In a recent article in NPR, a spokeswoman for Cardinal Hickory Creek transmission line accuses the Environmental Law and Policy Center of being "contradictory." Strip away all the weasel words and she says that they're hypocrites. If the ELPC supports "clean energy" it must also support Big Transmission.
After years of supporting Big Transmission like Clean Line Energy Partners, ELPC got transmission woke when a Big Transmission project "for renewables" got sited in its own backyard. This is undeniable reality: People don't like renewables when infrastructure to support it gets sited in their own backyard.
ELPC's wokeism spurred an organizational change to supporting "no wires alternatives", such as advanced transmission technology that makes better use of existing transmission. ELPC still supports "clean energy", but it does so while recognizing the environmental damage caused by Big Transmission. Is this hypocrisy? Or the beginning of a sensible new trend where big green becomes transmission woke?
Big Transmission as the solution to "climate change" is headed towards oblivion. The more gigantic projects they dream up, the better the odds that one of them will get dangerously close to the places environmental groups hold dear. Already, having an environmental hypocrite like ELPC in their nest is causing great concern. The wokeism is only going to spread, because once you get transmission woke, there's simply no going back. Landowners will NEVER change their minds and welcome new overhead transmission for renewables. No matter what the transmission profiteers propose, and no matter how much OPM* (Other People's Money) they spend "incentivizing"** transmission, they are simply spinning their wheels. Opposition will continue, and increase, including opposition from environmental groups.
NPR says that Cardinal Hickory Creek is in trouble, and the trouble is coming from ELPC, the only party with the resources to drag it through the courts. Bravo! However, it also demonstrates one of the foundational tenets of transmission opposition, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." For years, big green fought against transmission when they thought it was "for coal." Now that it's supposed to be "for renewables", big green loves transmission. Is this hypocritical? You bet'cha! ELPC demonstrates that it isn't about transmission at all, but about environmentalism. Isn't it time that big green goes back to its roots and stops being a well-funded patsy for an increasingly greedy energy industry? See tenet above. A landowner is likely to get whiplash from the changing transmission policies of big green.
Environmental groups in New England are at war against each other over the Big Transmission project New England Clean Energy Connect. ELPC is not alone, the wokeism is blossoming, along with the finger pointing and claims of hypocrisy.
Why does this swirling sea of transmission frenemies matter? Because it further degrades the pedestal of moral superiority to which Big Transmission has ascended by making it murkier and less trusted. Landowners have long been suspicious of the regulatory process that approves or denies Big Transmission. Is it really about transmission being needed, or is it simply about buying influence and political support?
A Wisconsin judge summed it up recently when ruling on a claim of bias by the state PSC in the Cardinal Hickory Creek approval:
After years of supporting Big Transmission like Clean Line Energy Partners, ELPC got transmission woke when a Big Transmission project "for renewables" got sited in its own backyard. This is undeniable reality: People don't like renewables when infrastructure to support it gets sited in their own backyard.
ELPC's wokeism spurred an organizational change to supporting "no wires alternatives", such as advanced transmission technology that makes better use of existing transmission. ELPC still supports "clean energy", but it does so while recognizing the environmental damage caused by Big Transmission. Is this hypocrisy? Or the beginning of a sensible new trend where big green becomes transmission woke?
Big Transmission as the solution to "climate change" is headed towards oblivion. The more gigantic projects they dream up, the better the odds that one of them will get dangerously close to the places environmental groups hold dear. Already, having an environmental hypocrite like ELPC in their nest is causing great concern. The wokeism is only going to spread, because once you get transmission woke, there's simply no going back. Landowners will NEVER change their minds and welcome new overhead transmission for renewables. No matter what the transmission profiteers propose, and no matter how much OPM* (Other People's Money) they spend "incentivizing"** transmission, they are simply spinning their wheels. Opposition will continue, and increase, including opposition from environmental groups.
NPR says that Cardinal Hickory Creek is in trouble, and the trouble is coming from ELPC, the only party with the resources to drag it through the courts. Bravo! However, it also demonstrates one of the foundational tenets of transmission opposition, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." For years, big green fought against transmission when they thought it was "for coal." Now that it's supposed to be "for renewables", big green loves transmission. Is this hypocritical? You bet'cha! ELPC demonstrates that it isn't about transmission at all, but about environmentalism. Isn't it time that big green goes back to its roots and stops being a well-funded patsy for an increasingly greedy energy industry? See tenet above. A landowner is likely to get whiplash from the changing transmission policies of big green.
Environmental groups in New England are at war against each other over the Big Transmission project New England Clean Energy Connect. ELPC is not alone, the wokeism is blossoming, along with the finger pointing and claims of hypocrisy.
Why does this swirling sea of transmission frenemies matter? Because it further degrades the pedestal of moral superiority to which Big Transmission has ascended by making it murkier and less trusted. Landowners have long been suspicious of the regulatory process that approves or denies Big Transmission. Is it really about transmission being needed, or is it simply about buying influence and political support?
A Wisconsin judge summed it up recently when ruling on a claim of bias by the state PSC in the Cardinal Hickory Creek approval:
“(I)t is essential to our democratic system, to our design of government, that we maintain the process as fair in appearance and in practice,” Frost wrote. “At least then the disappointment of the losing party is in having lost, not in being cheated by an unfair process or decision maker. Disappointment is acceptable. Distrust is dangerous.”
Wise words that should be applied universally these days. We all know what you're doing behind closed doors and we simply don't trust you.
*Financial incentives, loan guarantees, and tax credits paid for by taxpayers.
**This is not a word. Incentive is a noun, not a verb.
**This is not a word. Incentive is a noun, not a verb.
RSS Feed