“I caution you about averages,” Schug said. “Our extremes are much higher.”

Wayne Schug, MISO’s vice president of strategy and business development, said a growing renewables fleet and rapidly changing weather is driving increasing volatility and an “inability to deal with it.”  

By 2030, as little as 57% of the RTO’s fleet could be dispatchable, staff said. Dispatchable resources accounted for 84% of the fleet in 2020.

Schug said that since 2017, average daily output swings and forecasting errors have grown by gigawatts and percentages points, respectively. He said while the grid operator continues to get better at output forecasting, the expanding wind fleet has blotted out any signs of improvement.

Moeller said that for three days in 2020, MISO’s entire wind fleet in the upper Midwest failed to generate a megawatt. He also said unexpected cloud cover could make a solar farm “disappear within three minutes.”

Joundi said MISO is working with an aging generation fleet more prone to outages with increasingly uncertain return-to-service dates. He said the footprint’s current rate of generation retirement — propelled, in part, by state and federal policies — is outpacing members’ capacity replacements.
Staff expects the number of emergency near-misses to rise every year, Joundi said.

Joundi said that the control room now manages more intra-hour instability and intensifying “wind droughts,” where wind output drops off below forecasts.

Director Mark Johnson asked staff to invite a control room operator to a board meeting to address their recent experiences dealing with grid volatility.

“We face a rapidly transforming energy landscape,” CEO John Bear told directors during a Board Week meeting, warning of a delicate load-supply balance.

He said when MISO introduced its ancillary services market 12 years ago, “load was the only thing that was moving around.”
“Everything else was pretty static and predictable,” Bear said. “Where we stand is not sustainable, and it’s not safe. We have a lot of work in front of us.”  

Agri-Pulse Communications, Inc. is pleased to lead a webinar to discuss how expanding, integrating, and modernizing the North American high-voltage grid can drive rural economic development. Speakers will highlight the good-paying jobs that expanding high-voltage transmission will create, in addition to improved electricity affordability, reliability and sustainability.

What do the structures look like? The structures will be lattice steel designs. The structure base will have four legs approximately 40 feet by 40 feet wide. The structures will be between 130 to 160 feet tall.

What is the footprint of the structures?
The footprint of each structure is less than 1% of the easement area. Each of the structure’s four legs will have a cylindrical cement foundation that is around 4 to 6 feet wide and about 15 feet deep. These dimensions will vary somewhat based on localized soil conditions.

...providing new opportunities to local communities along the route

Structure Payments In addition to easement payments, you will be compensated for any structures on your property. You can elect an upfront, lump sum payment of $18,000 per structure, or receive annual payments starting at $1,500 per-structure in Year 1 and escalating at 2% each year as long as the structures are on your property.

Brown said the roads would not take the wear and tear that building a wind farm would entail, as they aren’t traveling in with heavy loads such as big wind turbines. He said the transmission stations will be brought in pieces and put together on site.

Brown also assured commissioners that the easement talks were peaceful and so far only a handful of requests have gone to court.
“We don’t want to use imminent domain,” he said. “We don’t want to use attorneys, we would rather have a conversation with landowners.”

... only a handful of requests have gone to court.

“Eminent Domain is something of a last resort used here,” Pnazek said. “In Kansas and Missouri to date, Invenergy has signed up about 65% of the affected parcels on a voluntary basis, and those are the approach that we’d be taking here as well as we progress the project through Illinois.”

Brown also told commissioners that there need not be concern over pushy land agents, stating that Invenergy hires reputable and credible agents but told the commissioners to contact him with any concerns.

"...and just in case some people want them underground your government and transmission companies will have a full array of irrational arguments and inflated costs to make sure nothing gets buried."

Environmentalists are associated with compensation packages; marginalized groups are associated with undergrounding and combined remediation; and environmentalists, the federal government, and the breadth of coalition actors is associated with the combined remediation outcome.

However, opponents often have differentiated goals, and a just outcome for one member of a coalition may be unjust for another.

Developers often determine the dimensions of the project, such as route options, during the upstream phase of the decision-making process (Cotton and Devine-Wright 2013). Public consultation can occur later, and community meetings can have the goals of limiting engagement to final route selection and of selling the project.

Skelly said markets and mechanisms are critical, “so that private actors can come in and compete and beat the crap out of each other and bring costs down.”

“It’s not a gale-force wind, but it’s a little bit of momentum out there in the world for us to tap into,” said Michael Skelly, the CEO of Grid United, a Houston-based transmission developer.

You would think in eight years, you would have sort of a lull, but it’s a sort of a mad dash every day to move these projects forward,” Skelly said. “It’s more like an Ironman [Triathlon], not a marathon. It’s more like a decathlon, but it goes on for eight years.”

That “could accelerate everything we’re doing in our clean energy transition and probably provide some pretty nice [cash flow] features to fund additional capital investment,” said James Chapman, the chief financial officer at Virginia-based Dominion Energy Inc. “So it all seems pretty good.”

Gale Klappa, executive chairman of Milwaukee-based WEC Energy Group, said he expected that extensions of renewable tax credits would happen. “It’s such a sausage-making machine in Washington as you know, but if I were a betting man, I think something will pass,” Klappa said, referring to the “Build Back Better” plan under consideration through the budget reconciliation process.

One of the lessons was that power companies need to engage the public early and be willing to change course in the face of well-reasoned criticism, as opposed to ramming through a project.

...new transmission can be sited and routed with broad support from the public and the communities most impacted by it.

Power companies can reduce conflict by building transmission lines in existing corridors, like along highways and railroads, but those options can be more complicated and costly.

The changes—which include giving the federal government more authority to intervene in state-level permitting decisions—are meant to expedite the approval of new transmission lines, which often encounter regional opposition and face years of delays.

Developers expect the new measures to streamline approvals but say they might not be enough. Companies proposing transmission lines say they often face local opposition, protracted state-level study processes or pushback from rival companies that don’t want new sources of electricity coming into regional markets.

“You look at the history in the U.S., and it’s very tough,” said Mike Garland, chief executive of transmission and renewables developer Pattern Energy Group, which recently started operating a 155-mile transmission line in New Mexico that took about seven years to finish.

“A couple of people can stop a transmission line, and that’s really bad news,” Mr. Garland said. “For us, the infrastructure bill provides a number of benefits that can help. It doesn’t solve the problem.”

Rob Gramlich, founder and president of power-sector consulting firm Grid Strategies LLC and executive director of advocacy group Americans for a Clean Energy Grid, said the Energy Department’s expanded ability to resolve and perhaps override state-level decisions could have a significant effect on efforts to expedite projects. But he said it remains unclear how the agency would use the new tools.
“It may just be the big stick they carry around while speaking softly in these regional transmission efforts and state siting proceedings,” Mr. Gramlich said. “But when everybody knows that stick exists, their behavior might change.”

Critics of transmission projects over the years have cited various concerns including the use of eminent domain, environmental impacts and potential effects on property values, among other factors.

Transmission line projects often face pushback during the permitting process, including opposition from established power providers. Companies that own nuclear and fossil-fuel plants have raised concerns about their ability to compete with wind, solar or hydropower delivered from other markets.

Maine residents last month voted to reject a $950 million transmission line under construction by Spain’s Iberdrola SA that would carry Canadian hydropower into the New England market. NextEra Energy Inc., a power company that operates a nuclear plant and an oil-fueled power plant in Maine, donated about $20 million to a political-action committee opposing the project and was joined by several other companies with plants in the area.NextEra declined to comment. Avangrid Inc., the U.S. subsidiary of Iberdrola that is behind the project, is fighting the ballot measure in court.

“This is really about the transition from the old to the new, and how we manage that,” said Avangrid’s deputy chief executive, Bob Kump.
Some Maine residents also raised concerns about the project’s potential harm to state forests and questioned whether the developer overstated its environmental benefits.
Sandi Howard, a music professor and Registered Maine Guide who leads a grass-roots opposition group, said the removal of tree canopy could hurt tourism and pose environmental and wildlife harms, including disturbing deer wintering areas and hurting native brook trout.
“Sometimes people throw up NIMBY,” said Ms. Howard, referring to the acronym for “not in my backyard.” “It’s bigger than that.”

Chris Miller, the council’s president, said he remains concerned that the federal government could override state-level decisions on transmission projects without having to consider alternatives with potentially less environmental impact.
“You’re basically taking state and local self-determination and exchanging it for the administrative fiat of FERC,” he said. “If your goal is to protect the environment, that is not acceptable.”

Plundering the land of Missouri landowners for private gain is not heroic nor commendable, but rather a shameful abuse of eminent domain laws by an out-of-state billionaire who aims to ship government subsidized wind energy across our state’s borders and profits into the pockets of investors. It does not benefit the state when private companies manipulate our eminent domain laws to serve only their bottom line and not our citizens.

... the author’s attempt to equate the corporate behemoths behind Grain Belt Express to true Missouri trailblazers like Mark Twain, J.C. Penney and Walt Disney is an insulting attempt to mislead, misguide and distract readers from the facts. 
First, the Grain Belt Express is not a product of a Missouri genius, but rather an outdated idea of a Chicago billionaire whose intent is to drive profits for investors. If Grain Belt Express was truly innovative they would be taking notes from the SOO Green which delivers renewable energy underground on existing rail rights of way through Iowa to the Eastern U.S., eliminating land and environmental impacts of above-ground merchant transmission lines.

Even the Clean Path NY project (of which Invenergy is a partner) is buried underground. One would think an actual genius could modify the Grain Belt Express project to provide all of the “benefits” of clean power without the major disruptions. But corporate greed stands in the way of actual progress.

... it may surprise some readers to learn the Grain Belt Express is a purely optional merchant transmission line which has not been ordered or required for any ratepayer need. Instead, it is a private, supplemental, profit-making endeavor as a merchant transmitter of electricity that is not restricted to wind energy. It is NOT funded by ratepayers because it is not for them. It is funded by investors who receive the benefit from the project. As an optional project, Invenergy can cancel the Grain Belt Express at any time. In fact, the project may never be built if the economics do not translate into returns for investors. For this reason, the project should not be allowed to take land “for a public use.” Landowners deserve certainty, not smoke and mirrors, and Grain Belt Express should not interfere with landowner rights before it even has customers and financing for their project.