PJM suspends Artificial Island transmission project

183
Advertisement

IMG_2684The PJM Interconnection Board suspended the Artificial Island transmission project and directed PJM to perform a comprehensive analysis. The announcement came today in a letter to PJM members.

The project had drawn strong opposition in Maryland and Delaware. Federal regulators had earlier agreed to rehear the matter after earlier signing off on the project. PJM controls the electrical grid in the region.

Delmarva Power and electric cooperative  customers had been slated to bear the financial burden of the project at a cost that ranged from a few dollars a month for residential customers to hundreds and even thousands of dollars a month for some business customers. The charges would have come even though the project would mainly benefit customers outside the two states.

 The board asked for the review to be completed by February 2017. That would allow PJM to be e in a better position to decide how  to proceed, a release stated.

Click here for other stories on the Artificial Island project

 “The board is concerned about the project’s estimated costs and changing scope in light of new estimates and technical information it has received,” said Andrew L. Ott, PJM  CEO. “We need a firmer understanding of the changes that have occurred since the project was initially approved to ensure that we have the best path forward.”

Advertisement

 PJM has been working with transmission owners and developers to resolve voltage and stability problems at the Artificial Island generating complex in southern New Jersey. The problems require grid operators to make complex operational adjustments to ensure continued reliable electricity service in the area.

 In 2015, the PJM Board approved a proposal to build a 230-kilovolt transmission line under the Delaware River. It designated LS Power to build the line and Public Service Electric & Gas and Pepco Holdings Inc. for other portions of the project including electric substation work.

 Because of the complexities of design at two substations, PSE&G’s construction estimates were higher than the initial estimates prepared by PJM. Questions also have arisen about whether proposed system protection and control upgrades would perform as intended.

Advertisement
Advertisement