Routing Process Summary:

Note – this is not intended to be all-inclusive but rather outline the process and steps PSEG took to develop a Proposed Route. More detailed information will be included as part of PSEG's upcoming Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) submission to the Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC) and will be available for further review and public comment as part of that process.

Where We Started:

In December of 2023, PJM selected a PSEG proposal to resolve forecasted reliability violations on the electric transmission system that serves Maryland and surrounding states as represented by the pink line in the map below:

This pink line is representative of one part of a bid proposal PSEG submitted as options to address the reliability needs that PJM has forecasted for the region. The route was developed earlier in 2023 by PSEG using publicly available information and was considered at that time to be preliminary or “bid level”.

Progress to July Public Release:

After PJM’s selection, PSEG engaged a routing and siting consultant to conduct a routing analysis to connect the endpoint at the existing BGE right-of-way in northern Baltimore County, Maryland to the endpoint at the existing Doubs Station in Frederick, Maryland.  The transmission line routing process was iterative and began with assembling a multidisciplinary siting team. The siting team included members experienced in high voltage transmission line siting, project management, environmental and cultural resources, engineering, permitting, real estate, construction, and agency and public outreach.

The team started the routing analysis by defining a Study Area shown in pink below. The goal was to define an area to use for analysis of viable route alternatives between the endpoints. The Study Area was developed to avoid metropolitan areas where routing is restricted by the dense built environment (such as the City of Frederick to the west), and to limit crossings of existing 500kV infrastructure to the extent possible due to engineering and service complexities (which is why the existing 500kV line bounds the Study Area to the south and east).

The siting team aligned on routing and siting criteria that would be used to develop potentially viable route alternatives within the Study Area. These included Environmental, Land Use, Social, and Engineering criteria. PSEG determined that potentially viable routes for a 150' wide Right-of-Way should avoid residences, businesses or other built infrastructure to the extent possible as buildings and structures cannot coexist within the Right-of-Way.

Within the Study Area, the PSEG team then assembled information on existing conditions, opportunities and sensitivities into a geographical information systems (GIS) database. This included federal, state and local data available publicly or obtainable directly from the respective source (such as development plans from a county). Siting team members obtained field level information to identify additional sensitivities and opportunities that warranted revisions or deletions to the GIS data. Field level data was obtained from public roadways (windshield survey) to help confirm and identify information not available from reviewing aerial images or in the GIS data (for example new construction or other infrastructure).

The resulting 10 Alternative Route corridors (labeled as Routes A – J) were released publicly on July 8, 2024. A screenshot of the interactive mapper from www.mprp.com follows below:

Public Comment Process:

Public information sessions (held July 9th, 10th & 11th in the three counties within the Study Area) along with the online survey tool (open from July 8th to July 26th) were utilized to collect public comments.  Additional comments were also obtained from PSEG’s project e-mail and phone hotline as well as correspondence received.

In total, the team reviewed and analyzed over 5,300 comments from the public.  Comments were categorized and geo-located into the team’s GIS database where possible (when addresses were provided).

Adjustments were made to the Alternative Routes based on the comments received.  While not every requested change or recommendation was feasible to incorporate, the siting team did receive valuable comments that helped the Company identify sensitivities not previously captured.  For example, based on numerous requests from the public, the routing team avoided routing through the Peace and Plenty Historic District in Frederick County.  As another example, public comments revealed a future development area (England Woods Development) that was a previously unidentified development plan that the routing team, was able to route around.

The routing team also received a high volume of comments requesting that the company consider paralleling the existing 500kV infrastructure that forms the southern and eastern borders of the Study Area.  Although this was previously deemed non-viable due to the potential for impact on built infrastructure and residences, the routing team developed an 11th route for comparison purposes to be able to quantify the impact of this parallel route.  The evaluation indicated that the parallel route would require the removal of approximately 90 residences/buildings, which is inconsistent with a key siting criteria to avoid the need to take homes and buildings. As a result, the parallel route option was not carried forward in the route analysis.

Route Analysis & Propsed Route

The adjusted 10 Alternative Routes were reviewed using the siting criteria quantified with GIS desktop data as modified by field collected data. The siting team reviewed the results of the routing analysis to discuss quantitative and qualitative factors associated with each route and select the Proposed Route. View summary of the criteria.

The goal of the routing process is to identify a Preferred Route that meets the electrical, engineering, and planning requirements in a reliable way while minimizing potential impacts to the natural and built environments. In practice, there are tradeoffs among the evaluation criteria, and it is not possible to minimize all sensitivities for a given route. As a result of the extensive data gathering and analysis, comments received from the public, field collected data , and the siting team's knowledge and experience, the siting team chose to carry forward Route H as the Proposed Route for the Project.

Route H was selected as it performed well in the land use, social and engineering criteria categories. For example, Route H impacted fewer conservation easements, had fewer residences and community facilities in close proximity to the Right-of-Way, and it was shorter and had fewer hard turns which reduces cost and complexity. As noted above, there was no one route that has minimal impacts across all four categories.

Next Steps:

The Proposed Route is subject to all governmental and regulatory approvals, including a CPCN submission to the Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC).

Next steps include:

• Engineering Due-Diligence and Design Progression
• Public Feedback
• Real Estate Process
• Field Surveys
• Permitting and Regulatory Process

We plan to hold our next round of in-person public information sessions November 12th (Baltimore County), November 13th (Carroll County), and November 14th (Frederick County). This public comment period will close on November 15th.

Following the public information sessions, PSEG is targeting submission of a CPCN application to the Maryland PSC by the end of 2024.