Game Changer!

Several years ago, I wondered if a transmission line completely buried on existing linear rights of way would draw the kind of landowner and community opposition that delays and cancels new transmission projects.  Since then, my theory has proven correct.  SOO Green Renewable Rail has not drawn crippling opposition.  The only objections to the project come from a handful of adjacent landowners who claim the rail easement does not allow the construction of a transmission line in the easement.  This has not been tested because the project is stalled in the interconnection process.  But what didn't happen was widespread opposition from landowners.  The vast majority of landowners simply didn't care enough to protest because the project would not permanently impact them and would not use eminent domain to take new rights of way. 

The idea of siting new transmission on existing rail and highway rights of way has been a transmission opposition group favorite ever since.  However, transmission developers and their enabling regulators have tried to shut the idea down with all sorts of crazy excuses that are not based in reality.

Perhaps that is over now, thanks to a new study and report recently published by The Ray, an independent non-profit advocating for technology to create a better highway system for all.  The report concludes

Coordinating with utilities to deploy buried HVDC transmission in the highway ROW offers several benefits, including increased resilience and significant carbon emissions reductions without changing the viewscape. Expanded transmission will be vital for electrifying transportation in the most cost-effective manner.
The traditional thorny issue of building linear infrastructure on private property can be mitigated with undergrounding the transmission along existing highway and rail corridors. Burying HVDC transmission can be done at a similar cost to conventional overhead AC transmission while providing critical reliability and resilience benefits. Furthermore, the potential for accelerated permitting timelines for buried transmission projects would be worth billions of dollars in avoided carbon emissions.
The findings from this study demonstrate that buried HVDC transmission is cost-effective and can be feasibly sited in interstate and highway ROW after making appropriate consideration of existing and future transportation system needs. While the study identified challenges, none appear to pose insurmountable barriers.

That's right, Doubting Thomases and Thomasinas, all your excuses are put to rest in this game changing report!  The report is very thorough, effectively slaying all the excuses and myths currently used to shut down discussion of buried transmission on existing linear rights of way.

One small point made in the report opens up a world of new thinking.  Our existing highway and rail systems already go between the places transmission developers think they need to connect - rural and urban areas.  If building new transmission is like our interstate highway system, why create a whole new interstate when the existing one can be used?  Simply put... it makes perfect sense!

The development of transmission and fiber lines often requires the ability to acquire or lease significant lengths of ROW – this is especially true for interregional transmission. Utilities often prefer to use a ROW they have developed and own. However, obtaining new ROW is challenging and the optimal route is not always possible. (Footnote:  A number of overhead interregional transmission projects have been successfully blocked by public opposition in recent years.)  Access to a portion of existing ROW in interstate or highway could offer significant benefits in the development of new transmission and fiber lines. Existing ROW along interstate highways would be especially valuable for the interregional transmission lines needed to cost-effectively decarbonize the grid while improving its reliability and resilience.
If interstate and highway ROW were made available for transmission development, a typical transmission project would likely use a portion of the highway ROW while also using existing utility and rail ROWs. The transmission line would not be fully sited within the highway ROW alone. In these circumstances, siting of the transmission line within the ROW would be done in close collaboration with the existing ROW owner (e.g., the DOT) and would take into account current and future transportation needs.
While not all highway ROW is suitable or available for electric transmission (siting within urban corridors can be particularly challenging), ROW in rural areas can be suitable (see figure 7). In rural areas, the ROW is often 300 feet wide, and other utilities and land uses are not as competitive.

We don't need to junk up rural areas with objectionable, new overhead electric transmission infrastructure.  Proposing new electric transmission corridors using eminent domain is ALWAYS a non-starter with affected communities.  Not engaging in this battle with affected landowners and communities actually saves money and speeds up the construction of new transmission.

By building a buried HVDC transmission system alongside our interstate network of roads and rail lines, the country can overhaul and expand the transmission network more quickly, cost-efficiently, and easily than developing a new ROW through private land. Benefits of this approach accrue to landowners, electric customers, and the grid itself.
Siting, permitting, and building a traditional overhead HVAC transmission line typically takes at least 10 years and often much longer because of challenges related to cost, environmental permitting, and siting on private land. Using highway and rail ROW means working with fewer property owners – potentially just a handful instead of many hundreds. It also largely removes the threat of eminent domain to take land from private owners.

Thus, the five-year reduction in the transmission development timeline that the NextGen Highways Team believes is possible (for a typical interregional transmission project) would translate into $1 billion of societal value.
It is worth noting that a 2GW, 300 miles-long, buried HVDC transmission line would cost roughly $2.5 billion. As such, $1 billion of societal value would equate to 40 percent of the transmission line’s cost.
Scaling the societal benefits from a single interregional transmission line to meet estimated interregional transmission needs yields about $150 billion of societal benefits from coupling buried HVDC transmission with our existing transportation ROW.

That's billions of dollars of savings and benefit from reducing the current 10-year plus permitting time that comes with engaging in battles with opposition.  It's just not true that opposition can be ameliorated with more "education" or earlier "engagement."  The only thing that avoids opposition is not creating something to oppose in the first place.

Buried HVDC is cost effective.  This report slays the myth that burying transmission is 10 times more expensive than running it overhead.  Let's hope that stupid myth stays dead now.

Buried HVDC transmission costs have declined and become competitive with traditional overhead AC transmission. The technology for buried HVDC transmission has matured, and the industry has gained experience designing and building projects across the world. Figure 8 compares transmission coston a capacity-normalized basis (dollars per gigawatt-mile of transmission capacity) for a few representative transmission projects in the United States. The figure shows that buried HVDC projects are cost-competitive with overhead AC transmission projects. 

Historically, utilities have discounted the use of underground transmission because buried AC line costs were often 7 to 10 times more costly than overhead lines. Today, some utilities will still cite those cost comparison numbers without considering the technological advances of HVDC cables and converter stations over the past decade.

Here's the bottom line:

Buried HVDC transmission is cost-competitive with traditional overhead AC transmission projects.

Buried HVDC transmission is roughly 2-4 times the cost of overhead HVDC transmission. (Footnote:  This assumes that the overhead HVDC transmission can be permitted and built. Over the last decade, a number of overhead HVDC transmission projects across the US were unable to be successfully built, including Northern Pass, New England Energy Connect (still active), Plains and Eastern, Grain Belt Express (still active).

That's right!  These projects have been delayed or cancelled solely because of grassroots opposition.  If they had been sited on existing linear rights of way, perhaps they would already be in operation today.  What a gigantic waste of time and money!

But The Ray isn't done with this game changing new idea for electric transmission.  It plans to continue to push its idea forward.

Given the positive findings from this Feasibility Study, the NextGen Highways Team is planning to launch a NextGen Highways Coalition to support the co-location of buried fiber and transmission in highway and interstate ROW.

Game changer!  It's something transmission opposition can support by furthering this idea with stubborn transmission profiteers, cluless regulators, and prevaricating policy wonks who continue to try to ignore or shut down discussion of this idea.

Like these folks.  Government employees, a Congressman, a lobbyist, and a tone-deaf propaganda spreader, who recently held a webinar to "educate" rural communities about the "benefits" of new high voltage transmission forced upon them.  They were asked repeatedly about burying new transmission on existing rights of way but completely ignored the topic.  The last 15 minutes or so of the webinar devoted to "questions" are an absolute scream.  They didn't actually answer any questions, but got really defensive and tried to push back against the questions they were asked, all to no avail.  They just looked angry and defensive... and ineffective.

It seems to be a theme.  Recent government webinars about transmission were also posed the same question of burying transmission on existing rights of way.  Here and here.  For the most part, these government functionaries simply ignored the question.  Only one person attempted to make an excuse for not burying transmission (see section about safety on page 41 of the report, Kimberly).

The Ray has its work cut out for it getting bureaucrats and self-interested utilities to adopt their better idea.  But, time-wise, it's still probably more effective to adopt new ideas than to continue to waste time and money trying to site new transmission on new rights of way across private land.  We can make transmission a win-win by burying it on existing linear rights of way.

Many thanks to The Ray for undertaking this study and report, and for continuing to advance the idea.  As Margaret Mead once said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."  We believe!