Delaware Township Board of Supervisors holds open forum on proposed transmission line project

On Wednesday, June 24, the Delaware Township Board of Supervisors invited two representatives from FirstEnergy to speak to a local audience about the planned Shawnee-Walker 69kV transmission line project. The purpose of the meeting was to serve as an open forum for residents to ask questions about the project, in an effort to promote transparency.

Lauren Siburkis and Scott Humphreys began the meeting with a brief overview of the project, presenting a slideshow detailing some of its specifications, such as a map of the route and the types of poles to be used. Afterward, the floor was opened to attendees to ask questions of the two representatives, although on multiple occasions, Township Supervisor John Henderson told people to focus on questions the representatives could answer, rather than directing statements at them to make a point.

FirstEnergy representative says, ‘This is not a data center project’

One of the residents’ main concerns was whether the project would be used to support a data center, but Siburkis made it clear that this would not be the case. “This is not a data center project,” she stated. Taylor Meise opposed this point, arguing that the line’s 69kV capacity could still be enough to power a smaller-scale data center, but when asked about it further, Siburkis explained that, were a data center to be proposed in the area, it would need to go through FirstEnergy to access the grid and would be rejected. She said how the project is built for the benefit of the residents in the area, and a data center - even a small one - would not fit the project’s standards.

FirstEnergy addresses costs, impact on residents

The representatives were also asked who would pay the overall costs of the project. Siburkis explained that projects related to distribution lines are directly reflected in a consumer’s bill, but transmission projects operate differently. “The costs are recovered over the lifespan of the equipment, so equipment like this’ lifespan is around 50 to 60 years, and it’s spread out over the number of customers who will benefit from this project over 60 years.” She explained that the cost per resident would be less than a dollar per month on any given resident’s bill, but that cost would be shared among those affected by the project.

There were many questions about the change in the project’s planned route, and after being approached cautiously, it became clear that the decision came down to the cost. When asked why the route doesn’t use more state game land rather than affect as many residents, the representatives explained that it was more affordable to use existing easements than to pay for new ones with the state. This then raised the sentiment that if the project is paid for by the residents, they should have a say in where it goes and how they’re affected.

Some community members raised concerns about the health risks of having infrastructure that uses electromagnetic fields (EMF) in such close proximity, which the representatives addressed with caution. “We are a highly regulated industry, and if there were health risks associated with the infrastructure that we were putting up, we would not be permitted to use that infrastructure in these communities,” said Siburkis. She then acknowledged that they also live in communities where similar infrastructure is being built, and said it would not have their support if that infrastructure were going to harm them and their families.

Due to the project’s scope, the representatives were not able to answer every question in the moment, so they gathered the ones they could not respond to and said they would forward them to the appropriate people. These answers are to be put onto an FAQ page that the public can access and refer back to, and they said any further questions could be sent to them through email.