The Needs Study is not intended to displace existing transmission planning processes and is not intended to identify specific transmission solutions to address identified needs, but it does identify key national needs that can inform investments and planning decisions.  ​

The findings of this Needs Study are intended to inform regional and interregional planning, as well as help guide the Department in the execution of its transmission-related authorities. The Department understands the factors that drive industry transmission planning today and the entities and institutions that perform such planning. This Needs Study is not meant to displace these planning processes or the reliability standards they address. Rather, the Department believes it will be an important addition to overall industry and government planning efforts to reduce transmission congetion and capacity constraints that adversely affect consumers. 

A few individuals express opposition to the basis of the Study and what they view as political or parochial goals of the Study. One individual, Keryn Newman, criticizes the discrepancy between needs identified in the 2020 Congestion Study and the draft Study, stating that in 2020, DOE did not find a need to designate transmission corridors. In contrast, this report finds significant transmission need “in an area so vast that if the DOE were to designate corridors to solve it, the entire continental U.S. would be one gigantic ‘corridor.’” Newman concludes that this discrepancy can only be attributed to the fact that the studies “are not based on data and science, but on political goals. 

Keryn Newman criticizes the Study’s conclusion that large-scale transmission build-out is cost-effective. Newman cites the Study’s “vague claims of ‘economies of scale,’” arguing they are never justified and allow DOE to avoid a comprehensive analysis of the cost of transmission. 

Keryn Newman argues that the Needs Study does not include adequate consultation with landowners, whom Newman identifies as those who will most experience the devastating impacts of transmission development. Newman argues that the Study identifies landowner concerns as a barrier to transmission deployment but does not bother to consult these “barriers” or to devise solutions to mitigate their concerns. For this very reason, Newman also objects to the FERC Report on Barriers and Opportunities for High Voltage Transmission, which is cited in the Needs Study. Additionally, Newman argues that landowner interests should be represented on DOE’s Technical Review Committee. ​

Department Response
In response to comments from parties requesting additional, targeted stakeholder and Tribal outreach and continued stakeholder engagement, the Department has made additional efforts to engage with entities beyond the Department’s consultation with states, Tribes, and regional entities pursuant to Section 216(a) of the FPA, as amended (16 U.S.C. §824p(a)(1)). The Department has continued to accept meeting requests from commenting and interested parties to discuss draft Study findings.
Further, the Department has created regional and national fact sheets to be appended to the final Study and released concurrently to help make Study findings more accessible. The Department hopes the final Needs Study will be used as an educational tool to engage communities in discussion about grid needs. Departmental communications on final Study findings are a tool to solicit additional feedback from stakeholders on what future iterations of the Needs Study should entail.
The Department agrees with commenters that landowner, community, stakeholder, and Tribal engagement is imperative. The Department added Section V.e. Siting and Land Use Considerations (pages 95–108) to the final Study on subjects of unique interest to the communities. This section contains discussion of best practices for developers in engaging with landowners and other affected parties. 

Keryn Newman objects to the Needs Study’s statement that “large amounts of low-cost generation potential exist in the middle of the country and accessing this generation through increased transmission is cost-effective for neighboring regions.” Newman argues this approach is only low-cost due to taxpayer-funded subsidies and lower-cost lands and that “turning rural America into an energy serfdom to provide power to far-away cities” benefits urban communities that do not want to build infrastructure in their own backyard. Newman also argues that the statement exhibits “cultural and political elitism.” Furthermore, Newman argues that the Study dismisses legitimate landowner concerns as “NIMBYism” and barriers to transmission development without attempting to address them. Accordingly, Newman concludes that the Study lacks awareness and empathy. 

The Department stresses that addressing landowner concerns is critical to ensuring just and equitable outcomes in transmission deployment. The Needs Study makes no reference to “NIMBYism” and the Department has taken care to ensure that landowner concerns are not presented as a barrier to transmission deployment in the final Study. 

Transmission can share much of its rights-of-way with other activities, such as agricultural fields or recreational paths, and are considered a “mixed use” activity. 

Emotional challenges to a project can cause projects sponsors to respond with facts, but those facts are often drowned out if the parties are unwilling to compromise. In this presentation, we will have an in-depth analysis of how to respond to exaggerated or false claims and how to manage project opposition explained with real-life case study/scenarios.

When Sabal Trail approached him, Dowdy agreed to a negotiated fee for the right-of-way and estimated crop loss because he knew if he balked, the government would help the company take it anyway. He agreed in good faith, as well. Sabal Trail promised that Dowdy’s land would be returned to its original state by early January, in time for the new planting season.

And this is where the dispute begins.

“I was assured that Sabal would adhere to Georgia Soil and Water provisions,” says Dowdy, “that they would adhere to guidelines for segregated top soil and sub soil…rebuild my terracing to insure erosion wouldn’t occur…and put everything back in pre-construction condition. They said they would do…in their words…everything it takes.”

Andrea Grover, Director of Stakeholder Communications for Sabal Trail, says the company “followed specific protocols in place for construction which include storm water, erosion and sediment control plans which all require best management practices or “BMPs.”

“Our representatives have worked with individual landowners over the course of the past 3 ½ years to address concerns as related to the project and its impact to agriculture,” Grover explains. “The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) is the lead agency which approves pipeline projects, and Sabal Trail’s work is limited to only the FERC approved areas and conditions for construction. Project inspection personnel and our contractors all have the appropriate level of certifications for storm water controls inspection in Georgia.”

While Sabal Trail management promised that Dowdy’s farm would be back in business by the first week in January, and ensured that the project right-of-way would be “restored to its previous condition and contours,” that wasn’t the case. Repairs continued into February—and, worse, were still in progress when a major late January storm hit the state.

“I had already reached out to Sabal Trail management at least five times in December to say I was seeing erosion issues,” recalls Dowdy. “They promised to fix it immediately, but they never did, so when the storm came, we were completely unprotected.”

Dowdy thought he had made some headway with Sabal Trail when the company, in an attempt to make peace with an unhappy landowner, offered to pay Dowdy to make additional repairs to his land.

“They asked me to put together an estimate for attempting to repair the land, including an acceptable value I placed on my wetlands, and additional future yield loss,” says Dowdy. “We made a verbal agreement and I began repairs as instructed. Sabal knew the costs and agreed to pay for the estimated costs of repair.”

“When it came time for them to pay though, they introduced a condition—in order to get my reimbursement, I would have to sign a document releasing Sabal from future long-term yield loss, wetland violations and compensation. Here I was repairing what they messed up at my own expense and then they want more.”

Dowdy says his lawyer advised him not to sign and, thus far, he has not signed nor has he received a penny of the promised reimbursement from Sabal Trail.

Next Step…Litigation?

Dowdy’s laundry list of what wasn’t completed correctly by Sabal Trail is long.

“Sediment barriers were placed wrong, no hay was spread, there were no temporary terraces or berms…water was moving off my land at a 10% grade and sediment was going right into the surrounding wetlands and waterways. If Sabal had been in compliance with BMPs, I wouldn’t have been replacing 15,000 cubic yards of topsoil as I am having to do after the storm.”

Grover says Sabal Trail did return to Dowdy’s farm, and others impacted by pipeline construction, after the late January storm event, to “inspect the construction areas to ensure soil erosion devices installed according to the BMPs are working properly or repaired if necessary.”

But by then, says Dewey Lee, UGA Professor and Extension Agronomist, even though Sabal Trail installed additional BMPs after the storm damage was discovered, it was too late.

Lee who has worked with Dowdy on conditioning his farmland for a decade, says, “In the restoration that Sabal did, it appears they did not follow regulatory protocols perfectly. It appears that the crew handling the reconstruction did not have a full understanding of what their responsibilities were. This ultimately caused erosion down Randy’s waterways and across his field.”

Like Lee, irrigation specialist, Rance Harrod, knows well Dowdy’s attention to detail when it comes to his land. Dowdy and Lee’s suspicions that co-mingling of the top and sub soils in the fields was confirmed just last week after an irrigation supply line to the pivot began leaking. It was Harrod, along with Dowdy and a Sabal Trail employee, who worked on the fix.

Dowdy says as soon as Harrod began digging, it was apparent that the Sabal Trail repair crew had paid little attention to BMPs when it came to replacing the soil.

“Sabal has created tremendous soil loss and erosion resulting in offsite movement into the wetlands, no question about that. Randy’s damages are almost incalculable,” Lee adds.

“I shared pictures of the problems I was seeing with the Georgia Environmental Protection Department to show them things weren’t being done to regulations, hoping that they would take it up with Sabal,” says Dowdy. “But they said they needed to see it at the time it happened…that a later complaint wasn’t enough.”

Dowdy recalls he asked the agent “well where were you when it needed to be inspected?” He says the agent told him they didn’t have enough manpower to be everywhere along a 500-mile pipeline at all times.

“The only people inspecting what Sabal was doing to my land was Sabal,” says Dowdy. “The way I see it, it was like the proverbial fox guarding the hen house.”

“In my view, Dominion looked really hard at the input this community had and listened to us around the table. I’ve served on a lot of task groups in Alexandria, but this is probably the best I ever sat on.”

And Mayor Allison Silberberg touted Dominion’s proposal for the fact that both options keep power lines underground.

“The good news is Dominion put forward two alternatives that are, in the proposal, both shown to be underground in Alexandria,” Silberberg said. “That’s really good, because that has been a top concern. We are awaiting more info from Dominion with regard to the specifics, and then once we get that specific info from them, we will be reconvening the work group, which has been excellent, to go over these considerations and the two options.”

A front group is an organization that purports to represent one agenda while in reality it serves some other party or interest whose sponsorship is hidden or rarely mentioned.

...immediately convene an independent audit of all public comment statements submitted to docket of Case No. CP16-22 since the opening of the comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement; that the Commission strike Intervenors’ Exhibits A through O from the docket and grant leave to any intervenors to this proceeding to submit
further pleadings relating to striking other public comment statements from the docket; finally, that the Commission make a referral to its Division of Investigations, the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Inspector-General, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Inspector-General, and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service.

As an energy consumer advocacy organization, CEA has developed a process of gathering grassroots support for affordable, reliable energy projects. As part of that widely accepted business process, CEA conducts automated telephone surveys with selected individuals. When an automated call is placed, and consistent with accepted industry practice, the call is directed to the individual listed in phone company records. The individual who participates in the survey is asked a series of questions from a scripted questionnaire to which he or she is requested to answer by pressing on the phone’s keyboard “1” for “yes” and “2” for “no”. But, it is the nature of automated surveys that the questions are not asked by a live person and there is no process to identify and confirm who answers the phone and responds to the question.

The survey used here began with an introductory statement telling the respondent that the Commission is considering whether or not to grant a permit to build the NEXUS pipeline and explaining the benefits of the pipeline, including creation of jobs in the region and reduction of energy costs for manufacturers and consumers. The survey continued with the express question on whether or not the respondent would give his or her permission to relay to the Commission his support for the pipeline. If the respondent replied with “no”, the survey would ask another question reiterating the importance of the Project and again ask the respondent if he or she would support the pipeline and authorize CEA to pass that view on to the Commission. On behalf of those respondents who indicated their support for the project and authorized CEA to forward that viewpoint to the Commission, CEA then generated the letter for the 347 individuals that were filed.

Moreover, it is implicit in the nature of any automated phone survey that from time to time there will be instances where the person who answers the phone and responds to the survey is not the person listed in the telephone company’s records as the householder. This would explain the inadvertent error that can occur when a supporting letter is generated in the name of the person listed as householder, but someone else actually answers the phone. So, even though the householder – in whose name the support letter was generated – may not be competent or even in agreement, the person who answered did respond affirmatively and authorize support for the Project. Similarly, in some instances the respondent may not fully understand the presented question, unintentionally answer it in the wrong way and later change his or her mind. Or, in some cases, the respondent may forget that the survey even took place, let alone that he or she gave the authorization for his comments to be filed with the Commission. CEA regrets any such misunderstanding or miscommunication that may have occurred.

...explore the specifics of how to develop and maintain positive landowner relationships while negotiating in good faith for pipeline, electric transmission, wind and solar, rail and public sector projects. This would include whether pursuing site leasing, site purchase, easements, right of ways and/or workspace, and whether coming from the perspective of project management, design engineering, environmental, appraising, permitting, survey, right of way, inspections, construction, operations, and others, this presentation is a must in helping ensure a successful project, on time and on budget with happy landowners.

Recognize and understand landowner’s perspectives and the importance of dealing with unique differences in various landowners, their personalities and their needs/concerns.

Beyond the historical considerations of zoning, environmental, special use, conservation and damages determination, communities are becoming more and more vocal in their requirements in infrastructure development.  As social media and cyber-activism have become the norm (even for landowners not impacted by a project), companies need to become social-savvy in route planning, outreach and negotiations.  More often than not, whether in the electric industry or in other related industries, projects are successful or fail spectacularly due to communication issues, lack of messaging and poor understanding of the locale impacted.

Case Study: Delivering Wind Energy to Market

The United States possesses some of the best renewable energy resources in the world. However, continued growth of the renewable energy industry in the U.S. faces a serious challenge: the lack of transmission. Clean Line Energy is developing a series of long-haul direct current transmission lines to deliver low-cost renewable energy to communities that have a strong demand for clean power.

This presentation will focus on the Grain Belt Express Clean Line, which will deliver wind energy from Kansas into Missouri, Illinois and Indiana. The project has received its regulatory approvals in Kansas, Illinois and Indiana and is currently working through the final state approval process in Missouri. The presentation will provide an update on the regulatory, routing, and other milestones accomplished with a focus on the benefits this project will bring to Missouri.

Amy Kurt, Director of Development, Clean Line Energy Partners

Liars overemphasize their truthfulness. “To tell you the truth…” “Honestly…” “I swear to you…” Oh, if only it were so! When people use these bolstering statements to emphasize their honesty, there’s a good chance they are hiding something. Learning to baseline someone’s normal behavior is important in situations such as this:  You want to listen for normal or harmless use of such phrases. There’s no need to add them if you really are telling the truth, so be on guard.

"The growth has been in some fits and starts, but we're at a point now where this is an essential project to continue to provide, really, the type of service, the level of service, that our customers expect from us," Fakult told the Asbury Park Press. "It reinforces the system in that area. It allows us to, again, provide better, more reliable, resilient service."

"The time is now," Fakult said. "It just needs to be done now."

Nearly 16 years ago, the utility scrapped plans for a 6.5-mile transmission line, to be run on 60-foot high steel poles, along the railroad tracks from Matawan to Middletown, after intense community opposition. Residents and some town officials, fearing a reduction in property values and worried about health risks, fought the project for a decade.

"To me, it is nothing but a resurrection of precisely the same plan that we fought and stopped," said state Assemblywoman Amy Handlin, R-Monmouth, a vocal opponent years ago. "It's the phoenix rising from the ashes, it's the ghost of battles past. It's not different."

This time, the utility proposes to run the wires atop slender single poles that average 140 feet tall rather than bulky towers used in the past, spokesman Ron Morano said.

The use of the NJ Transit corridor, which is already designated for public use and has existing electric infrastructure, as well as the slimmer monopoles, will help to minimize the disruption on the community, Fakult said.

Morano, the JCP&L spokesman, said the utility follows all safety and heath guidelines and will have an electromagnetic fields expert available at open house sessions. "We are successfully building transmission lines in other (areas) without any issues," she said.

PJM Interconnection, the organization that oversees the electric grid in 13 states and Washington D.C., has identified the Monmouth County Reliability Project as a necessary project to reduce the length and frequency of outages in Monmouth County, the utility said.

If not built, "over the long term, you start to see issues emerge," Fakult said. "When you start to see peaking conditions, you just don't have the contingencies that you need to run the system reliably."

As noted in the fact sheet, Energizing the Future is a transmission initiative through 2017 that involves upgrading and strengthening the grid to meet the future demands of customers and communities. Key factors driving that investment include enhancing system reliability by replacing existing equipment with advanced technologies; meeting projected load growth; and reinforcing the system in light of power plant deactivations, the fact sheet added.

The company plans to hold three open house events in neighborhoods near the proposed project to share information with the public and gather feedback. The company also is setting up a website at www.monmouthreliability.com.