 Id.

In 2017, however, the top 25 most congested facilities are different than 2014, as
depicted below:

19
The AEP-DOM constraint appears on the 2015 PJM State of the Market Report. OCA Cross Exh. 7 at 1.
The Conastone-Peach Bottom constraint is not present on the PJM State of the Market Reports until the 2016 report.
OCA Cross Exh. 8 at 2. The Safe Harbor-Graceton constraint is not present on the PJM State of the Market Reports
until the 2017 report. OCA Cross Exh. 8 at 1.

90
OCA Cross Exh. 8 at 1. Out of the 25 constraints listed above, more than 20 of them did not
appear in 2014.

This trend has continued in the most recent PJM State of the Market Report for
the first quarter of 2020. Many of the constraints listed in the top 25 through the first quarter of
2020 do not appear in the 2017 Report, including the AP South Reactive Interface and the AEP-
DOM constraints. OCA Hearing Exh. 6 at 559, OCA Cross Exh. 8 at 1. Accordingly, variables
other than the IEC Project are affecting these related constraints in future years. Thus, the IEC
Project is no longer needed for the purpose for which it was designed in 2016.

I am not persuaded to find that zones/areas in Pennsylvania above the congestion

point in the Metro-Washington DC area, are enjoying discriminatory prices/rates when compared
to Baltimore/Washington DC area just because there are natural gas generators operating in the
north-western portions of the state. Other sovereign states make decisions separate from the
Pennsylvania General Assembly and the Commission regarding whether to encourage or invest
in renewable generation, fracking, or natural gas generation facilities within their borders.
Pennsylvanians live with the environmental and economic costs associated with power

91
generation. Yet the only concern appears to be with “discriminatory prices” in our jurisdiction.
If congestion on the AP South Reactive Interface has substantially disappeared since 2014, it is
unclear how the proposed IEC project will affect generators located in Pennsylvania. There are
no generators intervening in this proceeding to represent their individual interests.

Transource is a foreign company asserting that economic congestion creates

artificially low prices in the unconstrained region resulting in rates that are discriminatory and
unfair for customers in the constrained region. Transource M.B. at 46-47. I reject this premise
as evidence to find “need” pursuant to the meaning of the term in 52 Pa. Code Section
57.76(a)(1). Economic congestion is not a form of rate discrimination that implicates the
Commission’s authority, but may be an appropriate market-based response to the wholesale
power market. Any difference in rates above versus below the point of congestion or constraint
can represent reasonable differences in the cost to serve customers in the constrained region as
opposed to those in the unconstrained region. I do not find rates in a constrained area necessarily
per se discriminatory.

No one from Maryland or Washington D.C. testified at any public input hearing
to complain about discriminatory rates in favor of the project. Some individuals from Maryland
spoke against the project at public input hearings. For example, Patty Hankins of 229 St. Mary’s
Road, Plyesville, Maryland testified against the project as there was insufficient cost updates
from 2015 data to warrant the project. She feared projected costs kept escalating and she argued
the existing Otter Creek to Conastone 230 kV line rebuilt by PPL could carry two 230 kV
circuits but was currently carrying one as of June 1, 2018. Tr. 1448-1450, 1961-1964. Ms.
Hankins testified that the cost to add 230 kV lines to PPL’s existing transmission towers would
cost less than the IEC project. Tr. 1961-1964.

I heard no complaints from any individuals that rates were too high or prices
discriminatory in Washington D.C. or in Maryland compared to Pennsylvania, or that they did
not have reliable electric service in those areas. Only Transource’s witnesses testified that there
was price discrimination. PJM did not identify or consider non-transmission alternatives to
alleviate the projected congestion in the AP Interface. Maryland may have aggressive state

92
policies regarding carbon reduction goals through the encouragement of renewable generation or
implementation of demand response programs. Maryland has off-shore wind generation that it
may want to promote.

Potential future generation facilities study agreements (FSAs) were not inputs in
the PROMOD model when calculating the benefits of the IEC Project. Thirty six percent of
FSAs come to fruition. Many variables that impact constraints/congestion were not considered
even though costs due to congestion was cited as the main reason for the competitive bidding
process and selection of the project. Additionally, no consideration as to the existence of PPL’s
transmission lines/facilities close to and parallel to the York (East) proposed route of Project 9A
seems to have occurred prior to selection of the Project 9A. Constructing a second transmission
line with monopoles when there is a parallel transmission line owned by a pre-existing
certificated utility that offers transmission services near the proposed route with capacity for
expansion is analogous to constructing a new interstate highway when there is an existing
highway with capacity for expansion running parallel to the proposed route. As far as economic
and environmental impacts, even Transource admits in its filing of an Amended Application that
with the amendments to its original proposal, there will be less economic and environmental
impact than before in York County. Yet there is no change to the proposed IEC West route
through Franklin County, when again the proposed original route parallels an existing
transmission line route owned by West Penn Power and/or MAIT.

Section 1304 of the Public Utility Code states in relevant part:

No public utility shall, as to rates, make or grant any unreasonable

preference or advantage to any person, corporation, or municipal
corporation, or subject any person, corporation, or municipal
corporation to any unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage. No
public utility shall establish or maintain any unreasonable
difference as to rates, either as between localities or as between
classes of service…This section does not prohibit the
establishment of reasonable zone or group systems, or
classifications of rates….

93
66 Pa. C.S. § 1304.20 Economic congestion is not a form of rate discrimination implicated by
Section 1304 of the Public Utility Code. Economic congestion is a market-based response to the
competitive wholesale power market. That is, congestion is dynamic and dependent upon a
multitude of market factors, including the price of generation, the location of resources, and
where the load is that needs to be served. OCA St. 2 at 14. Moreover, while economic
congestion can be caused, in part, by operating limits on transmission facilities, it can also be
ameliorated by the construction of low-cost generation resources or demand response programs
in the constrained region. Tr. at 2266. In fact, economic congestion is supposed to serve as a
price signal to customers in the constrained region to take economic actions.21 Accordingly,
economic congestion is not a rate or preference set or established by a public utility or entity as
set forth in Section 1304 of the Public Utility Code. Rather, it is the wholesale power market
working as intended.

Moreover, Section 1304 of the Public Utility Code indicates that differences in
rates are permissible when that difference is not unreasonable or undue. 66 Pa. C.S. § 1304, see
also Painter v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 116 A.3d 749, 754-55 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (quoting Mill
v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 447 A.2d, 1100, 1102 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982)) (“The clear implication
from this language is that a person may be given a rate preference so long as it is not
unreasonable, and we believe that it falls to the Commission to determine under what
circumstances and in what amounts such a preference would be reasonable.”). In this instance,
economic congestion is the result of a reasonable difference in the cost to serve customers in the

20
The Company does not rely on any statutory language or case law to support its proposition that economic
congestion is a form of rate discrimination that must be remedied by the Commission. The Commission’s exercise
of power, however, must be conferred by clear and unmistakable legislative language. Process Gas Consumers
Group v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 511 A.2d 1315, 1319 (Pa. 1986) (“The power and authority to be exercised by
administrative commissions must be conferred by legislative language clear and unmistakable. A doubtful power
does not exist…They should act within the strict and exact limits defined.”).
21
As the Independent Market Monitor concluded, PJM’s market efficiency process heavily favors
transmission solutions preventing the possibility of new generation from responding to these market signals. OCA
M.B. at 80, n.47.

94
constrained region as opposed to customers in the unconstrained region.22 It is noted that much
of the congestion at issue has substantially disappeared since 2014.

Even if I were to find price differences have impacts to those affected below the
constraints, those concerns would be weighed against the detrimental impacts that this would
have to those load-serving entities on the unconstrained side, as well as the economic and
environmental impacts of new transmission infrastructure. Pa. Const. art. I, § 27; 66 Pa. C.S.
§ 1501, 52 Pa. Code § 57.76(a).

PJM’s forward-looking model projects that if the IEC Project is constructed, the
PJM region would only experience net benefits of $32.5 million over a period of 15 years and
Pennsylvania, in particular, would experience a net increase of $400 million in wholesale power
prices over that same period of time. OCA Hearing Exh. 3, Transource Response to OCA XLIII-
4. This result would be produced by constructing a transmission project that is guaranteed to
cost at minimum $476 million and will impact the natural, historic, scenic, and aesthetic lands of
Franklin and York Counties, Pennsylvania, and the property rights/market values of those
Counties’ landowners. Accordingly, while there may be some forecasted price differences in
PJM’s forward-looking models, any reduction in “price discrimination” for regions below the
constraints is outweighed by the anticipated harm caused to Pennsylvania by the IEC Project.

As further support for the need of the IEC Project, Transource argues that the IEC
Project will provide additional benefits to Pennsylvania, including providing Pennsylvania
generators with greater access to electric power markets, mitigation of extreme weather/load
events, increased import/export capability between capacity zones, enhanced competition in
PJM, additional jobs, increased tax revenues; and increased economic activity. Transource M.B.
at 54-55. More generally, the Company asserts that the Commission should approve the IEC

22
See Lloyd v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 904 A.2d 1010, 1016 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (quoting Phila. Suburban
Water Co. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 808 A.2d 1044, 1060 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002)) (“[I]n order for a rate differential to
survive a challenge brought under Section 1304 of the Public Utility Code…the utility must show that the
differential can be justified by the difference in costs required to deliver service to each class. The rate cannot be
illegally high for one class and illegally low for another…Overall the rate differentials must advance efficient and
satisfactory service to the greatest number at the lowest overall charge.”)

95
Project because Pennsylvania routinely benefits from PJM’s regional transmission planning and
should provide the same benefit for other states. Transource M.B. at 54-57.

No natural gas generators intervened in this proceeding to protect any perceived

self-interest benefit to the project. The mere assertion that generators located in Pennsylvania
would have greater access to electric power markets is insufficient evidence for me to find the
same. Bald assertions do not constitute substantial evidence. Brunner v. PPL Elec. Utils. Corp.,
Docket No. C-2018-3006175 (Final Order entered on October 8, 2019); citing Bervinchak v. PPL
Elec. Utils. Corp., Docket No. C-2016-2572824 (Final Order entered on October 2, 2018). See
also, Pa. Bureau of Corrs. v. City of Pittsburgh, 532 A.2d. 12 (Pa. 1987). While the
Commission’s scope of inquiry to determine need in this proceeding is broad, I am more focused
on whether this Project is necessary or proper for the accommodation, convenience, and safety of
its patrons, employees, and the public. Pa. Power & Light Co. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 696
A.2d 248, 250 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997).

Also, I have considered the testimony of workers with the International

Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) at the public input hearings, but whether these
workers receive economic benefits from the Project 9A is irrelevant to showing whether the IEC
Project is needed to alleviate congestion on the AP South Reactive Interface. Jobs in
Pennsylvania and tax revenues are a benefit to a transmission construction project, but any
benefits concerning additional employment, increased tax revenues, and economic activity are
temporary in nature due to the temporary nature of the construction of the lines. Additionally,
Transource will use AEP knowledge/employees to build the transmission towers, so it is unclear
how many or what type of construction jobs will be generated for Pennsylvanians. Once this
Project is constructed, there will be long-lasting, permanent consequences to the landscape of
Pennsylvania, increased wholesale power prices in Pennsylvania, and costs borne by the
transmission zones that are purported to benefit. Due to the dynamic nature of congestion and
the difficulty in accurately assessing the nature, scope, and extent of future congestion, it is
unclear how the IEC Project will impact Pennsylvania generation.

96
 Pennsylvania has benefitted from its participation in PJM and through regional
transmission planning; however, under these particular circumstances, the IEC Project as a
market efficiency project does not provide sufficient benefits to Pennsylvania or the PJM region
as a whole. If approved, PJM projects that this Project will decrease wholesale power prices by
approximately $845 million primarily for transmission zones south of the AP South Reactive
Interface, while at the same time increasing wholesale power prices by $812 million for
transmission zones primarily to the north and east of the AP South constraint. Overall, PJM
forecasts a net benefit of $32.5 million to the PJM region over a period of 15 years with a total
revenue requirement of at least $509 million over that same period of time. All of this is to
address a congestion constraint that has diminished to very low levels since this Project was
selected. This is a costly project to Pennsylvania compared to the net benefit to address vague
constraints.

I am persuaded by the credible testimony of OCA witness Rubin who testified

during cross-examination by Transource counsel:

Under any logical view of what's happening. If you build this

project, you can save utilities in Maryland, Virginia, and the
District of Columbia almost a billion dollars over 15 years; and, if
you don't build that project, that same power is going to be used in
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, and New Jersey at a cost of about
$970 million.

So, yes, there is some congestion. There is a technical problem to

be solved, and the value of that congestion as laid out in the most
recent estimate we have is less than a million dollars a year over
the next 15 years. So this project makes no sense. I don't care how
you run the numbers or how you talk about it. Those are the latest
numbers we have, and you can exclude them if you want to but
that's reality.

Tr. at 2504.

97
 The methodology performed by PJM to develop the benefit-cost ratio of the IEC
Project23 is deficient when measured against the constitutional, statutory, and regulatory
standards of Pennsylvania law. PJM’s failure to consider increased wholesale power prices in
Pennsylvania when calculating the benefit-cost ratio, frequent changes to how the benefit-cost
ratio is calculated even during this proceeding, changes to how the benefits are simulated, and
the uncertain nature and extent to which transmission zones benefit all cast doubt on the benefits,
if any to Pennsylvanians. Id.

PJM’s market efficiency process is narrowly focused on whether the proposed

project meets the requirements set forth in PJM’s Operating Agreement and manuals. PJM does
not consider, nor is it required to consider, the public policy and environmental concerns that are
required by this Commission under the Pennsylvania Constitution and the statutory and
regulatory laws of this Commonwealth. OCA St. 2 at 9-10; Tr. at 2287. As further summarized
by OCA witness Rubin in his direct testimony:

Q. As a matter of regulatory policy (and not as a matter of

law), in your opinion does PJM’s selection of the IEC
Project as one that should be pursued carry with it any
implications for this Commission’s review of the IEC
Project?

A. In my opinion, as a matter of public policy, PJM’s selection

of the IEC Project should not supersede in any way this
Commission’s duty under Pennsylvania law and regulations
to determine whether construction and operation of the IEC
Project is necessary or proper for the service,
accommodation, convenience or safety of the public.
Indeed, in my opinion this Commission has the obligation
to fully comply with the law and its regulations and
independently determine whether the IEC Project is in the
best interests of the Commonwealth in general and utility
consumers in particular.

In discovery, OCA asked the representative of PJM

(Transource witness McGlynn) whether PJM considered

23
Pursuant to its Operating Agreement, a market efficiency project must have a benefit-cost ratio of 1.25:1 to
be considered economically viable and recommended for approval to the PJM Board of Directors. Transource St. 7-
R, Exh. SRH-3R at 11.

98
 any of the factors this Commission is required to consider
in approving the development and siting of two substations
and more than 30 miles of new high-voltage transmission
lines. His responses demonstrate that PJM does not
consider any of the factors this Commission must consider
before approving substation siting, new transmission lines,
or the specific locations of the line. I have attached as
Schedule SJR-8, copies of interrogatory answers where Mr.
McGlynn acknowledges that PJM does not consider the
issues associated with siting substations or transmission
lines that this Commission is required to consider.

Moreover, PJM’s review process does not consider

Pennsylvania law that requires projects to demonstrate that
they have minimized environmental impacts (particularly
on public lands and waterways) or adequately protected
agricultural land.

Mr. McGlynn went to great lengths to explain the

limit of PJM’s selection of the IEC Project, stating: “PJM
does not opine or determine the specific location or route of
projects. The siting of the project components described in
the Application is the responsibility of Transource PA.”
Response to OCA II-03, included in Schedule SJR-8.

Q. In your opinion, again as a matter of regulatory policy

and not as a question of law, should PJM’s selection of
the IEC Project affect this Commission’s determination
of need for the IEC Project?

A. In my opinion, as a matter of sound public policy, the

Commission should make an independent determination of
the need for the IEC Project, considering the likely costs
(including environmental and land-use impacts) and
benefits, as set forth in Pennsylvania law and regulations.

OCA St. 1 at 43-44 (footnotes omitted).

The Commission has a duty to review the evidence in its entirety, assess whether
that evidence is sufficient under Pennsylvania law, and render a decision to that effect. Increased
wholesale power prices in Pennsylvania that result from construction of the IEC Project are
being considered as a factor despite Transource’s argument that because congestion represents a
form of rate discrimination, consideration of these costs perpetuates rate discrimination.

99
Transource M.B. at 61. Economic congestion is not a form of rate discrimination, rather, it is a
market-based response to a variety of factors. See OCA R.B., Section V.B.3.

Moreover, the purpose of a benefit-cost analysis is to attempt to capture the likely

consequences of an activity and to express those consequences in the same units so that they can
be compared. OCA St. 1 at 23. All costs directly related to the construction of the IEC Project
should be taken into consideration, regardless of whether that impact is beneficial or detrimental.
Contrary to the Company’s claims, PJM previously considered increased wholesale power prices
resulting from higher-voltage regional market efficiency projects.24 OCA M.B. at 50-51. 66 Pa.
C.S. § 1501; 15 Pa. C.S. § 1511. Ignoring the more than $400 million in increased wholesale
power prices attributed to Pennsylvania as a result of the IEC Project does not satisfy that
obligation. Accordingly, increased wholesale power prices are real costs to customers that show
there is no need for the project.

I am persuaded by the credible witness Rubin in his direct testimony:

Q. On page 6, Mr. Cawley criticizes you, saying “no customer or

group of customers is entitled to lower cost generation created
by congestion constraints.” Do you agree?

A. Yes, I agree with him that customers are not “entitled” to the
benefits of market inefficiencies. Contrary to the implications of
Mr. Cawley’s statements, however, I am not suggesting that
customers in formerly unconstrained zones should be compensated
in any way for the loss of these inefficiency benefits. If I felt that
customers were “entitled” to those benefits, I would necessarily be
asking that customers be compensated when those benefits are lost.
But that is not the case. I am stating only that the loss of the
benefit must be recognized for what it is -- a very real cost that
would be a direct result of constructing the Project. As I have
explained, the change in power prices on both sides of the
constraint must be evaluated in determining whether a project

24
PJM did not remove consideration of these costs on the basis that it constitutes discrimination in rates. See
OCA Cross Exh. 4 at 8. Rather, PJM’s reasoning for removal of these costs in the calculation to determine the
benefits of a regional market efficiency project was to align the benefits of the project with the transmission zones
that would be responsible for the cost of the project and to increase the number of projects that can qualify as a
market efficiency project. Id.

100
 creates an overall benefit or detriment for the PJM system as a
whole. If it is cost-effective for the system as a whole to eliminate
the congestion, then the benefiting zones should pay for the project
and there should not be any compensation to the non-benefiting
zones. This is precisely because customers are not “entitled” to the
benefits of market inefficiencies.

But following Mr. Cawley’s suggestion and completely ignoring

the loss of lower-cost power to many Pennsylvania consumers
would lead to an absurd result that does not represent the real
world, as I discussed above. Simply stated, spending almost $500
million to eliminate a $17 million inefficiency makes no sense, but
that is exactly what Transource is proposing and Mr. Cawley
appears to be supporting. The only way to reach such a result is to
ignore what happens on both sides of the congestion point.

OCA St. 1-SR at 13 (emphasis in original). Monitoring Analytics, LLC, or the Independent
Market Monitor, similarly agrees that all costs are relevant to an evaluation of the actual costs
and benefits of the Project and that there is no reason to ignore any of the costs. OCA Cross
Exh. No. 12 at 7-8.

When PJM selected the IEC Project in December 2016, it made a filing with
FERC seeking approval to allocate how the costs of the Project are recovered. Transource St. 7-
R, Exh. SRH-3R at 8-9. Pursuant to PJM’s Operating Agreement, costs of the IEC Project are
allocated in a proportionate manner based upon the extent to which each PJM Transmission Zone
benefits from construction of the IEC Project. Id.; see also Transource St. 8-R, Exh. TH-3R at
31. At the time the filing was approved, the allocation factors were based upon PJM’s
simulations performed prior to August 2016. Transource St. 8-R, Exh. TH-3R at 31. However,
PJM has stated that it does not anticipate updating the allocation factors approved by FERC in
2016 if the IEC Project is approved by the Commission. OCA Hearing Exh. 3, Transource
Response to OCA XLIII-19.

Since then, the number of transmission zones that benefit from the IEC Project
and the extent to which they are projected to benefit have changed throughout the course of this
proceeding. As a result, some transmission zones that were once expected to benefit and have
some responsibility for paying the costs of the Project, no longer benefit. For example, the
COMED Transmission Zone, located in a portion of Illinois has been allocated approximately

101
2.16 percent of the project cost. Transource St. 8-R, Exh. TH-3R at 31; OCA Cross Exh. 10.
Relying on the September 2018 evaluation of the IEC Project, OCA witness Rubin calculated
that load-serving entities in the COMED Transmission Zone could expect to pay approximately
$10.76 million over a period of 15 years.25 OCA St. 1, Sch. SJR-5. In the most recent
simulation performed by PJM in December 2019, however, the COMED Transmission Zone is
projected to experience approximately $16.3 million in increased wholesale power prices over a
period of 15 years resulting from the IEC Project. OCA Hearing Exh. 3, Transource Response to
OCA XLIII-4. Not only will load-serving entities in the COMED Transmission Zone see
increased wholesale power prices, but they will also have to pay for a portion of the IEC Project.

Additionally, the APS Transmission Zone, which is composed of a portion of

Western Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland, and Virginia, is required to pay 8.73 percent of
the IEC Project Cost. Transource St. 8-R, Exh. TH-3R at 31; OCA Cross Exh. 10. Yet, PJM’s
latest re-evaluation indicates that the APS Transmission Zone will see reduced wholesale power
prices of approximately $60 million over the first 15 years of the Project’s service life, or 7.13
percent of the total purported Project benefits.26 OCA Hearing Exh. 3, Transource Response to
OCA XLIII-4. Accordingly, load-serving entities in the APS Transmission Zone are expected to
pay a greater percentage of the cost to construct the IEC Project than it would share in the
benefits of the IEC Project.

Accordingly, while Transource may be recovering costs from transmission zones

that benefit, the dynamic nature of simulating the benefits of a market efficiency project has left
the allocation factors outdated and not reflective of current simulation results. Moreover,
because those responsible for construction of facilities related to the IEC Project would collect a
revenue requirement for 50 to 60 years, or for the useful life of the IEC Project, the Company, in

25
The information presented in Schedule SJR-5 relied upon the September 2018 evaluation, which estimated
a PVRR of approximately $498 million. OCA St. 1, Sch. SJR-5. Most recently, the Company estimates that the
PVRR of the IEC Project, inclusive of the amended East Portion, is anywhere from approximately $509 to $528
million. Transource St. AA3, Exh. TJH-AA3 at 3-4. The OCA further notes that the IEC Project could exceed this
amount as it is not subject to a price cap. See OCA M.B. at 66, n.39.
26
$60.3 Million ÷ 844.8 Million = 7.13%. OCA Hearing Exh. 3, Transource Response to OCA XLIII-4.

102
addition to the other entities responsible for construction of the IEC Project, will continue to
collect costs related to the IEC Project while it impacts Pennsylvania.

Need within the meaning of Section 57.76(a)(1) is a threshold standard, and must
be proven before other factors are considered. As it was not proven by the applicant(s), I
recommend denying the Applications, the partial settlement, Shelter Petitions and pending
Eminent Domain Applications.

Even though I find no need for the project, in the event the Commission disagrees
with my conclusion, I am continuing my analysis with the other now moot factors and standards.

C. Health and Safety of the Public

1. Transource’s Position

Transource avers it will incorporate AEP’s experience as a large electric utility in

safely constructing its portion of the Project. Construction will comply with all Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) rules and regulations, while keeping environmental
impact to a minimum. Transource will have dedicated safety personnel for the Project and each
contractor will be required to have a safety program. See Attachment 4 to Siting Application.

Likewise, PPL will follow its well-established safety protocols in constructing its
portion of the IEC Project. PPL’s construction practices are set forth in Supplemental
Attachment 4 to the Amended Siting Application. Transource contends the IEC Project will
meet or exceed all National Electric Safety Code (NESC) requirements as detailed in Attachment
4 to the original Siting Application and in Supplemental Attachment 4 to the Amended Siting
Application.

103
 2. Protestants’/Intervenors’ positions

OCA had no position on this issue. However, many affected landowners testified
at site views and public input hearings regarding what they perceived to be a project designed to
harm their health and safety. Tr. 670, 689, 696, Tr. 701, Tr. 790, Tr. 820, 828, 845, 853 - 854,
855, 858, 880, 914, 935, 957, 958, 1035, 1103- 1104. Some property owners testified that they
were afraid the new lines would have stray voltage that shock themselves and their animals. Tr.
673, 678-680, 689- 690, 716, 799, 829, 843, 876, 880- 881, 914, 963- 964, 1062, 1085, 1133,
1141-1142. Business owners and property owners testified to concerns over the effect on farm
animals, growth of vegetation, crops and produce with the construction of the monopoles. Tr.
668 - 669, 846-850.

Homeowners who use well water showed concerns over the pollution of the
water. Tr. 701, 1024, 1034. As an example, Carl Helman lives along Falling Springs and has
concerns about the wildlife that depend on the spring. In addition, he testified to major concerns
of the construction of the monopoles and the effects on the underground supports for his water
supply system. Tr. 1071.

3. Disposition

The Commission has found in numerous cases that transmission lines that meet or
exceed NESC requirements do not create an unreasonable risk or danger to the health and safety
of the public. Investigation on Commission Motion of the Safety of the Cabett-Wylei Ridge
500kV Transmission Line, I.D. 236 (Sept. 18, 1981); Application of PP&L for Approval to
Locate and Construct a 138kV Transmission Line Between West Allentown and Salisbury
Substations, Docket No. A-00104160 (July 20, 1984); Application of PP&L for Authorization to
Locate and Construct its Hamlin 1348 kV Electric Transmission Line, Docket No. A-00101826
(April 3, 1981); Larken v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 39 Pa. PUC 777 (1961).

While I have considered the testimony of landowners/farmers concerned for stray

voltage while they work on large tractors/equipment near the lines, and for their and their

104
employees’ well-being, Transource witness, Mr. Silva, refuted some of their testimony regarding
electromagnetic fields (EMFs). EMFs are created whenever there is a flow of electricity.
Transource St. No. 15-R, p. 7. There are two types of EMFs associated with alternating electric
current—the electric field and the magnetic field. The electric field is created by the voltage, and
the magnetic field is created by the flow of current. Transource St. No. 15-R, p. 7. In the United
States, electric fields operate at a power frequency of 60 Hertz (Hz). Common sources of 60 Hz
EMF include wiring in homes, businesses and schools, lighting, home appliances, power tools
and other electrical equipment. Transource St. No. 15-R, p. 8.

EMF levels for the IEC Project are lower than recommended ranges for public
exposures and the magnetic fields are within the range that people experience in their normal
living and working environments. Transource St. No. 15-R, pp. 12-14.

Dr. Nancy Lee refuted testimony that EMFs cause or contribute to cancer,
childhood leukemia, other childhood or adult cancers, or other chronic health problems.
Transource St. No. 16-R, p. 15. Dr. Lee’s conclusion is consistent with prior Commission
decisions that EMFs should not be regarded as a health hazard. See Application of Pa. Power &
Light Co. Filed Pursuant to 52 Pa. Code Ch. 57, 1994 Pa. PUC LEXIS 65, *67-*69 (Oct. 21,
1994).

Dr. H. Dwight Mercer, a veterinarian, a comparative toxicologist and an expert on

EMF impacts on animals, successfully refuted testimony that horses, cows and other farm
animals would suffer negative health effects from being in proximity to an IEC transmission line.
Dr. Mercer explained that he has extensive experience working with animals personally,
researching issues, writing papers and reviewing studies regarding potential EMF impacts on
animals. Dr. Mercer’s opinion in this proceeding was that there is no risk to animals as a result
of EMFs from the IEC Project. Transource St. No. 17-R, p. 12.

Stray voltage is a voltage between two objects where no voltage should exist.
Transource St. No. 15-R, p. 17. I am persuaded by the credible testimony of Mr. Silva that the

105
high voltage transmission lines should not create stray voltage problems and would not be
expected for the IEC Project.

At the public input hearings, several parties expressed concerns about noise levels
from the transmission lines. See e.g., Tr. at 976. Transource witness Mr. Silva calculated noise
levels for the transmission lines in both dry and rainy conditions. Transource St. No. 15-R, p.
16. Mr. Silva testified that sound levels for the transmission lines are below typical sound levels
in a library, in a suburb at night or the low range of sounds from a light wind or light rain.
Transource St. No. 15-R, p. 16. Mr. Silva’s testimony is credible and supports a finding that the
lines will not cause enough audible noise to create a nuisance.

At the public input hearings, several parties expressed concerns about being able
to safely farm underneath the transmission lines. See e.g. Tr. at 914, 1674, 1754. Transource PA
admitted that much of the transmission line in Franklin County parallels existing transmission
infrastructure some on the same farmland owned by Mr. and Mrs. Rice for example, who are
currently farming around an existing transmission line with poles. Allen and Lori Rice run a
100-acre farm with 8,000-10,000 head of cattle and 40-50 employees in Chambersburg, Franklin
County. Tr. 1272-1273. Mr. and Mrs. Rice are concerned about the effect the proposed line
would have going over their high-temperature composting facility. Tr. 1276. They are
concerned a line routed over the facility might spark a fire and create an emergency on the
property. Mr. and Mrs. Rice’s employees work on large farm equipment and they are concerned
with stray voltage shocking them as they work in all weather conditions. Tr. 1277-1278, 1286-
1287. Mr. and Mrs. Rice are concerned their heifers may have spontaneous abortions due to
higher electricity in the area they are trying to raise their animals. Tr. 1282. They are also
concerned the proposed project may negatively affect their well water. Tr. 1282-1283, 1291-
1292. Mr. and Mrs. Rice’s tractors are steered by GPS, and they are concerned it will become
unreliable if Transource builds transmission lines over their property. Tr. 1289-1290. Laura
Mueller testified on September 18, 2018 that the proposed towers would be “out of scale” with
the beautiful landscape in Franklin County and she expressed concerns over transmission lines
sparking fires. PUC Exhibit 413

106
 Although I can agree with Transource that farming and transmission lines have
co-existed for a long time and the new transmission infrastructure will allow greater farming
activity than the existing lattice infrastructure, the fact that both are going to be on Mr. and Mrs.
Rice’s land, where they have large equipment, a salon business, a composting/fertilizer business
for organic farmers, and thousands of cows all operating under the proposed route is an
unreasonable economic impact on their property. Transource St. No. 5-R, p. 2. They are using
large tractors and other farming equipment under an existing transmission line and they testified
regarding a transmission line’s effect on the GPS systems in this equipment. I find them to be
credible regarding the GPS systems. Tr. 137-138. Although Mr. Silva conducted research
regarding whether GPS devices are adversely affected by EMFs from power lines and testified
that the transmission lines would not affect GPS systems, these persons had direct personal
knowledge using their equipment under transmission lines, and I find their testimony regarding
GPS interference refutes the generalized statement of Witness Silva. Transource St. No. 15-R,
pp. 22-23.

In general, I am persuaded to find that the record evidence in this proceeding

demonstrates that the transmission lines, if built pursuant to the Amended Application regarding
York County, which substantially uses existing poles owned by PPL except for a few miles, and
the new route in Franklin County will be safely constructed and will not cause adverse effects to
the health and safety of the public. However, I find additional lines can interfere with GPS
systems on tractor/farming equipment and make farming around all of the lines more difficult.

D. Environmental and Economic Impact

1. Transource’s Position

Transource contends that it has extensively considered each of the factors set forth
in the Commission’s regulations as well as the available alternative routes in selecting the
proposed routes. Transource and PPL selected the Amended Application route in the IEC East
Portion of the Project through York County, which has less of an environmental impact. In its
original Application, Transource proposed a greenfield route for the East Portion of the IEC

107
Project that would extend for 15.8 miles (approximately 12.7 miles in Pennsylvania and
approximately 3.1 miles in Maryland) between the proposed Furnace Run Substation and the
Conastone Substation. Transource Ex. No. AA-1, Attachment 3 (East), p. 3. During the course
of this proceeding and the related Maryland proceeding, Transource and PJM evaluated
alternative routes and determined that one using existing PPL infrastructure with the addition of
a third transformer at the Furnace Run Substation would pass the required reliability and market
efficiency tests. Transource Ex. No. AA-1, Supplemental Attachment 3, p. 2. Settlement
agreements were reached with various parties to amend the original Application to propose the
Settlement IEC East Portion as the preferred route for the East Portion of the IEC Project.
Transource Ex. No. AA-1, Supplemental Attachment 3, p. 2. Prior to submitting the Amended
Application, PPL retained AECOM to conduct a Supplemental Siting Study that evaluates the
originally proposed route for the East Portion and the Settlement IEC East Portion. PPL Electric
St. No. AA-5, p. 4. The same methodology that was used for the siting of the original IEC East
Portion was used to evaluate the Settlement IEC East Portion. PPL Electric St. No. AA-5, p. 5.

As comparted to the originally proposed route for the East Portion of the IEC
Project, the Settlement IEC East Portion will utilize existing infrastructure and/or ROWs, affect
fewer new landowners and parcels, and impact fewer natural resources. PPL Electric St. No.
AA-5, p. 5. The entire alignment for the Settlement IEC East Portion consists of parcels that
currently have ROW agreements or are owned in fee by PPL. The Settlement IEC East Portion
also uses existing infrastructure for the majority of the length of the line by adding a second
circuit onto the existing transmission lines. PPL Electric St. No. AA-5, pp. 5-6. The four-mile
Furnace Run 230 kV Transmission Line corridor is the only section of the Settlement IEC East
Portion that will require widening of existing ROWs. Effectively, the Settlement IEC East
Portion will minimize requirements for new ROW and potential impacts to new property owners.
PPL Electric St. No. AA-5, p. 6.

The Settlement IEC East Portion will result in less overall environmental impacts
relative to the originally proposed route. PPL Electric St. No. AA-5, pp. 6-7. Only four streams
are present along the Furnace Run 230 kV Transmission Line corridor that will require clearing
of the riparian areas compared to the eleven streams located along the originally proposed route.

108
The amount of wetland area crossed by the Settlement IEC East Portion is similar to that of the
originally proposed route. The Settlement IEC East Portion will involve less tree clearing (19.3
acres) relative to the originally proposed route (51.7 acres), which reduces the forest
fragmentation effects and potential impacts to threatened and endangered species that use forest
habitat, such as T&E bat species. PPL Electric St. No. AA-5, p. 6.

The Settlement IEC East Portion already spans Muddy Creek in defined ROW
areas. Only new arms and wires will be added to the existing towers, thereby minimizing the
construction challenges associated with the steep slopes in this area. PPL Electric St. No. AA-5,
p. 7. Access to the existing PPL transmission lines was previously identified and coordinated
with landowners when the lines were rebuilt in 2012-2014. Coordination for access to the
Furnace Run 230 kV Transmission Line section will be considerably less challenging than the
coordination that would be required for the numerous new access roads needed for the originally
proposed route. PPL Electric St. No. AA-5, p. 7.

Overall, the Settlement IEC East Portion is anticipated to have less total impact
when compared to the original Proposed Route for the IEC East Project. PPL Electric St. No.
AA-5, p. 7. Additionally, the Settlement IEC East Portion is unopposed by the major parties in
York County – Citizens to Stop Transource York County, Maple Lawn Farms, Barron Shaw and
Shaw Orchards and the York County Planning Commission.

Regarding the West portion, Transource argues its proposed route C of

approximately 28.8 miles (approximately 24.4 miles in Pennsylvania and approximately 4.4
miles in Maryland) parallels existing linear features including other transmission line ROWs ,
highways or railroads for 42% of the total proposed length. Transource Ex. No. 1. Transource
claims route C is less of a cumulative impact that alternative routes A and B. Transource St. No.
4, at 21. Crossings of wetlands will be mitigated and crossing of the Falling Springs in
Chambersburg will be done at a right angles with additional stormwater permitting requirements
focused on preservation of water quality level. Transource St. No. 4, at 20-21. Route C is a
direct route designed to mitigate dames to orchards, farming operations and agricultural lands.
Id. at 22.

109
 If “no impact” were the standard, no transmission line project would ever be built
because a high voltage transmission line cannot be built without causing some effects on the
environment, the public and individual property owners. Transource St. No. 4-R, pp. 12-14.
Such a “no build” approach would have a significant adverse effect in that it would prevent the
provision of adequate, safe and reliable electric service to the public. The fact that various
parties to this proceeding may have pointed out some adverse effects of the West Portion of the
IEC Project and the Settlement IEC East Portion does not support rejection of the Application as
amended. Merely identifying some adverse effects along a proposed line route does not justify
moving the line somewhere else where it would have similar or perhaps even greater adverse
effects on others. The goal of the siting process is to identify a route that minimizes impacts
overall while balancing environmental impacts, human/built impacts, and engineering concerns
to the extent practicable. Transource St. No. 4-R, p. 14.

After PJM selected Project 9A as the preferred solution to relieve the identified
congestion constraints, Transource retained AECOM to undertake a comprehensive siting
analysis to determine the most appropriate routes for the IEC Project. Transource Ex. No. 1,
Attachment 3 (West and East), p. 3. The siting process evaluated paralleling existing
infrastructure and ROW to the extent possible. Transource St. No. 4-R, pp. 2-4, 6-8.

Transource completed numerous environmental surveys for wetlands, threatened

and endangered species, and sensitive habitats. The Siting Team identified three Alternative
Routes for the IEC West Project: Alternative Route A, Alternative Route B, and Alternative
Route C. Alternative Route A extends approximately 30.4 miles (approximately 23.8 miles in
Pennsylvania and approximately 6.6 miles in Maryland). Alternative Route B extends
approximately 31.9 miles (approximately 25.3 miles in Pennsylvania and approximately 6.6
miles in Maryland). Alternative Route C extends approximately 28.8 miles (approximately 24.4
miles in Pennsylvania and approximately 4.4 miles in Maryland). A detailed description of these
three Alternative Routes was provided in Attachment 3 to Transource’s December 26, 2017
Siting Application. See Transource Ex. No. 1.

110
 The Alternative Routes were compared, and a Proposed Route was selected based
upon a detailed analysis and balance of impacts on the human/built environment, environmental
impacts, and engineering and constructability considerations. Based on these evaluation
processes, the Siting Team selected Alternative Route C as the Proposed Route for the West
Portion of the IEC Project based on its determination that the cumulative environmental,
human/built, engineering, and constructability impacts associated with the Proposed Route,
Alternative Route C, will be significantly less than the other Alternative Routes. Transource St.
No. 4, p. 21.

The Proposed Route is a more direct alignment between the Rice and Ringgold
Substations, which means that it will cross fewer parcels and impact fewer landowners compared
to the other alternatives. The alignment avoids the more populated sections of the Project Study
Area by crossing agricultural lands adjacent to I-81 and paralleling an existing transmission line
corridor south past Waynesboro as it extends into the Ringgold Substation. Additionally, the
Proposed Route spans U.S. Route 30 in a commercial retail area thereby minimizing the
residentially dense areas along this corridor. As a result, the Proposed Route has the fewest
residences within 500 feet compared to the other alternatives. Transource St. No. 4, p. 21. It
would be less impact to the environment though, if Transource and the owner of the parallel
transmission facilities could have agreed like PPL and Transource did to have less of an impact
on the environment and economics of the people and businesses residing below the lines.

The Proposed Route has the least amount of tree clearing and reduces the forest
fragmentation effects and potential impacts to T&E species that use forest habitats such as T&E
bat species. In terms of other potential T&E habitat areas, the Proposed Route would cross three
natural areas in Pennsylvania that are comprised predominantly of open meadows, which can be
spanned by the transmission lines therefore minimizing potential impacts on the plant or animal
communities. Transource St. No. 4, p. 22.

In meeting the expectations of 52 Pa. Code § 69.3105(3)(iii), over 40% of the

Proposed Route alignment for the West Project parallels either highways, railroads, or
transmission line ROWs. Transource St. No. 4-R, p. 7. Specifically, the Proposed Route

111
parallels existing linear features for 42% of the total length of the transmission line, which may
allow for the use of existing access roads. Overall, the Proposed Route is the preferred route
from an engineering and constructability perspective. In addition, the Proposed Route will not
interfere with any airport operations or quarries. Although the Proposed Route crosses more
transmission lines, Transource will work with West Penn Power and/or MAIT to ensure proper
clearances in order to safely operate and maintain the facilities. Transource St. No. 4, p. 23.

Transource argues the real estate values of properties located on or near the
proposed routes will not be negatively impacted by the building of the transmission lines. In
support of this argument, Transource offered the testimony of William F. Rothman, a licensed
realtor, who reviewed property values of parcels that have existing transmission lines on or very
close to them in York and Franklin Counties and compared those properties with properties that
do not have transmission lines on or very close to them. After analyzing the sales transaction
data for farms in Franklin and York Counties, Mr. Rothman opined that the existence of the HV
transmission line corridor had no discernible effect on property values of farmland in either
County. Mr. Rothman observed no significant difference in the range or average of the sales
prices between those properties located on a HV transmission line corridor and those that were
not. Mr. Rothman also indicated that he would not expect to see a decline in property values on
farms if the proposed Project were built. Transource St. No. 13-R, p. 3.

Mr. Rothman also analyzed residential sales in both Counties and compared the
sales prices per square foot of living area for those properties where a transmission line corridor
crossed or abutted the property to those sales where a HV transmission line corridor did not cross
or about the property. Based on that analysis, Mr. Rothman concluded that the existence of the
HV transmission line corridor made no difference in the market value of the properties abutting
the line. This was the case in the farm sales and also the residential sales analysis. Transource
St. No. 13-R, p. 4.

In Mr. Rothman’s opinion, the concern of diminished tax revenue as a result of

the Project is extremely unlikely. The only way for a loss of property tax revenue to occur
would be for the property tax assessments to be lowered. While it would be theoretically

112
possible for an individual property owner to file a tax appeal for a reduced assessment based on
the presence of a high voltage transmission line, Mr. Rothman has not seen any instances where
this has occurred. There are already a significant number of properties in both counties that have
existing ROW crossings for transmission lines, including approximately 50% of the properties
along the proposed route in Franklin County. Mr. Rothman has not seen any instances where
those existing encroachments trigger a reduction in property assessments. Transource St. No.
13-R, pp. 4-5. Mr. Rothman also pointed out that Franklin County has not done a county-wide
tax reassessment since 1961. The result is that property tax assessments are already very low
and for a property owner to prove that it should be lowered further would be difficult. In fact,
the assessments are so low that the Clean and Green program often used to lower property taxes
on agricultural property is not in effect in Franklin County.

In York County, the vast majority of the agricultural properties are enrolled in the
Clean and Green program. Clean and Green is a preferential tax assessment program that bases
property taxes on use values rather than fair market values. This ordinarily results in a
significant tax savings for landowners. Again, the already low assessments would make it
difficult for property owners to obtain a reduction in their assessments for a negative influence
factor such as a power line. Transource St. No. 13-R, pp. 4-5.

Transource also engaged David Ray Dominy to assess the potential impacts of a
HV transmission line on properties located on and adjacent to the proposed IEC Project. Mr.
Dominy is the Managing Director of JLL Valuation and Advisory Services – Houston. Mr.
Dominy is a certified real estate appraiser and has 28 years’ experience in the real estate
business. See Transource St. No. 14-R, pp. 1-2.

Mr. Dominy prepared an analysis consisting of ten case studies of property values
along HV transmission line corridors in the states of Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Illinois and
Wisconsin. Mr. Dominy’s analysis considered actual sales transactions of properties located
along various HV transmission line corridors across the eastern and central United States.
Transource St. No. 14-R, pp. 1-2. Based on Mr. Dominy’s study, he concluded that there was no

113
impact on property values from proximity to the adjacent transmission line corridor and
powerlines before or after construction. Transource St. No. 14-R, p. 16.

Mr. Dominy also reviewed published literature that spans over five decades on the
effects on HV transmission lines on nearby residential and agricultural properties. From his
review of the literature, Mr. Dominy concluded that more than half of the published literature has
found little to no adverse impact on prices and values of the properties studied. Transource St.
No. 14-R, p. 7. Mr. Dominy reviewed the Wyman and Mothorpe 2018 Study and concluded that
it has no applicability to the properties at issue in this matter. The properties in the Wyman and
Mothorpe 2018 Study were part of residential subdivision lots located in large communities,
often near golf courses and navigable waterways. Transource St. No. 14-R, pp. 15-16.
Conversely, Mr. Dominy’s analysis involving agricultural properties reals little to no impact on
property values from the presence of a HV transmission line. Transource St. No. 14-R, p. 18.
Mr. Dominy also revealed that the Wyman and Mothorpe 2018 Study used an automated
valuation model or “AVM.” Standards of professional practice of the appraisal profession
recognize that AVMs are subject to a high error rate and manipulation to achieve predetermined
results. Transource St. No. 14-R, p. 19. Therefore, the Wyman and Mothorpe 2018 Study
should not be relied upon to form any conclusion regarding the impact of HV transmission lines
on property values.

Transource admits that the ROW for the West Portion of the IEC Project will
cross a portion of the cross-country track on the Falling Springs Elementary School property. In
these locations where the ROW crosses the cross-country track, existing trees will have to be
removed. However, the transmission line will not deter or inhibit use of the cross-country track.
Transource St. No. 4-R, p. 9. Transource did examine alternative options throughout this area.
However, the presence of a municipal building and residential properties in the surrounding area
makes this the only open area that could reasonably be crossed through. Tr. at 2124, ln. 3-19.

Transource argues that the impact to the Falling Spring Elementary School will be
limited to removing trees underneath the ROW, and the school property can continue to be used
as it is today. Tr. at 2182, ln. 16-25. The presence of the transmission line will not pose a threat

114
to the safety of the children who attend the Falling Springs Elementary School. Transource St.
No. 16-R, p. 15.

2. Protestants’/Intervenors’ Positions

OCA, Citizens, and York Planning Commission take no position with regard to
the environmental impact. However, STFC, Franklin County and many individual protestants
and other concerned individuals testifying at site views and public input hearings testified that
the environmental and economic impact would be unreasonable and unnecessary.

For example, State Representative Kristin Phillips-Hill testified she represented

the 93rd Legislative District and opposed the proposed project at A-2017-2640195 because it
“will not provide long-term significant benefits to our local Pennsylvania communities
economically nor preserve our tremendous agrarian heritage and scenic beauty.” Tr. 1901-1904.

Ms. Warren objected to herbicide sprays on the hiking trail/cross country course
next to Falling Spring Road as she is a member of the public using the trail. Tr. 1238-1239.
Allen Stine testified that blasting on the hill near the cross country course would have negative
impact on Falling Spring below. Tr. 1240. He also testified the construction would have a
negative effect on the cross country course and his real estate located at 867, 930 and 1040 Cider
Press Road, Chambersburg, next to the Chambersburg Area School District property. PUC
Exhibits 153 – 158. Lantz Sourbier testified at Skelly Meadows, where seven springs converge
and there are unique fly hatches supporting a blue-ribbon trout stream, which has high value that
would be negatively impacted by drilling/blasting near the Spring. Tr. 1245. PUC Exhibits 136-
158. Joseph Dague resides at 1296 Falling Spring Road and he is a mineralist who testified
Falling Spring flows through underground passageways that consist of severely broken rock at
the Carbaugh Run Marsh Creek fault a/k/a the 40 degree fault and part of a major east to west
fault across Pennsylvania, the Transylvanian fault. Tr. 1247-1248. One of the seven springs
runs through Mr. Dague’s basement, supplying water to his house. He is concerned the
construction of Route C will contaminate his drinking water. Tr. 1248-1252. Mr. Dague
collected artifacts such as arrowheads from near the stream on his property. Tr. 1249, PUC

115
Exhibit 145. He argues his property and the lands surrounding the seven springs is of historical
and archeological significance worth preserving. Tr. 1252. Brandon Stouffer testified he lives
directly across from Falling Spring, and he has a spring fed pond, for which he is concerned. Tr.
1256. The route is close to his property and he has concerns for his children attending the
elementary school. Tr. 1257-1258. Colby Nitterhouse also had concerns for his children
attending the elementary school. Tr. 1307. Colby Nitterhouse testified he rejected an offer of
$38,000 for a ROW that would cut through land he had hopes of developing and subdividing for
his children in the future. Tr. 1307.

3. Disposition

The Commission’s regulations require that a transmission line project “will have
minimum adverse environmental impact, considering the electric power needs of the public, the
state of available technology and the available alternatives.” 52 Pa. Code § 57.76(a)(4). In
determining whether a proposed route will have minimum adverse environmental impacts, the
Commission will consider the impact and the efforts that have been and will be made to
minimize the impact, if any, of the proposed line upon the following: (i) land use; (ii) soil and
sedimentation; (iii) plant and wildlife habitats; (iv) terrain; (v) hydrology; (vi) landscape; (vii)
geologic areas; (ix) historic areas; (x) scenic areas; (xi) wilderness areas; and (xii) scenic rivers.
52 Pa. Code § 57.75(e)(3). Further, the Commission will consider the availability of reasonable
alternative routes in reaching a conclusion as to whether the proposed route will have minimum
adverse environmental impacts. 52 Pa. Code § 57.75(e)(4). The Commission has determined
that application of its regulations fulfills the Commission’s duties as trustee under the
Environmental Rights Amendment as set forth in PEDF.27

In approving a utility’s application for a high voltage transmission line, the

Commonwealth Court has stated that a utility’s route for a proposed high voltage transmission
line should be approved where the record evidence shows that the utility’s route selection

27
See Application of Pennsylvania Electric Company Seeking Approval to Locate, Construct, Operate and
Maintain a High-Voltage Transmission Line Referred to as the Bedford North-Central City West 115 kV HV
Transmission Line Project, Docket No. A-2016-2565296 (Order entered March 8, 2018).

116
process was reasonable and that the utility properly considered the factors relevant to siting a
transmission line. Energy Conservation Council of Pa. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 25 A.3d 440,
449 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011). The Commonwealth Court explained that Section 57.76(a)(4) requires
the applicant to demonstrate reasonable efforts to minimize adverse environmental impacts of the
proposed route when compared to the available alternative routes, but the utility need not
consider all possibilities. Id. at 448-49. Moreover, the applicant is not required to choose a route
that has no adverse impacts. Id.

A review of potential environmental impacts should weigh these impacts against

available alternatives and fully consider mitigation measures proposed by Transource and PPL.
Transource and PPL have committed to taking measures to mitigate environmental impacts of
the proposed transmission line in York County, including working with numerous governmental
agencies that have jurisdiction over various aspects of the project, based on their combined
expertise, to further mitigate the effects of the project. Transource Ex. No. AA-1, Supplemental
Attachment 3, pp. 25-28; Transource Ex. No. 1, Attachment 3, p. 99. The siting processes
employed by Transource and PPL represents a route selection that minimizes environmental
impacts for the Alterative IEC East Portion. The original East plan would have interfered with
orchard tree growth/production on Maple Lawn Farms and Shaw Orchards among other farming
operations. However, there are environmental impacts in Franklin County to schools,
businesses, springs/streams that are not mitigated.

Although Transource has a partial settlement with some of the parties in this case
including PPL, York County Planning Commission, Citizens, Shaw Orchards, and Maple Lawn
Farms, this is not a full settlement with all parties regarding all issues.

Commission policy generally promotes settlements. 52 Pa. Code § 5.231.

Settlements lessen the time and expense the parties must expend litigating a case and at the same
time conserve administrative resources. The Commission has indicated that settlement results
are often preferable to those achieved at the conclusion of a fully litigated proceeding. 52 Pa.
Code § 69.401. The focus of inquiry for determining whether a proposed settlement should be
recommended for approval is not a “burden of proof” standard, as is utilized for contested

117
matters. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n v. City of Lancaster – Bureau of Water, Docket No. R-2010-
2179103 (Opinion and Order entered July 14, 2011) (Lancaster). Instead, the benchmark for
determining the acceptability of a settlement or partial settlement is whether the proposed terms
and conditions are in the public interest. Id., citing, Warner v. GTE North, Inc., Docket No. C-
00902815 (Opinion and Order entered April 1, 1996) (Warner); Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n v. CS
Water and Sewer Assocs., 74 Pa. PUC 767 (1991). In addition, the Commission has held that
parties to settled cases are afforded flexibility in reaching amicable resolutions, so long as the
settlement is in the public interest. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n v. MXenergy Elec. Inc., Docket No.
M-2012-2201861 (Opinion and Order entered Dec. 5, 2013).

I cannot find the Alternative IEC East Portion Amended Application and Partial
Settlement to be in the public interest because I find no need for the entire project. I recognize
that overall, the Settlement IEC East Portion should have less total environmental impact when
compared to the original Proposed Route for the IEC East Project. PPL Electric St. No. AA-5, p.
7. The Settlement IEC East Portion already spans Muddy Creek in defined ROW areas. Only
new arms and wires will be added to the existing towers, thereby minimizing the construction
challenges associated with the steep slopes in this area. PPL Electric St. No. AA-5, p. 7. Access
to the existing PPL transmission lines was previously identified and coordinated with landowners
when the lines were rebuilt in 2012-2014. Coordination for access to the Furnace Run 230 kV
Transmission Line section would be considerably less challenging than the coordination that
would be required for the numerous new access roads needed for the originally proposed route.
PPL Electric St. No. AA-5, p. 7. Additionally, the Settlement IEC East Portion is unopposed by
many but not all of the parties opposed to the East portion including: Citizens to Stop Transource
York County, Maple Lawn Farm, Barron Shaw, Shaw Orchards, and the York County Planning
Commission.

However, the applications were consolidated as both the East and West portions
are a part of the same Project 9A and allegedly necessary together as well as portions located in
Maryland in order to alleviate congestion that is now practically non-existent. I do not
recommend approving in a bifurcated way just one of the applications, an amended application

118
or both of the applications or approving the partial settlement. There is no need for any of this
project.

Route C selected as the Proposed Route for the West Portion of the IEC Project
does not have less of an overall impact to the environment than would be utilizing at least in part
the existing parallel route owned by West Penn Power already in existence. A separate bid by
West Penn Power dubbed project 18h, was rejected by PJM during the competitive bidding
process. However, from an environmental impact view, using a line and its ROW already in
existence would have less environmental impact on Falling Spring, cross country course, organic
farmland, vegetation, woodlands and wildlife along the West Portion of the IEC Project. Thus, I
cannot find “minimum adverse environmental impact” as required by Section 57.76(a)(4). There
is no evidence Transource and West Penn Power ever negotiated or agreed to any arrangement
whereby West Penn Power’s existing parallel transmission system could be upgraded or utilized
for an alternative route. I am persuaded by the business representatives, Superintendent, Quincy
Township Supervisors, and landowners to find the environmental impact in Franklin County is
not minimalized by the Western route.

Regarding economic impact, I find that the Kauffman’s farm at 4220 and 4297
Olde Scotland Road, Chambersburg will be adversely affected economically by the Route C,
West line as it will cut through their faming fields along I-81. PUC Exhibits 54-70. Tr. 1153-
1165. Route C - West at mile marker 19 on I-81, will reduce the value of Fred Byers’ rental
property as the easement goes two feet over the farmhouse, and will overlap a current easement
held by West Penn Power for its overhead line. Tr. 1168-1169. PUC Exhibits 71-83. Benedict’s
Produce will sustain economic impact if the Route C West line is constructed at 1883 Ragged
Edge Road, Chambersburg, as the proposed route including monopoles goes through the middle
of his vegetable/produce growing field. Tr. 1173-1187. PUC Exhibits 82-97. The owners of
Benedict’s Produce will likely sustain economic loss as a result of construction ruining their
ability to plant, grow and harvest fruits and vegetables, which they in turn sell to 100 Giant
Foods grocery stores. Tr. 1185-1196, PUC Exhibits 82-97.

119
 The soils that will be affected by the project represent one of the largest
contiguous areas of high-quality soil in Pennsylvania. Tr. 752-760. Todd Sommer, owner of
Sommer Springs Farms and a supervisor for a utility company, has personally experienced utility
companies bringing in their own crew after promising to hire locally. Tr. 610. The Owl’s Club is
affected by an eminent domain application in Franklin County regarding a 38-acre property used
for trout fishing and other recreational activities. Tr. 1682-1683. The Owl’s Club requests the
Commission veto the project or at least require Transource to propose a “piggy-backing” of the
existing infrastructure already on the property. Tr. 1684, PUC Exhibits 404-407.

“The Pricing of Power Lines: a Geospatial Approach to Measuring Residential

Property Values,” authored by David Wyman and Christopher Mothorpe, is a study/report
published in the American Real Estate Society, a trade journal, Volume 40, Issue No. 1 of 2018,
which used a sample of 5,455 vacant lots sold in Pickens County, South Carolina, uncovering
substantive pricing discounts of 44.9% for properties adjacent to power lines, and a pricing
discount of 17.9% for non-adjacent vacant properties up to 1,000 feet from the power lines. Tr.
1681-1691, PUC Exhibit 408. I share the same concern as Attorney Clint Barkdoll, who testified
at a public input hearing as an individual, expressing concern that appraisers will rely upon the
studies’ findings and landowners “will rush into the County tax assessment office and file a tax
appeal” based on this study, Tax Assessment Boards and the Courts are going to be required to
grant lower tax assessment values, and they will “all pay for that in higher taxes and/or cuts to
programs.” Tr. 1686-1689.

James Quesenberry, Jr. is a York realtor who sells lots, farms, and residential
homes and is aware that peoples’ perceptions of transmission lines has an effect on sale ability
and values. Tr. 125-126. Most homeowners testified to valid concerns that the lines will bring
their property value down. Tr. 668-710, 820-1134. Patrice Nitterhouse is a real estate developer
who testified to concerns as to how the project will negatively affect the value of her property
and her business as a developer. Tr. 762- 763. Colby Nitterhouse rejected a $38,000 offer for a
ROW through his property as he intends to subdivide and develop it for his children in the future.
Tr. 1310, PUC Exhibits 192-197. Carol A. Pugh from Franklin County asked how the project
will affect her property value and the answer she received was, “there’s too many variables to

120
know.” Tr. 798. Georgiana Horst, co-owner of Horst Seed Hybrids in Chambersburg, testified
that her farm became a Bicentennial Farm in 2004 by the Department of Agriculture. This
project will diminish the historical value of the property and Historical Bus Tours will stop
traveling through her farm affecting her business. Tr. 881.

234. Property owners in Franklin County with preserved land subject to

conservation easements object to the project. Tr. 672-674, 850-851. Business
owners and property owners testified to concerns over the effect on farm animals,
growth of vegetation, crops and produce with the construction of the monopoles.
Tr. 668-669, 846, 847, 850. Property owners and citizens of York and Franklin
counties testified to concerns of how the power lines will affect local businesses
and economic growth. Tr. 682-694.

Roy Cordell is concerned he will not be able to access fields on his property for
farming hay and other crops during construction of monopoles and lines on his 99+ acre property
due to a “zig-zag” pattern on the maps. Tr. 1321-1324, PUC Exhibits 199-215. Homeowners
David Siegrist, Sharla Dunlap, Kristyn Martin and Ashley Hospelhorn on Hidden Valley Road,
Waynesboro are concerned of reductions in the appraised value of their homes as well as of
losing trees and a viewshed of a neighboring farmland and they have health concerns about
residing so close to a second transmission line behind the road’s cul-de-sac especially because
there is already one existing. Tr. 1360-1376, PUC Exhibits 264-286. Sharla Dunlap owns
property that does not show up on Transource’s map of the project and the line will be
approximately 300 feet from her back porch. Tr. 826. Franklin County is known for its
agriculture, wildlife recreation, scenery, animal habitats, and historical features like the
Underground Railroad and the IEC transmission lines will affect the tourist attraction to Franklin
County. Tr. 943 - 946. Heather Stine’s family of Franklin County, rents land to a local farmer
who is certified organic with economic/environmental concerns over the spraying on the land
that could affect revenue. Tr. 1079. Many homeowners have valid concerns over the damage of
fertile land being compacted or destroyed, trees, and crops when it comes to the construction and
maintenance of the towers. Tr. 672-1020.

Franklin County is rich with history and testified to concerns of historical artifacts
and sites being destroyed with the construction of the monopoles. Tr. 669- 670. The proposed

121
power line will be less than 250 feet from Ruth Frech’s house. Tr. 841. Fred Rice is on the
Guilford Township Zoning Board and they have a zoning law that a building cannot be over 50
feet high. He points that the towers are going to be 130 feet. Tr. 877. Georgiana Horst, co-owner
of Horst Seed Hybirds, has no other retirement plan available to her with the exception of her
farm that is her business. Tr. 881. Travis Schooley, a chief water operator, engineering
coordinator and grant writer for Quincy Township, has not received any information, map
update, or permits, regarding the project, as they should according to the local ordinances. Tr.
888. Heather Stine’s family owns land on the proposed route where it is believed to be a Native
American Indian Burial site. Tr. 1078. Leslie Bowman will be affected by this project and
already has monopoles on their property. Transource disregarded her request to use a paved
ROW to drive to the poles and drove the entire length of her wheat growing crop field. Tr. 1109.

The project would adversely impact the Chambersburg School District’s Tim
Cook Memorial Cross Country Course, which is used by both the middle school and high school
boys and girls running teams. Chambersburg hosts many cross country meets from August –
October that may have as many as 1,000 people and 300-400 cars to park at a meet. Tr. 1223.
The proposed power line would be on the Falling Springs Elementary School property parallel to
and along the edge of the Tim Cook Memorial Cross Country Course, a 5000 kilometer/ 3.1 mile
course. Tr. 1225. Sarah Herbert is the building principal at Sinking Springs Elementary School.
Tr. 1226. Principal Herbert testified approximately 36 faculty and 275 students attend Falling
Springs Elementary School on a daily basis when school is in session. Tr. 1277. Ed Peters is the
Director of Facilities who testified the power line would be approximately 700 feet from the
elementary school building according to Transource’s map. Tr. 1228-1230. Superintendent
Padasak and the school board received some concerns from parents about the proposed line. Tr.
1230-1233. Members of the public also run and walk the cross country course. Tr. 1235, 1238-
1239. Construction on the line between the months of August through October would interfere
with the cross country season and would require the school district to relocate the activity at a
cost of at least $1,000 to bus the student-athletes elsewhere. Tr. 1236-1237. Thirty-one student-
athletes, parents, and alumni from the cross country teams submitted letters dated in November
2018 opposing the project. Nitterhouse Exhibit 1.

122
 Skelly Meadows is Falling Spring fed and has unique fly hatches, which support
wild trout in high-value, blue-ribbon trout stream. Tr. 1245-1246. Transource intends to drill for
monopoles directly above the springs along Falling Spring Road. Tr. 1257. The springs could
be damaged by blasting or changing of the rock formations underneath and by defoliation around
the springs. Tr. 1248-1257. The trout in the Falling Spring will be negatively affected if the
Spring is defoliated as lack of foliation will likely result in higher water temperatures and trout
do not tolerate warm water. Tr. 1255.

Jason Forrester farms organic crops such as corn, hay, soybeans on Allan Stine’s
property, which is adjacent to the cross country course. Tr. 1259-1261. If Transource’s project
were to cross Allan Stine’s property, that could cause Mr. Forrester to lose organic certification
as Transource’s construction trucks could carry contaminants onto the fields. Tr. 1262-1265.

Allen and Lori Rice run a 100-acre farm with 8,000-10,000 head of cattle and 40-
50 employees in Franklin County. Tr. 1272-1273, PUC Exhibits 162-191. Mr. and Mrs. Rice
are concerned about the effect the proposed line would have going over their high-temperature
composting facility. Tr. 1276. Mr. and Mrs. Rice’s employees work on large farm equipment
and they are concerned with stray voltage shocking them as the work in all kinds of weather
conditions. Tr. 1277-1278, 1286-1287, PUC Exhibits 162-191. Mr. and Mrs. Rice are
concerned their heifers may have spontaneous abortions due to higher electricity in the area they
are trying to raise their animals. Tr. 1282. Mr. and Mrs. Rice are concerned the proposed
project may negatively affect their well water. Tr. 1282-1283, 1291-1292. Mr. and Mrs. Rice’s
tractors are steered by GPS, and they are concerned it will become unreliable if Transource
builds transmission lines over their property. Tr. 1289-1290.

Daniel Long is concerned the new transmission line parallel to an existing line
will interfere with farming crops and will have a negative economic impact on the value of his
property at 9949 Wayne Highway, Waynesboro. Tr. 1377-1381, PUC Exhibits 287-291. Laura
Mueller testified on September 18, 2018 that the proposed towers would be “out of scale” with
the beautiful landscape in Franklin County and she expressed concerns over transmission lines
sparking fires. PUC Exhibit 413.

123
 Weighing the testimonies and exhibits of those testifying regarding economic
impact, I am persuaded to find that Transource has not minimized economic impact by the siting
of the route in Franklin County.

E. Shelter Petitions

As the proposed situation of the shelter/buildings at substations in question are not

reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public because there is no need for
the project, the two petitions for exemptions of zoning regulations for buildings/shelters will also
be denied. 53 P.S. § 10619.

F. Eminent Domain Applications

Similarly, as no need is found for the siting of the transmission towers/lines over
the properties of the landowners subject to eminent domain applications, pursuant to 5 Pa.C.S.
§ 1511, the project is not necessary or proper for the benefit of the public. Accordingly, the
pending eminent domain applications will also be denied.

V. CONCLUSION

For all of these aforementioned reasons, as need within the meaning of 52 Pa.
Code § 57.76(a)(1) has not been proven, I recommend that the Applications be denied. The
Alternative IEC East Portion Amended Application and Partial Settlement is not in the public
interest as no need has been proven for Project 9A. Section 57.76(a)(1) is a threshold standard, a
hurdle that must be cleared before other factors are considered. Transource Pennsylvania, LLC
has not met its burden of proving that the proposed Independence Energy Connection Project is
in compliance with applicable statutes and regulations providing for the protection of the natural
resources of the Commonwealth or that the proposed Independence Energy Connection Project
would have a minimum adverse environmental impact, considering the electric power needs of
the public, the state of available technology and the available alternatives. Pa. Const. art. I,
§ 27; 52 Pa. Code §§ 57.76(a)(3) and (4).

124
 As there is no need for the project, the siting applications, shelter petitions for
zoning exemptions and eminent domain applications must also be denied. Finally, I recommend
that the Commission issue a Rule to Show Cause directing Transource Pennsylvania LLC to
show cause why the certificate for public convenience issued to Transource should not be
rescinded as there is no need for the transmission service delineated in the CPC.

VI. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Commission has jurisdiction over the subject-matter of and the parties
to this proceeding by virtue of Chapter 11 of the Public Utility Code, 66 Pa. C.S. § 1101 et seq.,
and 15 Pa. C.S. § 511(c).

2. The proponent of a rule or order in any Commission proceeding has the

burden of proof, 66 Pa. C.S. § 332, and Transource, as the Applicant, has the burden of proving
its case by a preponderance of the evidence, or evidence which is more convincing than the
evidence presented by the other parties. Se-Ling Hosiery v. Margulies, 364 Pa. 45, 70 A.3d 854
(1950); Samuel J. Lansberry, Inc. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 578 A.2d 600 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990).

3. Any finding of fact necessary to support an adjudication of the

Commission must be based upon substantial evidence, which is such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Mill v. Pa. Pub. Util.
Comm’n, 447 A.2d 1100 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982); Edan Transp. Corp. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 623
A.2d 6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993), 2 Pa. C.S. § 704. More is required than a mere trace of evidence or
a suspicion of the existence of a fact sought to be established. Norfolk & W. Ry. V. Pa. Pub. Util.
Comm’n, 489 Pa. 109, 413 A.2d 1037 (1980); Erie Resistor Corp. v. Unemployment Com. Bd. Of
Review, 166 A.2d 96 (Pa. Super. 1960); Murphy v. Pa. Dept. of Pub. Welfare, White Haven Ctr.,
480 A.2d 382 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984).

4. The “burden of proof” is composed of two distinct burdens: the burden of

production and the burden of persuasion. Hurley v. Hurley, 754 A.2d 1283 (Pa. Super. 2000). The
burden of production, also called the burden of producing evidence or the burden of coming forward

125
with evidence, determines which party must come forward with evidence to support a particular
proposition. This burden may shift between the parties during the course of a trial. If the party
(initially, this will usually be the complainant, applicant, or petitioner, as the case may be) with the
burden of production fails to introduce sufficient evidence the opposing party is entitled to receive a
favorable ruling. That is, the opposing party would be entitled to a compulsory nonsuit, a directed
verdict, or a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Once the party with the initial burden of
production introduces sufficient evidence to make out a prima facie case, the burden of production
shifts to the opposing party. If the opposing party introduces evidence sufficient to balance the
evidence introduced by the party having the initial burden of production, the burden then shifts back
to the party who had the initial burden to introduce more evidence favorable to his position. The
burden of production goes to the legal sufficiency of a party’s case. Id.

5. The Applicant, Transource Pennsylvania, LLC, has not met its burden of
proving, pursuant to Section 332(a) of the Public Utility Code, that the Application for a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Authority to exercise the power of eminent domain for the
construction and installation of the facilities known as the West Portion of the Independence
Energy Connection Project, including the proposed Rice Substation and the Rice-Ringgold 230
kV Transmission Line, is necessary or proper for the service, accommodation, convenience or
safety of the public. 66 Pa. C.S. § 332(a); 66 Pa. C.S. § 1101 et seq.

6. Pursuant to 52 Pa. Code § 57.76(a), the Commission’s order, with its

opinion, if any, will either grant or deny the application, in whole or in part, as filed or upon the
terms, conditions or modifications, of the location, construction, operation or maintenance of the
line as the Commission may deem appropriate. The Commission will not grant the application,
either as proposed or as modified, unless it finds and determines as to the proposed HV line:

(1) That there is a need for it.

(2) That it will not create an unreasonable risk of danger to the

health and safety of the public.

126
 (3) That it is in compliance with applicable statutes and
regulations providing for the protection of the natural resources of
this Commonwealth.

(4) That it will have minimum adverse environmental impact,

considering the electric power needs of the public, the state of
available technology and the available alternatives.

7. The Applicant, Transource Pennsylvania, LLC, has not met its burden of
proving that the proposed West Portion of the Independence Energy Connection Project is
needed, pursuant to Section 57.76(a)(1) of the Commission’s regulations. 52 Pa. Code
§ 57.76(a)(1).

8. The Applicant, Transource Pennsylvania, LLC, has not met its burden of
proving that the proposed West Portion of the Independence Energy Connection Project is in
compliance with applicable statutes and regulations providing for the protection of the natural
resources of the Commonwealth. Pa. Const. art. I, § 27; 52 Pa. Code § 57.76(a)(3).

9. The Applicant, Transource Pennsylvania, LLC, has not met its burden
of proving that the proposed West Portion of the Independence Energy Connection Project
would have a minimum adverse environmental impact, considering the electric power needs
of the public, the state of available technology and the available alternatives. 52 Pa. Code
§ 57.76(a)(4).

10. Joint Applicants, Transource Pennsylvania, LLC, and PPL Electric

Utilities Corporation, have not met their burden of proving, pursuant to Section 332(a) of the
Public Utility Code, that the Application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Authority
to exercise the power of eminent domain for the construction and installation of the facilities
known as the alternative configuration of the East Portion of the Independence Energy
Connection Project, including the proposed Furnace Run Substation, the re-conductored Otter
Creek-Conastone and Graceton-Manor 230 kV Transmission Lines, and the two new 2-mile
segments connecting those re-conductored lines to the proposed Furnace Run Substation, is

127
necessary or proper for the service, accommodation, convenience or safety of the public. 66 Pa.
C.S. § 332(a); 66 Pa. C.S. § 1101 et seq.

11. Joint Applicants, Transource Pennsylvania, LLC, and PPL Electric

Utilities Corporation, have not met their burden of proving that the proposed alternative
configuration of the East Portion of the Independence Energy Connection Project is needed,
pursuant to Section 57.76(a)(1) of the Commission’s regulations. 52 Pa. Code § 57.76(a)(1).

12. Joint Applicants, Transource Pennsylvania, LLC, and PPL Electric

Utilities Corporation, have not met their burden of proving that the proposed alternative
configuration of the East Portion of the Independence Energy Connection Project is in
compliance with applicable statutes and regulations providing for the protection of the natural
resources of the Commonwealth. Pa. Const. art. I, § 27; 52 Pa. Code § 57.76(a)(3).

13. Joint Applicants, Transource Pennsylvania, LLC, and PPL Electric

Utilities Corporation, have not met their burden of proving that the proposed alternative
configuration of the East Portion of the Independence Energy Connection Project would have a
minimum adverse environmental impact, considering the electric power needs of the public, the
state of available technology and the available alternatives. 52 Pa. Code § 57.76(a)(4).

14. Neither Transource nor PPL Electric Utilities Corporation have sustained
their burden of proving that they are entitled to the siting and construction of the Pennsylvania
portion of the IEC Project 230 kV Transmission Lines in portions of York or Franklin Counties
consistent with the applications as amended.

15. The Public Utility Code requires every public utility to furnish and
maintain adequate, efficient, safe, and reasonable service and facilities, and to make all such
repairs, changes, alterations, substitutions, extensions, and improvements in or to such service
and facilities as shall be necessary or proper for the accommodation, convenience, and safety of
its patrons, employees, and the public. Such service also shall be reasonably continuous and

128
without unreasonable interruptions or delay. Such service and facilities shall be in conformity
with the regulations and orders of the commission. 66 Pa. C.S. § 1501.

16. Pursuant to 52 Pa. Code § 57.75(e), relevant evidence includes but is not
limited to the following matters:

(1) The present and future necessity of the proposed HV line in

furnishing service to the public.

(2) The safety of the proposed HV line.

(3) The impact and the efforts which have been and will be
made to minimize the impact, if any, of the proposed HV line upon
the following:

(i) Land use.

(ii) Soil and sedimentation.
(iii) Plant and wildlife habitats.
(iv) Terrain.
(v) Hydrology.
(vi) Landscape.
(vii) Archeologic areas.
(viii) Geologic areas.
(ix) Historic areas.
(x) Scenic areas.
(xi) Wilderness areas.
(xii) Scenic rivers.

(4) The availability of reasonable alternative routes.

129
 VII. ORDER

THEREFORE,

IT IS RECOMMENDED:

1. That the Application of Transource Pennsylvania, LLC, filed pursuant to

52 Pa. Code Chapter 57, Subchapter G, For Approval of the Siting and Construction of the
Proposed Pennsylvania Portion of the West Portion of the Independence Energy Connection
Project in Portions of Franklin County, Pennsylvania, at Docket No. A-2017-2640200, be
denied.

2. That the Joint Amended Application of Transource Pennsylvania, LLC

and PPL Electric Utilities Corporation filed pursuant to 52 Pa. Code Chapter 57, Subchapter G,
for Approval of the Siting and Construction of the Proposed Pennsylvania Portion of the
Alternative Configuration of the East Portion of the Independence Energy Connection Project in
Portions of York County, Pennsylvania, at Docket No. A-2017-2640195, be denied.

3. That the Petition of Transource Pennsylvania, LLC for a Finding that a

Building to Shelter Control Equipment at the Furnace Run Substation in York County,
Pennsylvania, is Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience or Welfare of the Public, at Docket
No. P-2018-3001878, be denied.

4. That the Petition of Transource Pennsylvania, LLC for a Finding that a

Building to Shelter Control Equipment at the Rice Substation in Franklin County, Pennsylvania,
is Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience or Welfare of the Public, at Docket No. P-2018-
3001883, be denied.

5. That the Applications of Transource Pennsylvania, LLC, for Approval to

Acquire a Certain Portion of Lands of Various Landowners in York and Franklin Counties,

130
Pennsylvania for the Siting and Construction of the 230 kV Transmission Lines associated with
the Independence Energy Connection – East and West Projects as Necessary or Proper for the
Service, Accommodation, Convenience or Safety of the Public, at the following docket numbers
be denied.

1 A-2018-3001881 Douglas E. & Martha J. Rohrer

2 A-2018-3001886 Dale A. & Barbara D. J. Torbert
3 A-2018-3001898 Yost Family Farms, LP
4 A-2018-3001902 Kent E. & Nancy H. Blevins
5 A-2018-3001904 Gregory J. & Melanie A. Goss
6 A-2018-3001906 Michael Hecner, Eva Hecner, Stephen M. Hecner and Theresa M. Norris
7 A-2018-3001907 Robert B. Burchett, Judy K. Burchett, Thomas L. Burchett, and Stacy L.
Burchett, t/d/b/a Maple Springs Farms Partnership
8 A-2018-3001922 Mervin S. & Gladys O. Miller
9 A-2018-3001923 Amos L. & Elizabeth K. Esh
10 A-2018-3001925 J. Ross & Norma R. McGinnis
11 A-2018-3001929 McGinnis Limited Partnership
12 A-2018-3001932 Chilcoat and Peters, Inc.
13 A-2018-3001933 Gregory M. & Kristina L. Wilt
14 A-2018-3001936 Burton Family Limited Partnership
15 A-2018-3001943 James R. McGinnis
16 A-2018-3001944 George W. Treadway, Jr. and Madelyn K. Treadway
17 A-2018-3001954 Richard D. Good, Cathy M. Good, Rodger D. Good & Peggy L. Good
18 A-2018-3001956 Glenn J. Bradley
19 A-2018-3001957 Jonathan R. Hash, and Gregory J. & Melanie A. Goss
20 A-2018-3001958 Thomas R. Krell, Jr. & April R. Krell
21 A-2018-3001960 D. Arthur Grove and David Richard Grove
22 A-2018-3001961 RGRG Partners
23 A-2018-3001962 R. Andrew & Deborah E. Macklin
24 A-2018-3001963 Francis & Mary Eileen Boone
25 A-2018-3001964 Barley Farms LP
26 A-2018-3001965 Stephen J. & Dolores E. Krick

131
27 A-2018-3001966 Shane K. & Kristi L. Taylor
28 A-2018-3001967 Jefferson L. Bracey, Sr. & Laura R. Bracey
29 A-2018-3001968 Leonard M. & Sandra J. Traynor
30 A-2018-3001982 Barbara D. & David W. Anderson, C. Kathleen and William M. Tompkins, and
M. Kathryn and Stephen M. Judy
31 A-2018-3001984 E. Daniel & Diane M. Neff
32 A-2018-3001985 Maple Lawn Farms, Inc
33 A-2018-3001986 Randall C. Stewart, Jr. and Peggy A. Stewart
34 A-2018-3001989 John J. & Carol A. Hamilton
35 A-2018-3001999 Lois M. White
36 A-2018-3002012 Jane M. Zaiger
37 A-2018-3002022 GBR Lincoln Highway Limited Liability Company, Chambersburg Holdings,
LP and WLR Chambersburg, LLC
38 A-2018-3002028 Summit Partners, LLC
39 A-2018-3002031 Daryl Harry Bender and Donna Irene Bender Widney
40 A-2018-3002032 Roy B. Biesecker and Susan L. Biesecker
41 A-2018-3002037 Allan A. Stine
42 A-2018-3002041 John A. Steiger and Allison E. Steiger
43 A-2018-3002046 Leonard H. Kauffman and Mary P. Kauffman
44 A-2018-3002047 Ivan D. Horst and Ellen M. Horst
45 A-2018-3002048 Guilford Water Authority
46 A-2018-3002051 DC Farms, LLC
47 A-2018-3002052 Donald L. Martin and Denise M. Martin
48 A-2018-3002053 William K. Nitterhouse and Diane R. Nitterhouse
49 A-2018-3002054 Wayne E. Lehman & Donald R. Lehman as Trustees of Credit Shelter Trust
established under Item II of the Last Will of Harvey M. Lehman (the “Harvey
M. Lehman Credit Shelter Trust”) & Wayne E. Lehman, Donald R. Lehman,
Jane L. Martin, Kenneth L. Lehman & Lester E. Lehman
50 A-2018-3002055 Chambersburg Area School District
51 A-2018-3002057 Lemma & O’Connor Investors LLC
52 A-2018-3002061 Daniel S. Long
53 A-2018-3002066 Mary K. Henry, Deceased, D. Yvonne Frank, Marion Carmack, Charles W.
Henry (Letters Testamentary)

132
54 A-2018-3002067 Chambersburg Mall Realty LLC, Chambersburg CH LLC, and Chambersburg
Nassim LLC
55 A-2018-3002069 Richard L. Lesher and Agnes Marie Lesher
56 A-2018-3002072 Charles Stamy Fox
57 A-2018-3002074 Marlin Lester Martin and Carrie Rosemarie Martin
58 A-2018-3002075 Owls Club, Inc.
59 A-2018-3002103 Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc.
60 A-2018-3002104 Ivan D. Horst and Ellen M. Horst
61 A-2018-3002107 Roy M. Cordell and Emma L. Cordell
62 A-2018-3002108 Patriot Federal Credit Union
63 A-2018-3002111 Edna S. Fox and Charles A. Fox
64 A-2018-3002125 Myron J. & Fern L. Miller
65 A-2018-3002128 Allen W. Rice and Lori C. Rice
66 A-2018-3002140 Colby S. Nitterhouse and Leah A. Nitterhouse
67 A-2018-3002147 Willis M. Lesher Partnership
68 A-2018-3002163 Kyle F. & Kelly A. Schindel
69 A-2018-3002169 Rodney A. Meyer and Karen I. Benedict
70 A-2018-3002232 Lynn D. Etter and Mary W. Etter
71 A-2018-3002238 Margaret L. Mower
72 A-2018-3002251 Elam H. Reiff and Mary Z. Reiff
73 A-2018-3002310 J. Norman & Bonna Jane Diller
74 A-2018-3002312 Douglas L. Straley and Nellie M. Straley
75 A-2018-3002329 Michael D. Frederick and Tammy Jo Salter
76 A-2018-3002331 Joshua L. Diller and Nicole M. Diller
77 A-2018-3002332 Michael D. Frederick and Tamra D. Frederick and Tammy Jo Salter and
Roderick C.B. Salter

6. That the dockets at Docket Nos. A-2017-2640195, A-2017-2640200, P-

2018-3001883, P-2018-3001878, A-2018-3001881, A-2018-3001886, A-2018-3001898, A-
2018-3001902, A-2018-3001904, A-2018-3001906, A-2018-3001907, A-2018-3001922, A-
2018-3001923, A-2018-3001925, A-2018-3001929, A-2018-3001932, A-2018-3001933, A-
2018-3001936, A-2018-3001943, A-2018-3001944, A-2018-3001954, A-2018-3001956, A-
2018-3001957, A-2018-3001958, A-2018-3001960, A-2018-3001961, A-2018-3001962, A-

133
2018-3001963, A-2018-3001965, A-2018-3001966, A-2018-3001967, A-2018-3001968, A-
2018-3001982, A-2018-3001984, A-2018-3001985, A-2018-3001986, A-2018-3001989, A-
2018-3001999, A-2018-3002012, A-2018-3002022, A-2018-3002028, A-2018-3002031, A-
2018-3002032, A-2018-3002037, A-2018-3002041, A-2018-3002046, A-2018-3002047, A-
2018-3002048, A-2018-3002051, A-2018-3002052, A-2018-3002053, A-2018-3002054, A-
2018-3002055, A-2018-3002057, A-2018-3002061, A-2018-3002066, A-2018-3002067, A-
2018-3002069, A-2018-3002072, A-2018-3002074, A-2018-3002075, A-2018-3002103, A-
2018-3002104, A-2018-3002107, A-2018-3002108, A-2018-3002111, A-2018-3002125, A-
2018-3002128, A-2018-3002140, A-2018-3002147, A-2018-3002140, A-2018-3002147, A-
2018-3002163, A-2018-3002169, A-2018-3002232, A-2018-3002238, A-2018-3002251, A-
2018-3002310, A-2018-3002312, A-2018-3002329, A-2018-3002331, and A-2018-3002332 be
marked closed.

7. That a rule to show cause be issued directing Transource Pennsylvania,

LLC, to show cause why its Certificate of Public Convenience at Docket No. A-2017-2587821
should not be revoked as the specific Independence Energy Connection Project a/k/a 9A Project
for which the certificate was granted is deemed neither necessary nor needed in Pennsylvania.

Dated: December 22, 2020 /s/

Elizabeth H. Barnes
Administrative Law Judge

134
 APPENDIX A

Glossary of Acronyms/Abbreviations

ALJ Administrative Law Judge

Alternative IEC East Portion East Portion of the IEC Project

APSRI AP South Reactive Interface

ASA Agricultural Security Areas

BG&E Baltimore Gas & Electric

BMPS Best Management Practices

Code Pennsylvania Public Utility Code

Commission Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

EMFs Electromagnetic fields

EMP Energy Master Plan

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EP Act 2005 Energy Policy Act of 2005

ERO Electric Reliability Organization

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

GPS Global positioning system

HQ High-Quality

HV High voltage

IEC Project Independence Energy Connection Project

IMM PJM’s Independent Market Monitor

MD PSC Maryland Public Service Commission

MLS Multiple Listing Service

MPC Municipalities Planning Code

i
NERC North American Electric Reliability Corporation

NESC National Electric Safety Code

OCA Office of Consumer Advocate

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PaDEP Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

PFBC Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission

PHMC Pennsylvania Historic Museum Commission

PJM PJM Interconnection LLC

PPL PPL Electric Utilities Corporation

ROW Right-of-way

RPPTF Regional Planning Process Task Force

RTEP Regional Transmission Expansion Plan

RTO Regional Transmission Organization

STFC Stop Transource Franklin County

Transource Transource Pennsylvania, LLC

YCPC York County Planning Commission

ii
 APPENDIX B
CONTENTS OF EVIDENTIARY RECORD

Transcripts

March 13, 2018 Initial Prehearing Conference pp. 1-87

May 9, 2018, 1:00 p.m. Public Input Hearing (York County) pp. 88-208

Witnesses:
Hon. Kristin Phillips-Hill
Hon. Stan Saylor
Stephen Snell
Trisha Bowman
Christopher B. Reilly
David R. Grove
Jay McGinnis
James Quesenberry
David Glenn
Glenn Shaw
Kent Blevins
J. Ross McGinnis
Michal Ann Boyd
Alan Taylor
John Waltermyer
Gilbert Malone
Aimee O’Neill
Kay L. Taylor
Samuel Taylor
Jane Spangler
Robert Waltermyer
A. Dean Moser
Thomas Knaub
Colleen Savin
Hugh McPherson
Deborah Stubblefield
Hannah Stubblefield
Peggy Stewart
Christine Rogers
Karen Baltzer
Carl Marrara
Harold Burton

iii
May 9, 2018, 6:00 p.m. Public Input Hearing (York County) pp. 209-311

Witnesses:
Daniel Moser
Richard Bisker, Jr.
Constance Anderson
Tim Jordan
Raymond Lins
Rachel Lins
Jody Leighty
Mike Jones
Jason Wolfe
Jack Wolfe
Paul McPherson
Thomas Krell
Joseph Slezak
Kimberly Slezak
Hope Slezak
Marty Nabholz
Jonathan Hash
Lynda Manning
Lynda Wagman
Emanuel K. Esh
Scott Seiple
Nicholas Spagnola
Cathy Good

May 14, 2018, 1:00 p.m. Public Input Hearing (York County) pp. 312-485

Witnesses:
Jeff Grove
Allen E. Hoffman
Jeffrey L. Heindel
Kimberly J. Carrick
Susan Worrall-Murphy
David Saxman
Rene A. Shuman
Donna Walter Downs
Kristina Wilt
Douglas M. Wolfgang
Randall C. Stewart, Jr.
Robert Biester
Melanie Goss

iv
 Judith P. Hawkins
David Hawkins
Dolores Krick
Patricia Hankins
Amy Donahue
Edward Franco
Sean Cully
Patricia McCandless
Theodore Corcoran
Henry Sommer
Randall Stewart, Jr.
Roger B. Wilson
Shane Taylor

May 14, 2018, 6 p.m. Public Input Hearing (York County) pp. 486-647

Witnesses:
Patricia Conner
Bernie Kephart
Nancy Gladden
Barbara Anderson
Courtney Dettinger
Susan Kelly
Douglas McGinnis
Ann Lavin
David Good
Benjamin Otte
Janet Archer
Dale R. Saxman
Emily Amberman
Patricia B. Bowden
Rebecca Campbell
Patricia Hankins
Johneva Mickey
James McFarland
Lori Skinner
Vincent Skinner

May 22, 2018, 1:00 p.m. Public Input Hearing (Franklin County) pp. 648-765
Witnesses:
Douglas Michael Wolfgang
Michael Simmonds
Willa Weller Kaal
Dennis Brechbill
Brian Brechbill
Leonard Kauffman

v
 Mary Kauffman
Patricia J. Beard
Karen Benedict
Debra Wolford
Doreen Rice
Kim Calimer
Lois White
Kathleen M. Rollins
Debbie Ballard
Jerry Bonfiglio
Kathleen Kauffman
Stephen P. Bucher
Brendan Finucane
Brechyn Chace
Spencer Pheil
Keryn Newman
Debra Kase
Douglas Cook
L. Michael Ross
Katie Hess
Roderick Salter
Patrice Nitterhouse

May 22, 2018, 6:00 p.m. Public Input Hearing (Franklin County) pp. 766-893
Witnesses:
Jim Shuster
Janet Ward
Timothy Carr
Carol A. Pugh
Carl E. Pugh
Stephanie Reed
Ellen Engle
Dan Long
Michelle Henninger
Bonnie Shockey
Sharla Dunlap
Eugene P. Macri, Jr.
Ruth Frech
Roy Cordell
Warren Hurt
Eric Burkholder
Leslie Sease
Kerry Bumbaugh
Don A. Aines
Jane Lawler
Fred Rice

vi
 Georgiana Horst
Theodore J. Guarriello
Travis Schooley
Dennis Zimmerman

May 23, 2018, 1:00 p.m. Public Input Hearing (Franklin County) pp. 894-991
Witnesses:
Lewis Thomas
Linda Mower
Debbi Toney
Jeffrey Cook
Patrick Bethas
Aaron Kauffman
Eileen Houska
Zygmunt Zielinski
Lowell Martin
Janet Pollard
Kristyn Martin
Ashley Hospelhorn
Thomas Ramsey
Ronald Swartz
Michael Hayduk
Robin Mull
Dawryn Benedict
Sandra Grotberg
Kerry Bumbaugh

May 23, 2018, 6:00 p.m. Public Input Hearing (Franklin County) pp. 992-1149

Witnesses:

Hon. Rob Kauffman

Lantz Sourbier
Laurie Fay Viozzi
Edwin Hill, Jr.
Milton Engle
Jane Glenn
Edwin J. Glenn
Shawn Corwell
Chris Rudyk
Terry E. Ward
Peter Whalen
David Clark
Melodie Anderson-Smith
Barbara Moran

vii
 Carl Helman
Heather Stine
Sherwin Brechbill
Anne Finucane
Leonard Lindenmeyer
Michele Jansen
Richard Lesher
Leslie J. Bowman
Don Clapper
Kristyn Martin
Brandy Gift
Dirk Goertz
Brandon Stouffer
Jack Martin
Alexander Black
Ellen Black
Alanna Hartzok

May 29, 2018 Site View (Franklin County) pp. 1150-1299

Witnesses:
Leonard Kauffman
Aaron Kauffman
Fred Byers
Denton Benedict
Barry Baker
Jim Eby
Eric Burkholder
Brad Warner
Dr. Joseph Padasak, Superintendent of Chambersburg School District
Sara Herbert
Ed Peters
Carl Barton
Allan Stine
Lantz Soubier
Joseph Dague
Robert Bashore
Brandon Stouffer
Joseph Forrester
Richard Lesher
Lori Rice
Allen Rice
Brian Brechbill

May 30, 2018 Site View (Franklin County) pp. 1300-1418

viii
Witnesses:

Colby Nitterhouse
Emma Cordell
Roy Cordell
Michael Cordell
Karen Benedict
Ruth Frech
Darwyn Benedict
David Siegrist
Sharla Dunlap
Kristyn Martin
Ashley Hospelhorn
Daniel Long
Allen Rice
Brian Brechbill
Janet Pollard

June 1, 2018 Site View (York County) pp. 1420-1563

Witnesses:
John Waltermyer
Barry Baker
Bradley Waltermyer
Shane Taylor
Rick Lawrence
Courtney Dettinger
Patty Hankins
Mervin Miller
Barron Shaw
Kathy Good
Richard Good
Wade Gobrecht
Dale Saxman
Deborah Macklin
Randy Stewart
Dolores Krick
Barb Anderson
Carole Kudrick
Trisha Bowman
Nancy Gladden
Michael Scott Males
Hugh McPherson
Gregory Goss
J. Ross McGinnis
Jay McGinnis

ix
 Gregory Sterner
Patrick Simon
Barry Shenk
Glenn Shaw

July 9, 2018 Second Prehearing Conference pp. 1564-1644

Site View Photographs

September 18, 2018, 1:00 p.m. Public Input Hearing (Franklin County) pp. 1645-1782

Witnesses:
Robert Kauffman
Robert Russell
Nancy Gaal
Aaron Kauffman
Mary Kauffman
Leilani Brechbill
Martha Dudley Keller
Clint Barkdoll, Esquire
Debra Wolford
Michelle Jansen
Anne Finucane
Patrice Nitterhouse
Leah Nitterhouse
Karen Benedict
Kim Calimer
Laura and Liz Mueller
Sharon Holoviak
Michele Shapiro
Leonard Kauffman
Michelle Henninger
Spencer Pheil
Brechyn Chase
Bob Faubel
Alex Sharpe
Dawn Keller
David Keller
Kristyn Martin
Kerry Bumbaugh
Dennis Zimmerman

September 18, 2018, 6:00 p.m. Public Input Hearing (Franklin County) pp. 1783 – 1891

Witnesses:
Brian Brechbill

x
 Carol Pugh
Bob Ziobrowski
Leonard Lindenmeyer
Kalman Markus
Doreen Rice
Debra Kase
Clayton Rotz
Lori Rice
Sharla Dunlap
Brendan Finucane
Scott Crist
Jannet Polard
Peter Whalen
Dirk Goetz
Darwyn Benedict
Kate Boyd
Angela Cornell
Denzil Heckman
Alexander Black
Tanya Nitterhouse

September 20, 2018, 1:00 p.m. Public Input Hearing (York County) pp. 1892-1991

Witnesses:
Rep. Kristin Phillips-Hill
Sandra Harbold
Stephen Snell
Deborah E. Macklin
Kathleen Tompkins
John Waltermyer
Jane Spangler
Trisha Bowman
James McGinnis
Amy Donahue
Jason Wolfe
Kristina Wilt
Henry Sommer
Peggy Stewart
Randall Stewart
Gregory Goss
Patti Hankins
Hugh McPherson
Hope Slezak
Diana Creagh
Patricia McCandless

xi
 Elizabeth DeVita
James Ross McGinnis

September 20, 2018, 6:00 p.m. Public Input Hearing (York County) pp. 1992-2069

Witnesses:
Stan Saylor
Cathy Good
Glenn Shaw
Aimee O’Neill
Leonard Traynor
Dolores Krick
Paul McPherson
Kimberly Slezak
Todd Sommer
Nancy Gladden
Courtney Dettinger
Jeffrey Rutz
David Good
Thomas Krell

February 21, 2019 Evidentiary Hearing (Day 1) pp. 2070-2242

Witnesses:
Allan Stine

Brian D. Weber Transource PA Stmts. 1-East, 1-West, 1-R, 1-RJ, Exh.

BDW 1R – 9R
Barry A. Baker Transource PA Stmts. 4-East, 4-West, 4-R, 4-RJ, Exh. BB-
1R- 6R
Kent M. Herzog Transource PA Stmts. 5-East, 5-West, 5-R, 5-RJ

Steven P. Stein Transource PA Stmts. 11-R, Exh. SPS-1R and 2R

Thomas Schaffer Transource PA Stmts. 6-East, 6-West, 6-R, 6RJ

Gobrecht York County Planning Commission, Stmt. 1, 1-SR, Exh.

SR-1 – SR-3.

Dolores Krick Citizens Stmt. SR-1 (Exh. 1-5 admitted 2/26/19)

Dettinger Citizens Stmt. SR-3

Sasowsky Stop Transource Franklin County Stmt. 1, 1-SR, Exh. 1-3

Dague Stop Transource Franklin County Stmt. 2

xii
February 22, 2019 Evidentiary Hearing (Day 2) pp. 2243-2360

Witnesses:
Steven Herling Transource PA Stmts. 3- East, 3-West, 7-R, 7-RJ Exh.
SRH-1R – SRH-6R SRH-7RJ -SRH-10RJ
Timothy Horger Transource PA Stmts. 8-R, 8-RJ Exh. TH-1R – TH-12R,
TH-13RJ
Shadab Ali PPL Stmt. 1-SR

February 25, 2019 Evidentiary Hearing (day 3) pp. 2361-2523

Witness:
Len Lindenmyer Lindenmyer Stmt. 1
Kamran Ali Transource PA Stmt. 2, 2-R, 2-RJ
James Cawley Transource PA Stmt. 9-R, 9-RJ
Judy Chang Transource PA Stmt. 10-R, 10-RJ, Exh. 14
Scott J. Rubin OCA Stmt. 1, 1-SR, Exh. 2

February 26, 2019 Evidentiary Hearing (day 4) pp. 2524-2656

Witnesses:
Peter J. Lanzalotta OCA Stmts. 2, 2-SR, Exh. PJL-1 – 14; PJL-SR-1 – SR3.
Geoffrey C. Crandall OCA Stmts. 3, 3-SR, Exh. 3-1 – 3-4, GCC-SR1 – SR4
Keith S. Yamatani Transource PA Stmt. 12-R, 12-RJ, Exh. KSY-1R – 4R
Timothy Horger Transource PA
Hash Citizens witness Hash - Surrebuttal
Barron Shaw Shaw – Direct and Surrebuttal, Exh. 1-4, BTS 2-1

February 27, 2019 Evidentiary Hearing (day 5) pp. 2657-2759

Witnesses:
Richard L. Lesher Lesher Exhibit No. 1
Nancy C. Lee Transource PA Stmt. 16-R, 16 RJ
H. Dwight Mercer Transource PA Stmt. 17-R, 17-RJ
James Michael Silva Transource PA Stmt. 15-R, Exh. JMS-1R – 4R
David Ray Dominy Transource PA Stmt. 14-R, Exh. DRD-1R
William F. Rothman Transource PA Stmt. 13-R, 13-RJ, Exh. WFR-1R

Transource PA Exhibits regarding Condemnation Applications in York County Exhibits

20-53; Transource PA Exhibits regarding Condemnation Applications in Franklin County
Exhibits 54-99, admitted into evidence on 2/27/19.

xiii
CROSS EXHIBITS

Sponsoring Party Description Exhibit Numbers Date Admitted

OCA Map, Furnace Run Cross Exhibit 1 2/21/19
Map, Rice-Ringgold Cross Exhibit 2 2/21/19
OCA-III-01 Cross Exhibit 3 2/21/19
Foley Letter Cross Exhibit 4 2/22/19
OCA-XVII-01 Cross Exhibit 5 2/22/19
OCA-IV-14 Cross Exhibit 6 2/22/19
2015 Report Cross Exhibit 7 2/26/19
2017 Report Cross Exhibit 8 2/26/19
2018 Report Cross Exhibit 9 2/26/19
OCA-V-04 Cross Exhibit 10 2/26/19
OCA-X-07 Cross Exhibit 11 2/26/19
IMM Comments Cross Exhibit 12 2/26/19

October 28, 2019 Prehearing Conference pp. 2760-2781

May 20, 2020 Further Telephonic Prehearing Conference pp. 2782-2806

July 9, 2020 Evidentiary Hearing (day 8) pp. 2807-2984

Witnesses:

Barry A. Baker Transource PA St. No. AA-5

Mathew Baranoski PPL St. No. AA-2
Brian D. Weber Transource PA St. No. AA-1
Timothy Horger Transource PA St. No. AA-3
Steven R. Herling Transource PA St. No. AA-2
Edward G. McGavran III Franklin County St. No. 1, Exhibit FC-1, Exhibit FC-4

xiv