The trade press is gushing about the possibility that freezes on DOE activity could derail energy projects.  We could only be so lucky!  The money DOE was so eager to give away after the election is yours!

The corporate media is intent on trying to find a way to grease the giveaways so that they are not thoroughly examined by the new administration.

This piece in Utility Dive talks about a lot of transmission projects that are now threatened, but conveniently avoids mention of Grain Belt Express, perhaps the most egregious of the conditional loan guarantees.  Utility Dive says:

Apparently LPO is oblivious to the fact that Grain Belt Express is a merchant transmission project... or maybe it simply doesn't understand what that means.  Any savings from low-cost government financing doesn't get passed along to GBE's customers, it goes in Michael Polsky's pocket!

A merchant transmission project is a speculative, supplemental transmission project.  It isn't needed for reliability, economic or public policy purposes and therefore it has no captive customers at existing utilities.  A merchant's speculation comes from its bet that if it builds a transmission project, it will be so valuable that customers will volunteer to pay for it in the form of capacity contracts.  That contract is like a toll to use the transmission line, much like you pay tolls for private highways.  The price that customers would be willing to voluntarily pay for GBE's transmission capacity is dependent upon the market -- what do other transmission options cost?  How much additional transmission would be necessary to actually get the energy to load?  GBE's contracts don't include energy.  Any transmission customer would have to purchase that separately from a generator near one of GBE's three converter stations.  The cost of the energy also figures into the market price of GBE's transmission.  The amount a voluntary customer would pay for capacity on GBE is set by the market, not the cost to build and operate GBE.

A low-cost government loan may lower the cost of the transmission project, but it cannot change the market price of transmission.  Since GBE's profit comes from the difference between what it costs to build GBE and what customers will pay to use it, lower financing costs will simply lower the cost to build and increase GBE's profits.  GBE is interested in building the cheapest project possible in order to increase its profits.  That's where the money is made.  So, I ask, what is the benefit to the citizens from this taxpayer loan?  There isn't any.

But yet LPO is still on a crash course to get GBE's Environmental Impact Statement completed ASAP.  After all, this guy has to keep to his little schedule...

,Senator Hawley recently sent another letter to new Secretary of Energy Chris Wright asking why the DOE is proceeding with this loan when the Acting Secretary clearly paused all projects.

And about that Draft EIS... time is running short to get your comments in!  Find something within the report that you'd like to address and have at it!

I found it interesting that DOE doesn't seem to understand what merchant transmission is, as well as its discussion of the non-existent generators in Western Kansas.  DOE speaks with forked tongue!

Meanwhile, GBE has filed a bunch of condemnation suits in Missouri.  How did GBE get so far over its skis?  According to the information provided in the Draft EIS, GBE doesn't have any customers except for the Missouri municipalities that agreed to buy less than 5% of the project's capacity.  Obviously that tiny revenue stream will not be enough to make the project economically viable.  And what is our government thinking providing a loan to a company without enough contracted revenue to repay the loan?  Is this some kind of taxpayer-funded charity for one of the richest Democratic campaign donors in the country?  Quick, someone call in the DOGE!!  The Grain Belt Express is the second costliest "conditionally approved" project on LPO's list.  We could save $5B (that's BILLION) by denying GBE's taxpayer funded loan guarantee.

But you know what's really galling?  GBE's biggest fan telling landowners to just give up and sign easements.

Owen is literally the LAST person a landowner should turn to for legal advice.  Who thought he made a credible source for landowners?  He should shut up and sit down because my experience has been that landowners find him to lack character.  And that's being nice (which is more than he deserves).  Don't need to slum in the mud with Owned.

​And let's end with this little blast from the past:

No customers, no project.

Grain Belt Express made several revelations last week at a Kansas legislative committee meeting.  It was quite apparent that GBE realized that the NIETCs severely damaged its reputation and project prospects in Kansas (and any other state where Invenergy is trying to build transmission).  Your complete opposition and swift action on the proposed NIETCs gave GBE a real black eye.  GBE is now rightfully terrified that the welcome mat is going to be yanked out from under them in Kansas.  With such a massive uprising of the people, GBE's golden reputation in Kansas may be waning.  YOU can do it again.  You know how, and you've got the numbers!  The world is your oyster, transmission opponents!

So, GBE showed up at a recent meeting of the Joint Committee on Energy and Water at the Kansas legislature and made an obsequious presentation about the failed NIETCs and how great its project will be for Kansas.  You still love them, don't you, Kansas?  Kansas?  Hello?  Somebody needs a hug!

Remember how Invenergy has been claiming (in multiple states) that its transmission projects had NOTHING to do with the NIETCs and that Invenergy did not request them?  I have been pushing back against that for months because it is a big, fat lie.  Of course Invenergy submitted requests for NIETCs for all the transmission projects it is developing.  DOE asked for suggestions of where to make corridors.  They didn't have a crystal ball.  Invenergy DID request these corridors that so upset and horrified thousands of landowners across the Midwest.  Invenergy admits it at minute 12:00 of its presentation.  Listen carefully.

Right, like I've been saying... Invenergy requested these NIETCs.  Later on, Patrick whines that DOE didn't provide adequate notification and landowners got quite ticked off when they found out.  Invenergy was a huge fan of hiding its NIETC requests from landowners, until they got caught.  Then Invenergy first requested that its corridor be narrowed to half a mile, and in November it says it asked DOE to remove the corridor in its entirety.  Let's see... that's about the time you all got cranked up about the corridors.  Invenergy knew it was beat and threw in the towel.  You did this!  Congratulations!  You have the power!

And one more thing before I get onto the real revelation DOE and GBE is trying to hide from you now...

While Patrick Witty gave the presentation and began answering questions, he made the fatal mistake of calling Brad Pnazek up to the podium to answer a question.  The bombastic Brad took over and it was quite a while before Patrick was able to wrest the microphone away from him at the request of a legislator.  It might not have mattered if our friend Brad wasn't a prevaricator of the highest order.  Remember when Brad "misspoke" at a DOE EIS webinar to say that GBE wasn't necessarily a merchant transmission project and had not yet decided how its project would be structured?  Once again, Brad did not disappoint.  I'm going to be frank with you... Brad has a penchant for making crap up if he thinks it will help his position.  Even when the lie actually matters little, Brad can't help himself.  

Brad told the committee that while GBE pays 110% of fair market value, other utilities only pay 90% of fair market value for their easements.  C'mon, Brad, this lie doesn't even make sense!  All utilities are required by law to pay 100% of fair market value for the easements they want.  He followed that lie by saying that while GBE is only going to use eminent domain on around 4% of the easements needed, other utilities use eminent domain for 20% of the easements needed.  This is ANOTHER made up fact.  Utilities usually take less than 5% of the land they need using eminent domain.  A transmission line that attempted to take 20% would be a public relations disaster of epic proportions (sort of like requesting NIETCs, right, Brad?).

Gotta wonder about Brad.  Is he someone's relative or a political favor?  I understand that the Peter Principle elevates employees to their level of incompetence, but it's not just incompetence here.  Brad just can't help making crap up if he thinks it would sound good (in his own head).  Take note!  He's a ticking time bomb.  Deploy as necessary.

Now let's get to the most important and urgent revelation...

That's right, Patrick just casually dropped that in his presentation and the press (and everyone but me apparently) missed it.

As you may recall, Grain Belt Express has applied for a $4.9B loan guarantee (of taxpayer money) from the U.S. Department of Energy.  As part of its intent to grant that loan, the DOE is required by federal law to perform an Environmental Impact Statement on the project so that its environmental effects can be made public and taken into consideration when deciding to grant the loan.  Of course, you may also recall that the DOE granted a "conditional" approval of GBE's loan in its panicked, mad dash for the exit after President Trump was re-elected.  DOE has been madly pumping out the taxpayer dollars to its favored companies and projects ever since November.  GBE's "conditional" approval is contingent upon the completion of the EIS.  So does this mean that the EIS is merely a pre-determined exercise at this point, where the report is written to bolster the already granted approval?  Why even bother?

An EIS has several steps that the federal government usually drags out for years.  The first step is Scoping, where DOE shows the project to the public and asks them what it should study.  The DOE engages in the widest notification it can to make sure impacted communities can be engaged to make comment.  The DOE held public "workshop" meetings and accepted a boatload of public comment back in 2023.  Then DOE published a Scoping Report to share what they learned.  

And since then... crickets.  DOE did nothing with GBE's EIS for two years.  Guess they thought they had all the time in the world...  and then the real world intruded.  Now it's apparently a rush-rush, hurry up emergency.  DOE has set the MINIMUM time frame it can get away with to accept comments on its Draft EIS.  You have only 45-days to comment from the date the notice was published in the Federal Register.  You read the Federal Register every day, don't you?  You don't?  Of course you don't!  So, how is that public notice?  Sure, it's available to the public, if you know where to look and your crystal ball lets you know it's there.  Where's all the notice to the public?  Last time, DOE did media and sent notices to landowners.  DOE has a list of people who commented on the scoping in their possession.  Where's the notice?  There isn't any.  Isn't that where GBE and DOE got in trouble on the NIETCs?  Lack of public notice is a serious issue.  How can you tell when your government is trying to pull one over on you?  Lack of public notification of its actions.  DOE has become a very shady agency during the past four years.  Isn't it time to clean house?  At any rate, your deadline to comment is March 3, 2025.  

The EIS is over 400 pages, and has numerous appendices.  You're supposed to read, digest, and comment on all this in less than 45 days, because the clock has already started ticking.  Ask your Senators and Representatives to demand that DOE not start its 45-day clock until it has notified all impacted communities, landowners and the people who commented on scoping.  It's going to take more than 45-days to notify everyone and by that time the comment period is over.  This deadline and lack of public notification is ABSURD!  An extension must be demanded.

And just like the NIETCs, lack of DOE notification doesn't prevent grassroots notification.  Spread the word!  Let everyone know about the Draft EIS and the upcoming public meetings where people can get more information and make oral comments.  The meeting schedule is here.

There are ONLY 2 meetings being held across the state of Kansas.  How far are you expected to drive in the dead of winter to attend one?  100 miles?  200 miles?  300 miles or more?  There's also just 2 meetings for Missouri!  Let your elected officials know that this is an inadequate number of meetings!

And here's something else DOE "forgot" to tell you... you can request your own personal copy of the EIS, whether electronic or on paper.  Each paper copy DOE has to send out costs GBE several hundred dollars.  Request your paper copy by emailing:  
[email protected]
Please also read the Federal Register Notice to scan for other information that DOE didn't include on its EIS page.

Also take note that the EIS is a public recitation of the environmental impacts of GBE, it not a pass-fail test that promises no impacts.  The federal government is required to make the environmental impacts of its action public and allow the public to comment on them.  If you notice things that DOE missed in their report, let them know.  If you think their conclusions are wrong, let them know.  If you think DOE didn't adequately study alternatives, let them know.  And, most of all, let the DOE know that you demand they select the "no action" alternative that means they don't grant the loan.

This is going to be a lot of work, but don't give up.  Remember how your participation in group action cancelled the NIETCs.  You activated your elected officials and their involvement was crucial to your success.  Like the shampoo bottle says... lather, rinse, repeat.

As you may be aware, a group of Illinois landowners appealed a recent decision by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to somehow "continue" Grain Belt's Negotiated Rate Authority at the same time it granted completely new authority.  Of course, FERC can't do these completely opposite things at the same time.  The basis for Invenergy's intervention in the case and request to dismiss the case is that the Illinois landowners have no standing to bring the case because they have no interest in the outcome.

The landowners responded to Grain Belt's weak motion, asking, "What's it to ya?"  Only Paul Neilan could write a brief with that phrase in it!  His response was engaging and spelled out exactly why the Illinois landowners had an interest to bring this case.  When GBE applied for its Illinois permit, it told the ICC that it had negotiated rate authority from FERC.  The ICC based their approval on that fact, along with others.  If it turns out that GBE did NOT have negotiated rate authority at that time, then that is grounds to have the approval thrown out and GBE would have to reapply.  Of course, GBE's bespoke legislation that allowed it to apply for a permit in the first place has expired.  Therefore, GBE would have to get new legislation passed in Illinois that allowed them to apply again.  Because what FERC did in the Order under review tried to say GBE had "continuing" negotiated rate authority when FERC also claimed to have reviewed GBE's request anew, what happens in the FERC case is pivotal to what happens in Illinois.  Even a dense person could see that the Illinois landowners have standing.  You can read a copy of the landowner's brilliant response here:

GBE and FERC are caught between a rock and a hard place, claiming that FERC never needed to approve the sale of GBE from Clean Line to Invenergy under Sec. 203 of the Federal Power Act.  If that's true, then why didn't Invenergy notify FERC when it bought the project?

Neilan writes extensively about GBE's attempt to belittle Illinois landowners by calling them "A group of citizens who roam the country in search of governmental wrongdoing."  How disrespectful can you get?

Someone is respecting landowners and their rights, and it's not GBE or FERC.  Let's hope the DC Circuit Court of Appeals can set things right again!

Jefferson County is going to need a new slogan for roadside signs soon.  I suggest the above, maybe bolstered by some fine print... "All the electricity that makes Loudoun the wealthiest county in the nation comes through here first!"  What is Jefferson County getting from all this?  Homes and businesses taken using eminent domain, multiple huge new transmission lines of the highest voltage built in the U.S. in close proximity to our homes and schools, and higher electric bills.  What does Loudoun County get?  Data centers, lots and lots of new "economic development" data centers.  Loudoun County ended 2024 with a budget surplus of over $250M, thanks to all the data centers it has approved and built.  Loudoun County gets the gold, and West Virginia gets the shaft.  Again.

When are West Virginia lawmakers going to *wake up* and realize that we don't have to export the electricity generated here using our coal and gas resources?  We could use it right here to increase our own economic development!  Instead, we've been shipping the excess power we generate out of state so other areas can get rich using it to attract economic development like data centers.  Why not create incentives for data centers to locate here in West Virginia, right next to our existing generators?  West Virginia could finally start growing its own tech industry and use its plentiful resources to attract new business.  Data centers are hungry, hungry, hungry for steady, dispatchable electricity and promoting West Virginia as the ideal location for new data centers is win-win for West Virginia.  Exporting our electricity to Loudoun County over huge new high-voltage extension cords is lose-lose for West Virginia.

Yesterday, PJM Interconnection's Transmission Expansion Advisory Committee met for more than 4 hours.  A handful of intrepid electric ratepayers and citizens attended to make comment and ask questions.  At the end of the day, PJM stuck with its previous recommendation to order and build another new transmission line through Jefferson County.  Last year, PJM ordered the building of a different transmission line through our county.  Over the past two years, PJM has ordered two new major transmission lines crossing through Jefferson County on their way from West Virginia coal-fired generation stations to Loudoun County's data centers.  Yesterday, PJM informed us that it will be opening two more bidding windows in mid-2025 to solicit even more power lines for Virginia's data centers.  PJM is having trouble keeping up with Virginia's data center demand, and the only place with available power left is West Virginia.  Funny that Virginia hates our coal-fired power stations, and Virginia is on target to meet its VCEA requirement to reduce its carbon emissions to zero by 2045, but Virginia has no problem at all importing more and more coal-fired electricity to use in its data centers and pretending they're still meeting their environmental goals because it is not generated in Virginia.

The project PJM will be recommending to its Board of Managers for approval is a new 765kV transmission line beginning at the John Amos coal-fired power station in Putnam County, and crossing 14 West Virginia counties on its way to data center alley (Putnam, Kanawha, Roane, Calhoun, Braxton, Lewis, Upshur, Barbour, Tucker, Preston, Grant, Hardy, Hampshire and Jefferson) 3 counties in Virginia (Clarke, Frederick and Loudoun) and end in Frederick County, Maryland at a new substation south of Point of Rocks. If you want to see maps of where this project will be routed in Jefferson, find them here.  Here's PJM's awful maps and listing of the project's components.
​

PJM's awful maps are insisting that the "new PATH" project will be constructed on "existing ROW or parallel to existing ROW" indicated by the pink line on the map.  Elsewhere in PJM's presentation was the statement that the new 765kV development would require 100% new right-of-way.  That's right... the new PATH will require a completely new 200 ft. wide right-of-way (ROW).  PJM and the new PATH sponsors are trying to pretend that they can create a new 200 ft. wide ROW directly adjacent and parallel with the existing transmission line corridor in Jefferson County.  PJM believes there is value and risk reduction in a parallel line siting.  That might be true, if there was actually land available parallel to the existing ROW, but there's not.  The existing ROW is lined with homes, schools, businesses and even new solar farms.  A new 200 ft. parallel ROW will destroy everything in its path.  For this reason, I insisted that PJM at least draw its "new PATH" correctly on its awful, out of proportion map as a new greenfield corridor.  PJM refused.   We can't even get a little honesty.

Who is PJM fooling?  Not us!  PJM is trying to fool its Board of Managers by telling them that nobody will mind this new 765kV transmission line and that it won't be taking any new land.  PJM thinks this will make the Board more likely to approve this project as non-controversial.  We're not going to let that happen, but that's another blog post coming soon -- writing to PJM's Board of Managers to insist they deal with the truth about this project.

As part of its creation of its new transmission plan, PJM is required to create a "Constructability and Financial Analysis Report" for the proposed projects to present to their Board when seeking approval.  PJM's Constructability Analysis is a complete joke!  The report starts out by detailing the "Approach", or method, of performing this study.

The approach calls for PJM to do an "in-depth" review of each project's ROW acquisition, land acquisition, and siting and permitting requirements, among others.  As part of this, PJM is required to do a "desk top" investigation of each project's land use mapping (using actual maps!) to include:

These are just a few of the things that must be studied as part of this Constructability study.  Did PJM do that?  No, they didn't.  PJM simply copied the narrative written by the project sponsor in its bid for the project and turned a blind eye to the actual impacts of this "new PATH" 765kV transmission line.

Here's what PJM's Constructability Study concluded about the project:

There's absolutely nothing in there about any of the development bordering the existing corridor they want to expand.  Perhaps if it doesn't have to acknowledge the destruction of Jefferson County's built community, then PJM can continue to believe that a parallel siting is somehow less risky than a new line somewhere else.

PJM negligence becomes even more glaring if you read the analyses of the other projects that were not selected.  Some of these other projects have very detailed narratives of how they will affect the built community.  Read it for yourself (full report).

Here's just a couple examples that caught my eye:

PJM also evaluated these projects based on the proposer's experience building similar lines.  In its report, PJM said that FirstEnergy (proposed owner of new PATH) passed this test.  When I questioned PJM about what 765kV lines FirstEnergy has ever owned or built, PJM said they were actually using the experience of another company, Transource (an AEP affiliate).  When asked how many 765kV lines Transource has ever owned or built, PJM again came up empty.  Ditto on Dominion.  The ONLY utility with this experience in the country is American Electric Power (AEP), parent company of Transource.  PJM's constructability analysis is not based on reality and has enough holes in it to drive a truck through.  The truth is that PJM simply FAKED this report based on biased information it was given by the project sponsors and didn't perform any analysis at all.  If this isn't true, then PJM is encouraged to produce the desktop study with all the required data and make a liar out of me.  PJM's Constructability Report is pure, unadulterated CRAP.

I also questioned PJM about whether the "new PATH" project was actually competitively bid.  Since 2011, FERC has required regional grid planners like PJM to open competitive bidding windows when it needs new transmission projects.  The idea is that utilities will compete with each other to create the best project at the least cost.  Bidders often include "cost caps" and other financial considerations that limit the costs to consumers.  PJM has been running these bidding windows for around 10 years now.  The big investor owned utilities did not like these windows because they don't want to have their profits limited by having to compete for projects.  So, the utilities started building smaller, local, supplemental projects that did not have to be approved by PJM as a way to avoid competition.  Because of this, there were pretty much no opportunities to build new transmission using competitive windows.  Therefore the utilities did not have to compete.  If you try to thwart the deep rooted greed of investor owned utilities, they will eventually find a way around whatever roadblock you construct. And now they have figured out a way around PJM's competitive bidding window.  The three biggest utilities in PJM got together ahead of time and came up with a scheme to limit competition and increase profits with their joint bid into this window.  FirstEnergy, AEP's Transource, and Dominion submitted "joint proposals" that did not have any cost caps or financial considerations for ratepayers.  If they didn't have to compete with each other, then they could score a project with an unlimited price tag.  Of course, this kind of behavior to limit competition and fix prices is what's known as a cartel.  Once the three utilities had their project selected, they have now decided to create a shell company "joint partnership" to own the projects because PJM cannot award a project submitted as a joint proposal to individual companies (that would violate FERC's rules!)  Reality is that this "competitive" window was illegally controlled by a cartel.

Last month, I sent an email requesting that PJM come to Jefferson County and give us a presentation about what it is they do so we can find out about their processes.  This was in response to a disparaging comment one of the PJM staff made to a Jefferson County citizen, telling her to "get a basic education" before asking questions at the TEAC.

This month, PJM came prepared with a long list of online "resources" that we can use to educate ourselves.

Invenergy has been trying to build its merchant transmission Cimarron Link project since at least summer of 2023.  That's when its courting of landowners was brought to my attention.  It is likely that it has been in the works much longer.

A merchant transmission project is to transmission what a private toll road is to transportation.  There is an existing network of electric transmission lines that serve all public utilities that provide service to all who request it.  Because this is a public network (compare to a public highway) everyone who takes electric service pays a portion of constructing the network and keeping it operating.  Our tax money pays to keep our highways maintained for everyone's use.  But a merchant transmission project is a supplemental, speculative transmission line.  It is not necessary for public utility service and it is not subsidized through our electric bills.  It's a private electric toll road to ship electricity that is paid for by the electricity wholesalers who choose to use the private roadway to receive electricity they purchase from generators.  A merchant transmission line relies on voluntary customers to pay for its construction and operation.  If a merchant transmission project doesn't have any paying customers, it's not economic and cannot be built.  It is a speculative investment by private companies who want to bet that if they construct it, it will attract paying customers.  Much like a private toll road highway, it is not for the use of the general public, but only those who can pay the toll to use it.

Cimarron Link is a merchant transmission project.  It is not needed for reliability or economic purposes, and it is not part of any transmission plan by regional grid operator Southwest Power Pool.  It's "need" would only come from paying customers who want to use it.  But Cimarron Link doesn't have any customers!  Therefore it applied to receive a capacity contract from the U.S. Department of Energy, and it was awarded such a contract in 2024.

The capacity contract is essentially the U.S. government using taxpayer dollars to pay the "toll" on Cimarron Link.  But the government isn't a public utility and does not supply electricity to anyone.  The idea is that the government will underwrite the cost of constructing the project with the hope of re-selling the ability to use the toll road to an actual utility somewhere down the line.  Of course, anyone could sign up to pay the toll now, but they haven't.  If they don't want to use Cimarron Link now, what's the chances that they will want to pay the toll later, after the project is constructed?  There is no precedent for this new capacity contract program and it is unproven that it will actually work.  If it doesn't, the government will continue to pay the toll for Cimarron Link for up to 40 years in the future, even though it is not actually using it, and Cimarron Link may never deliver any electrons to anyone.  The government is acting as a speculative investor, betting that it can sell something that Cimarron Link cannot.  Good luck with that!

So, Cimarron Link lined up at the hog trough to help itself to a $306M capacity contract.  While it was filling its belly, it also thought that maybe a National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor would taste good, so it applied for one of those as well.  A NIETC would have been a federal land use designation that created a zone for construction of Cimarron Link and would make it eligible for federal permitting and eminent domain if not granted by the State of Oklahoma.  But that didn't work out.  The U.S. Department of Energy cancelled the proposed Delta-Plains NIETC that Cimarron Link wanted to use to route its project across Oklahoma.  Now Cimarron Link can only use Oklahoma laws to try to take property using eminent domain.  If Oklahoma does not grant Cimarron Link eminent domain authority, the project is essentially dead.  Sure, Cimarron Link can continue to try to obtain voluntary easements across private property, but if the landowner refuses, that's the end of it.

Which brings us to Cimarron Link's recent suits against landowners to obtain an injunction allowing Cimarron Link to enter private property to perform "surveys" against the landowner's wishes.  When it filed its lawsuits, Cimarron Link claimed it was "authorized to exercise the power of eminent domain for the appropriation and use of lands and rights-of-way necessary for a public purpose by law specifically, Tit. 27 Okla. Stat. Sec. 7 and Tit. 66 Okla. Stat. Sec. 51-60."    Cimarron Link claimed it was a corporation that was engaged in the transmission of electricity in Oklahoma.  But is it really?  Not right now it isn't.  It's not furnishing anything to anyone.  But it wants to do so.  So, it's not really clear that Cimarron Link's speculative merchant transmission project is authorized to use eminent domain.

Now, maybe Cimarron Link thought it would be easy to convince a local judge that it currently has that ability so that it could force its way onto private property to do surveys for its transmission project.  But the people fought back and said it did not have that authority under state law. 

Maybe Cimarron Link thought it could continue operating under the radar long enough to get such a determination by a local court, but that idea ended when it got too greedy and helped itself to a NIETC designation.  The people of Oklahoma found out about that, and they were incensed.  Huge opposition to the NIETC soon developed and all of a sudden people stopped cooperating with Cimarron Link.  The sleepy days of keeping quiet and bullying landowners to sign voluntary easements are over.  Now Cimarron Link has a huge problem on its hands.  It is not clear that Cimarron Link has eminent domain authority, and the people are refusing to sign voluntary easements.  Cimarron Link's little piggy has eaten itself into a full-blown HOG, and we all know what happens to hogs... they end up on the dinner table!

Perhaps sensing that its effort to convince a court that it has eminent domain authority wouldn't be successful, Cimarron Link recently withdrew its suits for entry against landowners.  But it did so without prejudice, which means Cimarron Link reserves the right to bring this issue before the courts in the future.  Cimarron Link said it was withdrawing its suits to "allow more time for engagement with landowners."  Well, good luck with that, Cimarron Link, landowners have formed a wall of resistance and are having none of that, thanks to the opposition that developed during the NIETC debacle.  Word has it that Cimarron Link is trying to move on to adjacent landowners and begin its game on a new, unsuspecting public, but is that really going to be successful in the new public relations disaster environment that NIETCs created?  What other tricks might Cimarron Link have up its sleeve?

Cimarron Link is a project owned by Invenergy, a private energy firm based in Chicago.  Invenergy has invested in several merchant transmission projects around the country.  One of its projects, the Grain Belt Express, was rejected by Illinois courts because it wasn't a public utility with the ability to use eminent domain.  Illinois law required that a public utility actually be currently engaged in the business of furnishing power in order to file an application to build a transmission line that could use eminent domain to acquire land.  Like Cimarron Link, Grain Belt Express was a speculative project by a new entity that was not a public utility.  But Invenergy found a way around that by creating bespoke, special purpose legislation that granted it eminent domain authority in a handful of counties it wanted to cross and allowed it to apply for a permit.  This special purpose legislation was tucked neatly into the Illinois Climate and Equitable Jobs Act (CEJA), an energy bill that comprised thousands of pages and was dumped on the legislature just hours before the vote, making sure that legislators didn't have time to even read it before voting.  As a result, the legislation passed, and Grain Belt Express was suddenly a public utility that could use eminent domain to acquire land for its merchant transmission project.  Now, I'm not saying that Invenergy's fattened hog is going to use the same tactic in Oklahoma to ensure it has the power of eminent domain before re-filing its suits to enter and take land for Cimarron Link, but it's certainly possible.  Keep an eye on what's happening at the Oklahoma legislature this year!  And while you're keeping an eye out for amendments to Oklahoma eminent domain laws, perhaps you might want to propose some of your own?

Thanks to the NIETC public relations disaster, landowners are talking to each other and comparing notes about the things they have been told by Cimarron Link.  And, if any of the things I have heard are true... shame on you, Cimarron Link!  Invenergy's Grain Belt Express project has a "Code of Conduct for Land Agents" that set some ground rules for interaction with landowners.  Oklahoma landowners might be quite shocked to find out which tactics are not allowed on a different Invenergy merchant transmission project.  Why isn't Invenergy using this same Code for the Cimarron Link?  Don't Oklahoma landowners deserve the same respect and honesty as the landowners in Kansas, Missouri, and Illinois who are targeted by Grain Belt Express?  Maybe someone wants to ask Invenergy why it doesn't have a Code of Conduct for Cimarron Link?

Cimarron Link's little piggie ate too many government handouts and has now turned into a full blown hog.  Everything was going great until Cimarron Link ate that NIETC dangling over its trough.  Cimarron Link brought this public relations disaster upon itself, and now it has to pay the consequences.

Last year, regional grid planner PJM Interconnection approved a new 500kV transmission line from a cluster of coal-fired power plants in northern West Virginia to Virginia's data center alley.  That line is assigned to Florida-based NextEra Transmission (Greene County PA, Mon, Preston, Mineral and Hampshire Counties WV, Garrett and Allegheny Counties, MD portions) and Ohio-based FirstEnergy (Frederick, Clarke, and Loudoun Counties, VA, Frederick County, MD, and Jefferson County, WV portions).  On a map, that combined project looks like this:

Locally here in Jefferson County, the project is proposed to tear down the existing 138kV transmission line and replace it with a combined 500kV line with 138kV underbuild (double circuit) on an expanded right-of-way.  The current line configuration across southern Jefferson looks like this:

The big metal towers will stay the same.  The smaller wooden towers will be torn down and replaced with a big metal tower that has the two new circuits on it.  It will be 30-50 ft. taller than the existing one it parallels.  The end result will be two big metal towers on an expanded right-of-way.

Now PJM needs another transmission extension cord for Virginia's data centers.  The first one just wasn't enough power because Virginia just can't stop building the data centers.  PJM's latest proposal is a 765kV transmission line (the largest AC transmission line in the country) from the John Amos coal-fired power station in Putnam County, WV to Virginia's data center alley.  On PJM's map, the project looks like this:

This new 765kV is proposed by a joint partnership between FirstEnergy, American Electric Power and Dominion Energy.  It is proposed to cross 14 counties in West Virginia (Putnam, Kanawha, Roane, Calhoun, Braxton, Lewis, Upshur, Barbour, Tucker, Preston, Grant, Hardy, Hampshire and Jefferson) 3 counties in Virginia (Clarke, Frederick and Loudoun) and end in Frederick County, Maryland at a new substation north of Point of Rocks.  It is proposed to be built on a new 200 ft. wide right-of-way on towers that look like this:

In Jefferson County, it has been proposed that the new transmission line run parallel to the existing 500/138kV right-of-way that is already slated to be expanded with the addition of a second 500kV line that was approved last year.  If approved, this would expand that existing right-of-way another 200 ft. and add a third transmission tower bigger than the other two.

PJM is still discussing this proposal in its Transmission Expansion Advisory Committee.  The next meeting (and final opportunity for the public to comment) is scheduled for January 7, beginning at 11:15 a.m.  Anyone who is concerned about this proposal is invited to participate, either over the phone, via Webex, or in person at PJM's office in Valley Forge, PA.  Participation requires that you register in advance.  You can sign up for the meeting here.

After the meeting, PJM's committee will recommend that the PJM Board of Managers approve the project and add it to the regional plan.  At that time, we can write to the Board of Managers to ask that they not approve it (but that's a task for another day).  If the project is approved by the Board of Managers, then it is assigned to the responsible utilities who will finalize a route and submit applications to the three state public utility commissions for approval to build it.  If the state commissions approve it, then the utility will have eminent domain authority to take property for its new right-of-way.  This whole process is going to take years, so let's stay focused on the PJM process for the moment.

So, many are asking themselves... am I impacted?  PJM's maps are purposefully vague because PJM is not a transmission line router.  It simply approves a transmission line between two substations... where the route actually goes is a function of the utility assigned to build it, and that route must be approved by the state commissions.  So, we don't know for certain at this time where the new 765kV project will be routed.

What we do know, however, is that this new 765kV project appears in all proposals to be identical to the failed Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline (PATH) project that was proposed back in 2008.  That project was subsequently cancelled in 2012, before any state approved a final route.  However, the PATH legacy lives on in the memories of the folks who battled it last time.

I still have the detailed Jefferson County maps from the PATH project.  On these maps, you can zoom in to see an aerial photo of your area and where the existing transmission lines run, along with the proposed location of the PATH project.  Sorry it doesn't have any of the newer fancy GPS features like typing your address into a finder, but we're dealing with something circa 2009 here.  The map tiles should give you a general idea of how the new 765k line may impact your property.  

Couple of notes before you look at the maps.  There is one overview tile (above) and 11 other map tiles that trace the route across Jefferson County, tile by tile.  You'll have to find the tile with your property on it, then you can zoom in to take a closer look.

The PATH route is the yellow dotted line.  In some places, it deviated from the existing transmission corridor due to space constraints.  In some cases, the deviation took it miles away from the existing lines, so keep in mind that this line could be routed anywhere and will not necessarily stay parallel to the existing transmission lines.  In some places, there's a black dotted line that says "rebuild of existing 500kV line".  This was a way PATH planned to snake through narrow areas, however that rebuild can no longer happen due to the new 500kV/138kV line that was approved last year.  FirstEnergy is already using the space that the 138kV line currently sits on for its new 500kV line.  It cannot also use that same space for the 765kV line.  While it is possible to double-circuit a 138kV line with a 500 or 765kV line, it is not possible to double circuit 500 or 765kV lines with each other.  The new 765kV transmission line will have to be routed on a new 200 ft. wide right-of-way.  If you live in one of those dotted black line areas, it is likely that the new 765kV transmission line will take your home.  There's simply no where else to put it unless they deviate miles away from the existing transmission corridor.  It is virtually impossible to avoid everything and everyone.  It is a certainty that homes in Jefferson will be lost.  Yours may be one of them... sacrificed to the data center Gods in Virginia.

Also keep in mind that these aerial maps are 15 years old and cover a portion of Jefferson County that has seen enormous growth over the past several years.  Much of what was once farmland is now solar farms and new housing developments (and the building continues!). If you live in a newer development, your home might be represented in an old photo that shows the farms that were there before.  The true extent of the horror of how this line will impact Jefferson County isn't shown.

Now, the maps.  You may need to open several to find the one where your property is shown.  The tiles begin at the western edge of Jefferson and proceed east.

If your property is anywhere near the route for the failed PATH project, you should be concerned.  PATH is going to have a much harder time routing through Jefferson this time around and some properties will be sacrificed.

It's time to step up and get involved!  It's never too early to oppose new transmission needed only to serve Virginia's data centers.

When it first proposed creating a process to carry out new authority to designate National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors as enabled by changes to Sec. 216 of the Federal Power Act contained in the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, the DOE envisioned this:

At that time, DOE thought NIETCs were the key to everything transmission.  DOE got so enamored of  keys and locks that it began claiming that in order to feed at the tax money buffet Congress had created, a transmission project needed to be in an NIETC.  Then DOE created "guidance" (aka quasi-rules that have no legal effect) that said:

A clear message was sent to greedy transmission developers by the DOE -- request a NIETC or you're not getting into our buffet.  So, they did.  They requested 10 NEITCs that covered a hundred thousand acres of private property across the country.  When it released its preliminary list, DOE reiterated the necessity of NIETC designation as a ticket to the buffet:

Transmission developers took DOE at their word and admitted their only purpose in seeking NIETC designation was to get in line at the buffet.

Grain Belt Express admitted that it needed that NIETC to be able to unlock the buffet.

But then the DOE cancelled GBE's NIETC, along with 6 others that were never needed but had been pursued in order to get a seat at the buffet.

Why is DOE still continuing GBE's "conditional" loan guarantee now that the NIETC has been cancelled?  I thought the NIETC was the key to unlock the buffet?  Missouri Senator Josh Hawley asked DOE to cancel that guarantee recently.  Hawley mentioned that GBE doesn't have any customers.  Without customers, GBE doesn't have any means to repay a $4.9B DOE loan.  And why is the government giving a low cost loan to a privately owned electric toll road that will charge its voluntary customers a market-based fee to use its line?  A DOE loan won't lower the costs that customers would pay to use the line, it only increases Invenergy's profits that go into uber-rich owner Michael Polsky's pockets.  The electric transmission market that would set the market based rates for voluntary customers isn't going to change because Grain Belt Express paid less interest on its loan.  For a different kind of transmission project that is paid for by captive ratepayers, paying less interest goes back into the regulated rates the transmission company charges.  But for a market-based project like Grain Belt Express, paying less interest means the project is cheaper to construct, although the rates the market will allow GBE to charge won't change.  The amount of profit Grain Belt Express can create for its owner is the delta between what the project costs to build and the market rate for transmission.  DOE might as well put that $4.9B directly into Polsky's pocket. 

​Grain Belt Express has to provide a more economic option for transmission capacity than our existing public electric grid, or it won't attract any customers.  And that's just the problem... Grain Belt Express never has attracted any customers, aside from a gaggle of uninformed Missouri municipalities who signed a non-binding contract to purchase "up to" about 4% of GBE's total capacity.  If GBE was actually an economic option, a good idea, a needed project, it would have customers lining up to use it.  Instead... crickets.  And the DOE thought that was a good candidate for a $4.9B construction loan?

Perhaps that's because the DOE is fraught with corruption and most of its employees are scattered and goofing off.  A recent Inspector General report found that DOE does not enforce the rules against conflict of interest and treats taxpayer money like "monopoly money".

The report reveals that DOE is very lax about preventing conflicts and that it exercises absolutely no oversight over the third party "experts" that provide much of the documentation that becomes the basis for a decision to proceed with a loan.  Since the applicant for the loan (the company) pays for these third party experts that do the DOE's work to investigate the loan application, the DOE thinks it is prohibited from looking for conflicts of interest there.  Let me get this straight... the applicant is paying the salaries of the DOE contractors who process their own loan application?  Why doesn't DOE have impartial employees to carry out such an important task as safeguarding the hard-earned dollars of American taxpayers?  Why is it all farmed out to third party contractors who may have conflicts of interest?  This is outrageous!  Remember when Josh Hawley questioned Loan Program Office director Jigar Shaw in a committee hearing?  Seems like another session is desperately needed!

And if the NIETCs are supposed to "unlock" federal financing tools, it seems like Invenergy has another problem.  Invenergy's Cimarron Link merchant transmission line across Oklahoma filled its plate at the DOE financial incentives buffet.  Cimarron Link was awarded a $306M capacity contract just a few short months ago.  A capacity contract is just what Grain Belt Express is missing... a customer who will pay to use the merchant transmission line.  If a merchant transmission project doesn't attract any voluntary customers, that means it is not needed!  End of story!  But Congress gave the DOE authority to serve up our tax money in the form of a fake contract with Cimarron Link.  Oh, the money is real... Cimarron Link will receive $306M for use of its line over a period of up to 40 years, but DOE won't actually *use* the project.  It's paying for a contract it won't use so that Cimarron Link doesn't have to actually provide any service at all.  It's getting federal welfare paid for by all of us to construct a project that has no customers.  So, if Cimarron Link's NIETC has also been cancelled, does that mean it takes the capacity contract with it?  Someone needs to demand some answers!

The DOE is a corrupt political agency that has no business messing around in the reliable delivery of electricity.  We have plenty of regulators already whose actions actually do make sure the lights come on when we flip the switch.  DOE is a politically motivated chef, using our tax dollars to serve up a buffet of free Monopoly money to favored energy corporations.  And DOE isn't even very good at it... it makes up the rules as it goes, wastes an incredible amount of tax money, and in the end has nothing to show for it.  I dare you to name just one DOE transmission program that has successfully produced some benefit for the American people over the last four years.  Can't do it, can you?

DOE is engaged in the business of giving your money to energy corporations, it's not engaged in doing anything that actually helps you.

Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Energy cancelled 7 out of 10 proposed National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors.  Millions of landowners who would have been affected by the corridors are celebrating today.

The DOE's proposed NIETC map went from this:

To this:

I don't know any groups fighting against the corridors that are left, but I know plenty of folks who fought the ones that were eliminated.  So, what's left?  Lake Erie connector, which is created for a transmission line to connect the U.S. to Canada.  This project has been bumping around for years and will be routed underwater and underground.  Buried transmission that doesn't need new easements generally doesn't create opposition.  There's a Tribal Energy project in the Dakotas and Nebraska that will supposedly help the tribes develop their assets.  And there's the Southwestern corridor that begins in Kiowa County, Colorado and comes to an abrupt end at the border of White Sands in New Mexico.  On its way, it crosses over into the Oklahoma panhandle and is supposedly for benefit of NextEra's Heartland Spirit Connector transmission line, although that project begins in the panhandle and heads east, not west.

Although the DOE kept millions of landowners in suspense for months, the idea of building new transmission is what really took a beating during that time.  Don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled these corridors have been scrapped, but it almost seemed like it was too easy, or predictable, sort of like the conclusion of a Hallmark Christmas movie.  Why were those other 7 corridors even suggested in the first place?  Was the DOE so captive to the submissions of greedy transmission developers that they just couldn't say no?  Was it because DOE took it upon itself to tie designation of a NIETC to receiving government handouts in the form of loans and contracts, even though there was no statutory reason to do so?  Has DOE changed its mind about NIETCs "unlocking" the vat of taxpayer money at DOE HQ?

Were they scrapped because DOE finally realized the truth of what I'd been telling them for the past several years at every comment opportunity?  NIETCs and the other transmission facilitation tools are actually going to HARM transmission and draw greater opposition than the transmission project could ever draw on its own.  What's worse than a greedy corporation taking your property by eminent domain?  A greedy corporation being joined by the federal government while trying to take your land by eminent domain, that's what!  Dang, DOE, it took you long enough to buy a clue!

So, what's the real story?  Couple of things leaking out...

DOE was quoted saying that the NIETCs can "disrupt" transmission planning or on going development.  Right... just like I've been telling you, DOE, NIETCs were like a magnet for more transmission opposition.

DOE also said there appeared to be little NIETCs could do to facilitate transmission in the near term.  In other words, don't try to apply corridors to projects that are already underway.  If you need to know why, see previous paragraph.

DOE turned out to be wrong about everything from the very beginning.  In fact, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that revived the NIETCs to put them into practice was wrong, too.  That's because it was concocted by "clean energy" proponents who don't have a clue in the world how landowners feel about eminent domain.  Oh, sure, these same environmental and special interest groups showed up for all the rulemakings that came out of their bespoke legislation for the purpose of building more transmission (for wind and solar).  And when they showed up in rulemakings they always pretended they were representing the interests of landowners and that they had experience working with landowners.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  It was all a giant lie.  The real landowners have spoken.  NIETCs were about as popular as catching herpes in the hot tub of a cheap motel.

Now that the majority of the NIETCs are off the table, we can take a moment to relish the victory.  However, keep in mind that the NIETC process is a continual and revolving 3-year long process.  Every three years, DOE must make another transmission study, accept new ideas for NIETCs, and then go through the designation process all over again.  We could be right back here at the end of 2026 if Congress doesn't end NIETCs for good through amendment of Sec. 216 of the Energy Policy Act. 

We'll be working towards that goal while we're all back to work opposing the particular transmission proposals in our own community.  Landowner groups are coming together to fight transmission on a united front more than ever before.

Here in my neck of the woods, we'll be putting our effort into opposing two new transmission proposals from PJM Interconnection to build transmission extension cords from West Virginia's coal-fired power stations to new data centers in Loudoun County, Va.  Virginia can't build any new power generation because it's too "dirty", but they also can't stop building new power load in the form of data centers.  Data center taxes cover a large chunk of Loudoun County's budget.  How do you think Loudoun got to be the wealthiest county in the nation?  Through parasitic sucking of all the energy and wealth out of surrounding states.

There's still much work to do, but having a victory now and again is as invigorating as a polar plunge.  Happy Holidays, everyone!

A delicate balance between State and Federal authority over transmission lines has existed for decades.  It is what has kept the peace between federal transmission planning and state permitting authority.  The Third Circuit Court of Appeals stands poised to destroy it in a case that has so far escaped the notice of the hundreds of millions of people who will be profoundly impacted by its outcome.

Transource Pennsylvania LLC v. Steven M. Defrank, et.al asks the court to determine that a state permitting a new transmission project has no authority to second guess the findings of PJM Interconnection regarding need for a new transmission project.  

Transource was selected to build a market efficiency project nearly 10 years ago that, according to PJM, would reduce transmission congestion and make electricity cheaper in Washington DC and Baltimore.  The project was to be built connecting transmission lines in Pennsylvania with transmission lines in Maryland.  It needed permission from the Maryland PSC and the Pennsylvania PUC.  Maryland approved the project after PJM agreed that the eastern portion of the project could be built on existing easements.  Pennsylvania denied the project altogether on the basis of PJM's congestion forecast and cost/benefit analysis being proven wrong during the permitting process in that state.

Transource didn't like that outcome and filed several appeals.  The appeal to the federal district court struck paydirt and that judge opined that Pennsylvania had no authority to second guess PJM's findings regarding need.  The only role for Pennsylvania was to determine where to put the project and it was prohibited from denying a permit.

Pennsylvania appealed and the case has just been heard by the Third Circuit this month.  The oral argument was a disaster for the State -- its attorney couldn't get a word in edgewise as the panel of judges asked questions that only they seemed to know the correct answers to.  The writing is on the wall.  Next stop... SCOTUS.

States have laws in place that determine how an application for a new transmission project must be adjudicated.  The state is required to make several findings under state law.  While the findings may be different from state to state, most of them include a directive to determine if the project is needed.  This is why the permit issued is called a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (or other variations on this theme).  The state evaluates the case for need presented by the utility.  The utility presents its witnesses who say the project is needed, including witnesses from regional transmission organizations like PJM.  The state evaluates the evidence and makes its findings.  Never before in history has a state been required to accept the need findings of the regional grid operator without question.  In most cases, however, the state finds the regional transmission authority witnesses to be credible and adopts their determination of need in its determination.  However, in rare cases, the state has not found the regional transmission to be credible and has denied the permit.  It happened in New Jersey a few years ago in the Monmouth County Reliability Project case.  The utility in that case accepted the result and the project was not built.  Apparently we didn't need it anyhow.

And that's just the case with the Transource project.  The Pennsylvania PUC was right... the project was not needed.  PJM has recently revealed that the cost benefit ratio for the project has fallen below break even and that, if built, the project would cause uncontrolled congestion on the transmission system.  But when the lawyer for the State tried to bring that up during oral argument, the judges cut him right off.  They didn't want to hear it.

The Court's position would saddle electric ratepayers with huge costs for transmission projects that don't deliver more benefits than their cost to build.  Perhaps the Court would see it differently if they attended a couple of PJM meetings where these projects are evaluated and added to the plan.  PJM meetings are one-sided information sessions.  Although meeting participants can ask questions, PJM dismisses any arguments against its findings.  PJM is a utility member organization.  It always sides with the utilities.  There is no independent evaluator who looks at all the evidence before deciding the project is needed.  Compare to a state's evaluation of need, where all parties can present evidence to be decided by an impartial judge or panel of commissioners.  There is no give and take, or independent thought, at PJM... it is an authoritative dictatorship.

If states are prohibited from determining if a transmission project is needed under state law, what happens with merchant transmission projects or those planned by utilities outside a regional planning process?  Must the state also take the utility's determination of need without question?

The Court is prepared to open a can of worms that will ensure transmission is delayed or denied for other reasons.  Nobody likes being told that they have to accept the word of a dictator without question, states included.  The Court has suggested that a state who doesn't think a transmission line found needed in the regional planning process is actually needed should file a complaint against the grid operator at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.  If that is the only avenue open to states, prepare for a deluge of complaints at FERC.  Since FERC moves at a snail's pace (on a good day) this is going to tie up regional transmission planning for years and ensure that nothing gets built until need for it has completely evaporated, as it did in the case of the Transource project.  A state that may have agreed with PJM that a project is needed is now required to file a complaint at FERC to get a determination on whether it is actually needed.  Instead of states, grid operators, and federal regulators cooperating to keep the transmission system reliable, we're going to have nothing but litigation and delays while the lights go out.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive!  Last week, the U.S. Department of Energy cancelled the Delta-Plains National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor.  DOE said it was due to overwhelming opposition, but let's be real.  The transmission companies who would benefit from it begged to have it cancelled because it was creating overwhelming opposition to one of their projects, the Cimarron Link merchant transmission project.  And we all know who controls the DOE's NIETC designations, don't we?  Its being run by the private interests that the DOE abdicated to when it set up the program.  Our Department of Energy is being run by private companies with financial interest in building transmission.

While cancellation of the NIETC is good news for Oklahoma, it still doesn't do a thing about Cimarron Link.  Project owner Invenergy put out a statement saying nothing has changed for its project.  It still wants to build a transmission line from the panhandle to Jenks.  Invenergy even went so far as to claim that it was advocating for landowners to have the NIETC cancelled.  But Invenergy is still suing landowners in Oklahoma to gain access for surveys to build the project.  If it is successful there, the eminent domain suits are not far behind.

And don't forget about NextEra's Heartland Spirit project, which was also sited in the cancelled NIETC.  That project is also still moving forward.

In the wake of the cancellation, a whole bunch of Oklahoma politicians claimed credit and said they stood with landowners.  This is not their victory... this is the people's victory!  One politician even went to far as to claim that NIETCs were bad because they take property, but inexplicably Cimarron Link is good (because it takes property?).  

There's a whole lot that Oklahoma politicians and the local media don't understand about NIETCs.  The NIETC was never a transmission project, despite the many news stories saying a federal transmission project across Oklahoma was cancelled.  The media's ignorance has done nothing but confuse people into thinking that all the transmission projects have been cancelled.  That confusion is quickly being replaced by reality.

A NIETC is nothing more than a land use designation.  Once designated, it makes land in the corridor the first place to site new transmission projects.  If a state does not approve the transmission project, then the developer can petition the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to permit it.  If FERC issues a permit, then the developer could use federal eminent domain.  It's as simple as that.  The NIETC is not and never was a transmission project.  Therefore its cancellation simply means that Oklahoma law will be used to decide the issues, such as whether Cimarron Link is a utility furnishing power in Oklahoma.  Without knowing who Cimarron's customers will be, it is impossible to say that it is delivering electricity to Oklahoma.  Cimarron Link is what's known as a merchant transmission project.  It is a speculative, supplemental transmission line that is proposed purely for profit.  It is not needed by Oklahomans to keep the lights on.  Cimarron Link wants to sell its capacity through private contracts with utilities that actually serve Oklahomans, or maybe even to utilities or buyers in other states.  The electricity shipped on the line is not for Oklahoma, but to make a profit for Invenergy, who also owns the beginnings of the country's biggest wind farm under development in the panhandle.  It's Invenergy's private driveway to get its generation to a strong point in the transmission system (Jenks) where it can sell it to companies in other states.  Cimarron Link is a integral part of Invenergy's wind farm.  It's a transmission line only made necessary by that wind farm.  Without the wind farm, Cimarron Link wouldn't exist.  Cimarron Link isn't to provide needed reliability to the transmission system and it's not even for use by Oklahomans.

The NIETC was only cancelled because it was mucking up Invenergy's clandestine approach to securing easements with landowners.  Before the NIETC enraged the Oklahoma people, landowners may have felt isolated, ignored and vulnerable and therefore were easier to manipulate.  However, once the NIETC created a firestorm of opposition, landowners began to fight back.  The DOE and Invenergy hope that the huge opposition group will now disband and everything will go back to normal.  But you can't put toothpaste back in the tube, and you can't put the opposition genie back in the bottle.  The opposition Cimarron Link sees today is the opposition it's going to have to its project going forward.  The same opposition will also coalesce around NextEra's Heartland Spirit (another merchant project seeking to take advantage of Oklahomans).  And the opposition is also taking a hard look at Transource's Sooner-Wekiwa, a transmission project planned and ordered by regional grid operator Southwest Power Pool to provide needed reliability to Oklahoma's grid.  Transmission is never going to be the same in Oklahoma!  Power to the people!

Congratulations to the DOE for creating new and overwhelming opposition to new transmission lines!  What sounded like a good idea to the politicians in Washington DC and the clean energy interests that run the DOE is a complete dud when put into practice.  No, NIETCs won't help new transmission get built.  NIETCs will actually make it impossible to build anything because they reached too far and the American people are having none of it!  This week, DOE plans to roll out the other NIETCs it is still trying to plan and the same thing is going to happen on each and every one of them.  NIETCs are going to create a huge firestorm of opposition to new transmission lines and make it impossible to build them.  The sooner new leadership kills this stupid idea, the better off we'll all be.