Let's build back better, they said.
That political catch phrase has not been applied to electric transmission.
Instead of using science and technological advances to build the grid of the future, this administration seems stuck in the past trying to use more force to build the grid of yesteryear.
Much ado has been made about "infrastructure" and building a "macrogrid." New policies meant to spur this along abound. However, all of these "new" policies are meant to enable building an electric grid that Thomas Edison would easily recognize.
I'm talking about overhead transmission wire strung on lattice steel towers, approximately 4 per mile. Even the promises of sleeker monopoles (5 per mile) is something left over from last century. These linear transmission projects are most often routed on new rights of way across privately owned land. Farmland is a favorite "undeveloped land" target. This is how electric transmission has been planned and built since its inception in the early part of the 20th century.
This kind of transmission is ALWAYS opposed by local landowners and communities. ALWAYS. Battles are long and fierce, and opposition never gives in. The stakes are simply too high to capitulate and accept new transmission. While transmission companies are fighting for profits, the people are fighting from the heart.
All over the country, people have stood up and spoken out against new transmission across their properties and through their communities. Today, transmission opposition is organized online, and new groups have access to successful strategies and tactics used by others. It's easier to get a group up and active than ever before. Transmission opposition is also more successful than ever before. Most long-distance transmission of questionable need has been denied or abandoned in the past decade.
This kind of due process simply takes too long to suit transmission profiteers and "clean energy" groups these days. Historically, transmission proponents have met citizen opposition with propaganda and a muzzle -- a hugely expensive and sadly unsuccessful attempt to drown out or silence the opposition. I think we can all agree now that transmission developer tactics to quell opposition simply are not working any longer.
That political catch phrase has not been applied to electric transmission.
Instead of using science and technological advances to build the grid of the future, this administration seems stuck in the past trying to use more force to build the grid of yesteryear.
Much ado has been made about "infrastructure" and building a "macrogrid." New policies meant to spur this along abound. However, all of these "new" policies are meant to enable building an electric grid that Thomas Edison would easily recognize.
I'm talking about overhead transmission wire strung on lattice steel towers, approximately 4 per mile. Even the promises of sleeker monopoles (5 per mile) is something left over from last century. These linear transmission projects are most often routed on new rights of way across privately owned land. Farmland is a favorite "undeveloped land" target. This is how electric transmission has been planned and built since its inception in the early part of the 20th century.
This kind of transmission is ALWAYS opposed by local landowners and communities. ALWAYS. Battles are long and fierce, and opposition never gives in. The stakes are simply too high to capitulate and accept new transmission. While transmission companies are fighting for profits, the people are fighting from the heart.
All over the country, people have stood up and spoken out against new transmission across their properties and through their communities. Today, transmission opposition is organized online, and new groups have access to successful strategies and tactics used by others. It's easier to get a group up and active than ever before. Transmission opposition is also more successful than ever before. Most long-distance transmission of questionable need has been denied or abandoned in the past decade.
This kind of due process simply takes too long to suit transmission profiteers and "clean energy" groups these days. Historically, transmission proponents have met citizen opposition with propaganda and a muzzle -- a hugely expensive and sadly unsuccessful attempt to drown out or silence the opposition. I think we can all agree now that transmission developer tactics to quell opposition simply are not working any longer.
Renewable energy profiteers and their political enablers have suggested any number of "solutions" to the problem of public opposition to new transmission. Everything from throwing more (taxpayer) money at it, to usurping state/local authority permit it has been suggested. Here's one misguided "solution" to opposition hurdles:
Congress should consider legislation to provide greater federal siting authority to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for projects like these that are clearly in long-term national security, climate protection and consumer interests. A recent National Academy of Sciences report on achieving net zero U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 found that new siting and permitting for transmission must be pursued to “put in place, in a timely fashion, the kind of high-voltage interstate transmission system that is needed for deep decarbonization.”
None of these new policies does a thing to dampen opposition to new aerial transmission. They simply attempt to run opponents over with greater force. These tactics are simply a waste of time and money.
Opposition will continue until the promised "better" projects happen.
What's a "better" transmission project? It's buried on existing linear rights of way. Alternatively, it could involve rebuilding overhead transmission on existing rights of way. Key to the success of both of these "better" projects is the fact that they don't use new rights of way that cause new landowner or community sacrifice, and therefore they don't rely on eminent domain to take property from unwilling sellers. Because there is no sacrifice and destruction of local communities, there's no one to oppose "better" projects. If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?
If you're going to "Build Back Better" you should first make sure that what you're building is actually "better." Why not encourage "better" transmission that won't be opposed by local communities, and discourage governmental sledgehammering of due process and property rights?
Opposition isn't going away until better projects emerge. Take the sensible path and live your slogan.
Opposition will continue until the promised "better" projects happen.
What's a "better" transmission project? It's buried on existing linear rights of way. Alternatively, it could involve rebuilding overhead transmission on existing rights of way. Key to the success of both of these "better" projects is the fact that they don't use new rights of way that cause new landowner or community sacrifice, and therefore they don't rely on eminent domain to take property from unwilling sellers. Because there is no sacrifice and destruction of local communities, there's no one to oppose "better" projects. If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?
If you're going to "Build Back Better" you should first make sure that what you're building is actually "better." Why not encourage "better" transmission that won't be opposed by local communities, and discourage governmental sledgehammering of due process and property rights?
Opposition isn't going away until better projects emerge. Take the sensible path and live your slogan.
RSS Feed