“There’s a reason why these adders have come to be known as ‘FERC candy,’” Christie said. “They’re really sweet for those who get it, but not the consumers who have to pay for it.”

The bill could provide a significant boost to transmission infrastructure, which is needed to ensure widespread renewable adoption. Where permitting a transmission line can now take a decade, the bill would limit federal environmental reviews to two years, put a statute of limitation of 150 days on legal challenges and give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission more authority to permit transmission lines.

The U.S. has a checkered history of transmission development. It has had some success building new lines, particularly in the Midwest, where 16 of 17 projects planned over the last decade were permitted.

But the country has also encountered a series of high-profile failures. An attempt to build a transmission line carrying hydropower from Canada into New England was first rejected by New Hampshire and then nixed by voters in Maine, only for the state’s high court to open the door for the project again. It remains in limbo.

A $4.5 billion line bringing wind from the Oklahoma Panhandle to Tulsa was scrapped in 2018, eventually replaced by a slightly scaled-back version of the project.

Perhaps most infamous was an eight-year effort to build a 700-mile line connecting Oklahoma wind power to the East Coast via Tennessee. The project died in 2017 but not before its trials and tribulations were captured in the popular book “Superpower” by Texas Monthly reporter Russell Gold.

Even when projects do succeed, it can take years. The Anschutz Corp. began planning a 732-mile line aimed at bringing Wyoming wind to Southern California in 2008. It received its last permit in 2020 after obtaining approvals from the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and Bureau of Reclamation, along with state and county regulators in four states. The project is still waiting on a notice to proceed from BLM, which is expected to arrive next year.

Greg Wetstone, president and CEO of the American Council on Renewable Energy, said permitting reform is needed to fully realize the emission-cutting benefits of the climate spending law Congress passed earlier this year.

“Senator Manchin’s bill includes provisions that will help streamline the transmission approval process, improving our ability to meet our nation’s decarbonization goals by better connecting our key renewable resources to our largest population centers,” he said in a statement.

This Proposed Solution is a resubmittal of the modified Independence Energy Connection (IEC) Project. The Proposed Solution consists of: (1) the IEC West Portion, which is comprised of approximately 29 miles of new double-circuit 230 kV AC overhead transmission line between the existing Potomac Edison Ringgold Substation in Washington County, Maryland to a new Rice Substation in Franklin County, Pennsylvania; and (2) the reconfigured IEC East Portion, which is primarily comprised of adding 230 kV AC overhead transmission lines between a new Furnace Run Substation in York County, Pennsylvania, and the existing BGE Conastone (via Baltimore County) and Graceton Substations in Harford County, Maryland.

Violations are small in magnitude and operating steps for a short term duration can mitigate issues pending further review in 2022 RTEP.

Compensation for property taken under this subsection shall be determined and awarded by the district court of the United States in accordance with section 3114(c) of title 40, United States Code.’’.

Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm on Friday backed the much-debated permitting overhaul provisions unveiled in Congress this week, saying they would enhance the department’s efforts to speed up electric transmission lines that connect clean energy to the grid.

“We are very excited at DOE about the potential for streamlined permitting on clean energy projects,” Granholm told reporters on the sidelines of the Global Clean Energy Action Forum in Pittsburgh.

“And I think that holds the greatest promise of the goals we’d like to achieve, which of course is getting to 100% clean electricity by 2035,” Granholm said.

“Community input is important in all of this,” she said. “We have to be very intentional about that, and we’ve got a team that is focused on that as well.”

“Obviously, the transmission process has been ridiculously slow, and so many NIMBY issues related to it,” Granholm said, using an acronym for the “Not In My Backyard” movement.

We don’t think that removing the states is actually going to reduce the time frames,” said Greg White, executive director of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, which represents state officials.

He called the permitting proposal “draconian,” arguing it does nothing to solve delays stemming from federal environmental reviews. NARUC has pressed the department to scrap the proposal and bring states to the table.

“The sense is, if they can remove the state authority on siting these, that these projects will proceed quicker—and we disagree with that,” White said.

GBX’s undertaking to seek this Commission’s prior approval of any cost allocation within
Illinois is worth zilch, give or take bupkus. GBX Witness Shine offers to this Commission an agreement that would affect rates and charges for facilities that transmit electricity from one state for consumption in another. FERC has exclusive jurisdiction over the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce. 16 U.S.C. 824(a).

Enhance federal government permitting authority for interstate electric transmission facilities that have been determined by the Secretary of Energy to be in the national interest.

Replace DOE’s national interest electric transmission corridor process with a national interest determination by the Secretary of Energy that allows FERC to issue a construction permit.

Require FERC to ensure costs for transmission projects are allocated to customers that benefit.

Allow FERC to approve payments from utilities to jurisdictions impacted by a transmission project.

These arrogant greedsters will continue to push their narrative that only a boot on the neck of rural America can usher in a renewable energy future.  Instead of working with rural America to find a solution, these folks continue to push for more authority to simply take what they want.

At a recent Australian energy conference, the program indicates that the energy industry is acutely aware of, and concerned about, the urgent need to develop trust and acquire social licence for transmission. So much so that a panel discussion specifically focussed on the best ways to combat anti-transmission line sentiment. The panel included key industry representatives from the Victorian Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP), the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner, AusNet Services, Powerlink Queensland, Nous Group and CutlerMerz.

Interestingly, the panel did not include members of the public, representatives from community advocacy bodies or community groups calling for better transmission planning and framework reform.

This raises an important question; how can anti-transmission sentiment be truly understood by the industry if those representing the Australian public are not involved in the discussion? The lack of public inclusion in forums such as this suggests there is still much work to be done in understanding best practice engagement principles.

Firstly, communities are not upset that their concerns haven't been heard as there is no doubt opposition has been voiced. Communities are upset because their concerns are not being understood, listened to or respected, with collaborative action being taken to understand and accommodate this opposition to bring about a more mutually beneficial outcome. There is a significant difference between being heard and being understood. Communication is not simply about the transmission of information; it is about the reception and understanding of it. Genuine engagement is then demonstrated by taking meaningful, constructive and collaborative action.

Secondly, in the case of the WVTNP, there are no foreseeable benefits to communities expected to carry the burden of 190km of overhead transmission. How can the industry better sell the benefits to host landholders and neighbouring communities when there are no benefits to sell?

The energy industry and governments can do more to understand and appreciate that community benefits and compensation may not be the quick-fix solutions they hoped they might be. In fact, pushing the ‘talk to them early and pay them more’ agenda is very likely to further dilute trust, increase opposition and dissolve any credible opportunity to acquire social licence. Without empathy in the social licence and public policy equation, it will be near to impossible to develop trust for transmission.

Empathy is the ability to emotionally understand what other people feel, see things from their point of view, and imagine yourself in their place. Essentially, it is putting yourself in someone else's position and feeling what they are feeling. The ability to feel empathy allows people to "walk a mile in another's shoes". It permits people to understand the emotions that others are feeling.

The admonition to walk a mile in someone else's shoes means before judging someone, you must understand his/her experiences, challenges, thought processes, etc. Truly listening to another persons view creates empathy, something that community sentiment suggests is lacking within the energy industry.

It’s not difficult to understand why it may be challenging for the energy industry to demonstrate empathy. For decades, its has been insulated from the need to consider social or environmental externalities and has rarely had to meaningfully engage with, or have empathy for landowners and communities.

Empathy helps develop trust; therefore, it is important that transmission network planners and policy makers spend time to consider, understand and respect landowner and public perspectives, experiences, and motivations before making a judgment about them and asking rural communities to shoulder the burden of overhead transmission for the benefit of the masses. Economic benefits, community benefits, compensation, the climate, environment, emissions, jobs, and green energy, are often wielded by governments and the industry to garner public support for overhead transmission. While there may be truth in some of these benefits, many in the community view this strategy as an intentional attempt to reduce credible objections to those of NIMBYism (Not in my backyard). For many, this strategy demonstrates a concerning lack of empathy as to why overhead transmission projects are being objected to in the first place.

In addition to legitimacy, credibility and trust, empathy should be added to the list of social licence components. Without empathy, it is impossible for the other three components to exists. Without empathy, it will be challenging to garner community support. To develop empathy, it is necessary to first explore the deeper reasons for objection to offer these objections the respect and attention they deserve.

When discussing compensation and engagement with potentially impacted landowners throughout the eastern states of Australia, many have indicated, in no uncertain terms;

‘I'll never sell'; 'We will not be bought off'; 'No amount of money will compensate for the impact on our properties, community and environment'; 'We will not risk our kid's inheritance'; 'Our land is our superannuation, we will not sacrifice that'; ‘This is our livelihood, who has the right to take that away.

When speaking with stakeholders in the energy industry and those living in more urbanised environments, reactions suggest a level of confusion. Comments often conveyed indicate it’s difficult to comprehend why people would not accept payment for the burden they are expected to carry.

'They are only transmission lines'; 'We drive past them every day to work, what's the issue'; 'This is the price we must all pay for progress and to reduce our impact on the climate'; 'Transmission towers remind me of our engineering mastery'; 'It's only farmland, plant your potatoes somewhere else'.

To understand this, we need to dig a lot deeper than early engagement and financial motivation. We need to understand the connection between people, the environment, the land, and rural areas. We need to understand the person-place interaction that leads to attachment to place. This connection to place is experienced by traditional owners, landowners, neighbours, and visitors alike. The strength of this attachment often surfaces under threat of loss of place.

Family farms are a unique institution, continuing through time in a world where considerations of hard work, long-term thinking and commitment are often sparse. Families in agriculture have long provided a steady backbone to rural Australia, serving as stewards of our natural resources and taking care of the neighbours, communities and environments in which they live. Because of their dedication to preserving farm operations and improving land for native wildlife, farm families are very emotionally close to their way of life and to the land on which they live. Many see themselves as temporary stewards of their land, managing it for future generations, just as their great-great-grandfather might have done for them.

A statement by one landholder was, “I don't have a sense that I own it as such. But I've been given the privilege to influence it, to protect it, to enhance it and among other things – stop other people influencing it, without me giving them permission."

It’s also important to note that a cost seen by some, is viewed as an investment by others. Communities impacted by proposed overhead transmission projects argue that despite potential increase in capital by avoiding a shorter more impactful route, use of existing easements, longer least-impact routes or an investment in undergrounding (particularly HVDC), is a long-term economically viable investment in achieving climate change objectives, protecting our environment, avoiding land use conflict, and providing increased redundancy, resilience and reliability to our transmission networks. Despite the increased cost, Star of the South, a private development, is undergrounding its transmission to minimise the environmental impacts. This has been well received by potentially impacted communities.

On March 17, 2021, MISO laid out its initial roadmap for LRTP transmission solutions based on the Futures analysis. The initial roadmap included a proposed line from central Iowa, through northern Missouri, with two offshoots further south into Missouri with one in a similar area as the proposed Point(s) of Connection for the GBX Line, and finally into central Illinois.
 
It was announced during that meeting that the analysis had been completed on the proposed Transmission Solutions linking central Iowa to Northern Missouri to central Illinois and that those upgrades would be included in the LRTP portfolio. It was only after this announcement that Invenergy approached MISO to express its views regarding the GBX Line and how it interacted with LRTP.

In comments to MISO, Invenergy claimed that “[f]ailure to account for the GBX Line may cause economic harm to GBX.”

Grain Belt Express acknowledges how it intends to edge out new MISO projects by taking their place:

“Across the Midwest and Great Plains, several potential transmission projects have been proposed over the next decade to address regional reliability needs, enable the delivery of power to load centers, reduce congestion, and unlock renewables potential. While there still may be a need for localized upgrades, given that the Project addresses these broader goals, it stands to logically reason that the Project could plausibly defer/eliminate the need for certain future major transmission developments."

Invenergy also compares the expected timeline of its proposed projects to the expected timelines of the LRTP Tranche 1 projects, but that comparison does not help Invenergy’s argument, even if taken on its face value. Under the Tariff, the MTEP is “developed to facilitate the timely and orderly expansion of and/or modification to the [MISO] Transmission System.

Including projects without sufficient certainty, regardless of timeline, does not advance system reliability.

Invenergy also fails to show that the GBX Line should receive special treatment and circumvent the MISO planning process. As a project that is not yet certain, MISO properly excluded the GBX Line from the planning studies for LRTP projects.

Invenergy claims that its GBX Line, a merchant high voltage direct current (“MHVDC”) transmission project designed to carry up to 5,000 megawatts (“MW”) of energy, should have been accounted for in MISO’s transmission planning analyses even though it has not yet obtained all necessary approvals and interconnection agreements, and its prospects for achieving such statuses are not at all certain.

While Invenergy explains the status of the GBX Line noting the number of approvals and permits it has obtained, the prospects for the project are far from certain. For example, as Invenergy concedes, permits are still required in one state. In addition, on August 24, 2022, Invenergy submitted an amended Certificate of Convenience and Necessity Application in Missouri to request significant changes in the GBX Line.   Invenergy also has not yet executed interconnection agreements with half of the transmission systems it proposes to interconnect—MISO and PJM.

The Commission should deny Invenergy’s attempt to obtain preferred treatment for the GBX line.

In its Complaint, Invenergy claims “Grain Belt Express has secured voluntary easements for over 75% of the necessary right-of-way in Kansas and Missouri.” However, in its Application in Missouri, Grain Belt claims it has “[a]cquired 72% of all easements required for the Kansas and Missouri portion of the Project.” While only a difference of 3%, it is notable that the percentage of easements acquired went down in the two weeks between the filing of this Complaint and the filing of the Missouri application.

“Subject to additional oversight and approval by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”), Grain Belt Express may sell and/or lease an undivided interest in the project to potential buyers and/or lessees, and Grain Belt Express and those buyers/lessees may seek to provide transmission service over the line to eligible customers as defined by FERC on a non-discriminatory basis under a FERC-approved open access transmission tariff (“OATT”). Any co-owner or lessee of Grain Belt Express that seeks to provide transmission service will be required to operate pursuant to an OATT on file with FERC that will meet the requirements of the Federal Power Act and FERC’s regulations. Grain Belt Express may also sell a cotenancy interest or lease a long-term leasehold interest in the transmission line, in which case it is not providing transmission service to such buyer/lessee because the buyer/lessee has control over that undivided interest”.

“If the shoe were on the other foot, would Invenergy or its executives consent to a forced sale of their property to Missouri farmers and ranchers? We could run cow-calf pairs on their lawns in Chicago, and they’d probably even come out ahead on mowing cost. But something tells me they might feel differently about the eminent domain doctrine if that were the proposal.

“I am a farm wife, and we live in Boone County, but our farms are in Audrain and Callaway,” Stemme said. “There are several residents from Audrain that will be attending the protest. I don’t have the commissioners schedule, so I don’t know if they will be in house or not. It doesn’t matter: We will still be able to get our message across, that we are opposed to any decision that allows the Tiger Belt (Connector) to move forward. I don’t feel the (House Bill) 2005 is very comforting. Our Fifth Amendment rights are being abused.
“The PSC has no agricultural representation. They also have no oversight.”
According to Stemme’s press release announcing the protest, Invenergy proposes to add a “completely unnecessary” 40-mile double circuit 345-kV electric transmission line on a destructive course that would impact prime farmland that is presently producing crops for ethanol and biodiesel. These valuable farms are helping reduce emissions in St. Louis, Columbia and Kansas City.
Stemme noted that Invenergy has only revealed customers for less than 10 percent of its planned delivery to Missouri.
“As a merchant transmission project, the company cannot charge captive ratepayers for its project and can only recover its costs from voluntary customers,” the press release states. “Without customers, there is no revenue to pay for the project.”
Stemme’s press release adds, “The PSC’s prior granting of a permit and eminent domain to Grain Belt’s speculative plan have directly caused the Tiger Connector proposal by encouraging the company to take land for a route that has now changed and must be extended into Audrain and Callaway in order to connect with Missouri’s electric grid. Without an approved grid interconnection and enough customers to pay for its construction, Grain Belt Express remains nothing more than speculation and could change again in the future.”