Not less frequently than once every 3 years, the Secretary, after considering alternatives and recommendations from interested parties (including an opportunity for comment from affected States and Indian Tribes), shall issue a report, based on the study under paragraph (1) or other information relating to electric transmission capacity constraints and congestion, which may designate as a national interest electric transmission corridor any geographic area ...​

This study is a preliminary analysis to help state decision makers determine whether to pursue more detailed analyses of IREZ corridors that are relevant to them. This report could not fully account for all the case-specific details that would affect the configuration of a transmission project. Nevertheless, if a corridor examined in this study has a high benefit-to-cost ratio based only on energy cost savings, a follow-on study focusing on that corridor might expand the economic analysis to include local factors that we were not able to address here. A guiding premise behind the IREZ analysis is that states will ultimately take the lead in deciding whether to pursue IREZ development.

This study develops a model using renewable energy zones to address the new challenges of interregional transmission planning. An interregional renewable energy zone (IREZ) is an area comprising a very high concentration of very low-cost developable renewable energy potential. An IREZ hub is a collection point on the bulk power system to which renewable energy plants built in the IREZ can connect easily. The hub anchors an IREZ corridor that consists of a dedicated high-voltage transmission path from the IREZ hub to a major load center.

We have identified and quantified several high-value IREZ corridors that affected states might consider for interregional transmission planning. Our analysis suggests that these corridors can be valuable tools for reducing carbon emissions in a manner that uses known technologies, has relatively small net impact on customers’ electricity bills, improves resource adequacy, and provides the grid with an additional measure of resilience against major disruptions related to climate change and other causes.

​Benefits could include assumptions about local tax receipts and indirect economic development effects in the IREZ state, payments to landowners for the acquisition of right-of-way (ROW) along the transmission path, net savings in energy costs for customers at the receiving end of the corridor, and enhanced resilience against extreme weather events.

DOE is buying something that it doesn't need and won't ever use, but will put a lot of money in the pockets of private investors who otherwise would have no buyers for their overpriced service.  Can I just say "I told you so" in advance?  This program is wasteful, illogical, and unfair.

doe_nietc_comments.pdf
File Size:	120 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

---

Who does our government work for? If not the citizens who fund and enable it, then it is not part of a functioning democracy. DOE has been working steadily over the past several years to gaslight stakeholders to believe that new transmission and generation is the ONLY solution to a cleaner energy future. There are many other tools in the toolbox that can aid the transition that do not depend on commandeering hundreds of thousands of square miles of private property. DOE’s role is to examine all the tools available and determine which scenario, or combination of scenarios, best serves all citizens. DOE should be purposefully engaging all stakeholders in consultation and making all its actions public, instead of carrying on programs like NIETC designation in secret, lest the hoi polloi find out about it before they are supposed to and become a fly in the ointment. 

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. 

Protect Our Winters, a group formed to safeguard outdoor recreation from the effects of climate change, is advocating a draft bill that would increase fees on Energy Department loans for transmission lines, with the new revenues going for infrastructure projects in communities where the new lines are built.

In doing so, the group is hoping to dispel a “not in my backyard” mentality that has been common in some rural communities, where transmission lines were seen as detriments to the aesthetics of the wilderness frequented by skiers, climbers and outdoor enthusiasts.

The group’s staff, along with outdoor athletes, are seeking support for the draft they partnered on with Rep. Ann McLane Kuster, D-N.H., hoping that it will garner bicameral, bipartisan support when it’s formally introduced. The group came to Washington last week to drum up support.

I saw and heard many statements today that a grant project must “be connected to”, “nearby”, or “have a nexus to” a transmission project.  In order to determine if applying for funding is even worthwhile, I need to have this explained.

1. DOE has not specifically defined a geographic distance from the project for eligibility purposes.  We anticipate that each project may differ in its scope and impact, therefore we have requested that each applicant should explain how their proposed project is eligible for support under this program. In addition, please note that the merit review criteria listed in the FOA at Section V states that applications for economic development activities will be assessed in part based on, “The extent and clarity of the connection described in the Application between the proposed activities and economic development benefits in communities that are likely to be impacted by a covered transmission project.”
   
   

How will “communities that may be affected by the construction and operation of a covered transmission project” be defined for eligibility purposes?  How far from the centerline of the transmission project does such a community extend?

1. As we anticipate that impacts may vary by project and by community, DOE has requested Applicants for Area of Interest 2 address how the project will promote economic development in areas that may be affected by the construction and operation of a covered transmission project. See Section IV.E.iii of the FOA.
   
   

What is considered an “affect” of construction and operation of the project?

1. For an understanding of how grants will be awarded, please refer to the merit review criteria for Area of Interest 1 (siting and permitting) and Area of Interest 2 (economic development) listed in the FOA at Section V. You may also refer to the “Standards for Application Evaluation” and “Other Selection Factors” including “Program Policy Factors” that are also referenced in Section V of the FOA. 
   
   

How will an economic development grant be expected to speed up siting and permitting?

1. While the funds associated with an economic development grant can only be disbursed once either the siting authority has approved the covered transmission project (if the applicant is a siting authority) or construction has commenced (if the applicant is a state, local, or Tribal governmental entity other than a siting authority), DOE may select awardees for economic development grants prior to a decision to site and permit the relevant transmission project and obligate federal funds for such awardees.  To the extent that the activities, if awarded, would accelerate transmission siting timelines and/or increase the chance that a transmission project would be developed, DOE will consider that as part of the established Merit Review Criteria.

Kuster, a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, noted in a statement that the U.S. may need to triple energy transmission capacity by 2050 to meet the target of net-zero carbon emissions by bringing more renewable electricity generation on line.

“In order to make that a reality, we must ensure that communities where transmission projects will be built are excited to host these lines,” Kuster said.  “By securing tangible benefits for the towns and cities that host these projects, like new schools, roads, or outdoor recreation facilities, in addition to improved electricity reliability, this legislation will help build support for transmission projects across the country.”