The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA or the Act) directs the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) to establish a program, to be known as the “Transmission Facilitation Program” or “TFP,” under which the Secretary shall facilitate the construction of electric power transmission lines and related facilities. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or Department) Grid Deployment Office is issuing this NOI to notify interested parties of its intent to implement the TFP and to describe the proposed approach for participation by eligible entities in the TFP. The Department also seeks input from all stakeholders through this RFI regarding the application process, criteria for qualification, and selection of eligible projects to participate in the TFP.

(19) The IIJA calls on DOE to seek to enter into capacity contracts that will encourage other entities to enter into contracts for the transmission capacity of the eligible projects. On what basis should DOE assess whether a capacity contract with an applicant will encourage other entities to enter contracts for transmission capacity?

12) Recognizing that transmission projects are located based on the availability of generation, and ultimately customers to buy that generation, and have limited long term direct employment impacts:

• What equity, energy and environmental justice concerns or priorities are most relevant for the TFP? How can these concerns or priorities be addressed in TFP implementation?
  

DOE participation is to help provide certainty to developers, operators, and marketers that customer revenue will be sufficient to justify the construction of a transmission line that meets current and future needs. Applications for capacity contracts are not required to account for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental impact review, because DOE's entry into a capacity contract does not independently trigger NEPA review.

Because we conclude that the Commission’s decision denying the Siting Applications and rescinding Transource’s provisional CPC was in accordance with Pennsylvania law, including Sections 1501 and 2805(a) of the Code, and Section 57.76(a) of the Regulations, and is supported by substantial, credited evidence
of record, we affirm.

As for Transource’s arguments that PJM’s determination of need would be binding due to this matter involving issues of interstate regional transmission subject to FERC oversight,the ALJ held that the Commission was obligated to make an independent determination based on Pennsylvania law. (Id.at 82, 86, 99-102.)The ALJ further observed that while FERC has exclusive jurisdiction over the interstate transmission of electric energy and wholesale electric process, that jurisdiction was limited to matters that are not subject to state regulation. (Id.at 85 (citing Section 824(a) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 824(a)).) According to the ALJ, FERC recognized this limitation by stating that there is “longstanding state authority over certain matters that are relevant to transmission planning and expansion, such as matters relevant to siting, permitting, and construction” and that the FERC was in noway invoking “an exercise of authority over those specific substantive matters traditionally reserved to the states . . . .”(Id.(quoting Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation by Transmission Owning & Operating Pub.Utils., 76 Fed. Reg. ¶¶49,842, 49,861 (Aug. 11, 2011) (FERC Order No. 1000)).) This means, according to the ALJ, that FERC Order No. 1000 was “not intended to dictate substantive outcomes” or to allow FERC to “determine what needs to be built, where it needs to be built, and who needs to build it.” (Id.at 85 n.13 (quoting S.C. Pub. Serv. Auth. v. Fed. Energy Reg. Comm’n, 762 F.3d 41, 57-58 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).)

As for the resolution of congestion in the APSRI, it does not appear that we have ever held that congestion, which is an economic consideration, is sufficient on its own to support need or necessity under Pennsylvania law.

It was not just OCA’s witness who criticized PJM’s cost-benefit analysis, but PJM’s own Independent Market Monitor who suggested that its market efficiency process, which includes the cost-benefit analysis, be reevaluated and that the actual costs and benefits of a project should be considered and not ignored in determining whether a market efficiency project is needed.

They came to Missouri’s capital from small cities and towns such as Marshall and Lebanon, Odessa and Shelbina.

They’re not activists or lobbyists but city administrators and public works directors from deep red Missouri counties. They drove hours this week to push back against big agriculture and urge the majority Republican Legislature not to spike the largest energy infrastructure project in the state — the $2.5 billion Grain Belt Express transmission line.

The capacity will provide access to wind power that will cumulatively save the cities $12.8 million annually over 25 years.

If the promise of helping small cities save money doesn’t appeal to Missouri legislators, the threat of litigation might.

Peggy Whipple, an attorney representing Invenergy, said the retroactive nature of H.B. 2005 would put the state at risk of paying the company millions of dollars in legal damages for expenses it has already incurred.
The bill violates state and federal law on at least four grounds, Whipple said. Invenergy has already invested $52 million in the project and voluntarily obtained easements for the line across 1,200 of 1,700 parcels in Missouri and Kansas, she said. In addition, the company has executed $76 million in contracts with landowners and paid out $10 million upfront.

H.B. 2005 would require 50 percent of transmission capacity from a project to be dedicated to Missouri and it would give any county in the line’s path the power to block the project for any reason.
The provision violates the U.S. Constitution’s dormant commerce clause that prohibits states from interfering with interstate commerce, Whipple said.

Invenergy spokesman Patrick Whitty slammed the House bill, calling it “an astonishing move in the wrong direction” at a time when global energy is in a security crisis.

“Among its many other impacts, the bill would unconstitutionally and retroactively kill Missouri’s largest energy infrastructure project, the Grain Belt Express, a project essential to American energy security that will connect millions of consumers to domestically produced, affordable, and reliable clean energy,” Whitty said. “The energy from the Grain Belt Express is the equivalent of 15 million barrels of oil annually, produced and delivered right here in the Midwest.”

The Missouri Supreme Court earlier ruled that Grain Belt be granted public utility status because the $2.3 billion project is in the public interest.

The project also has garnered the support of Sen. Bill White, R-Joplin, who says it will invest millions of dollars in the state’s rural areas, boost the local energy supply and help ensure energy independence.

White said Monday he had not yet reviewed the latest House bill, which moved out of the House last week on a 102-41 vote. But, he said retroactively targeting the company after it has already started buying land would be unconstitutional.

Labor unions, environmental groups and the Missouri Association of Municipal Utilities oppose the changes.

Jake Hummel, a former state senator from St. Louis who now oversees the Missouri AFL-CIO, said the project will create jobs as it crosses the property of 570 landowners in eight northern counties.
“The quest for American-made energy, while creating 1,500 Missouri jobs, is an opportunity our state cannot afford to pass up,” Hummel said.

Michael Berg of the Sierra Club’s Missouri chapter said the legislation is short-sighted in a time when energy production is evolving.
“More legal barriers for wind energy transmission give an unfair advantage to the highly polluting fossil fuel industry,” Berg told members of the House Judiciary Committee.
In addition, Berg said more than a dozen communities have signed up to purchase power from the line, including Kirkwood, Columbia, Hannibal and Farmington.
“The power delivered along this line is expected to save dozens of rural Missouri communities more than $12 million annually,” Berg said.
As an added benefit, Invenergy says it will use the power lines to also offer broadband service that could bring improved internet to over one million rural Missourians, including 250,000 within 50 miles of the transmission line.

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

identify transmission that will provide broad-scale benefits to electric customers; inform regional and interregional transmission planning processes; and identify interregional and national strategies to accelerate decarbonization while maintaining system reliability.

Also need to ensure that this program engages and educates the NIMBY/BANANA/CAVE stakeholders.

Education & outreach is cross-cutting across all the scenarios and is a great idea.

The "WHO" needs to be able to bind people to building the lines.

And to bind parties away from blocking the lines.

Public Comment from Keryn Newman: 

I do not see anyone on the EAC that is representing the interests of the communities and landowners who will be affected by new transmission and electric infrastructure.  During yesterday’s webinar, I noted that several speakers expressed concern that new transmission could not be built in a timely fashion due to siting and permitting issues.  Community and landowner opposition is perhaps the largest impediment to getting new infrastructure built in a timely fashion.  I urge DOE and/or this committee to consider that burial of new transmission on existing rail or road rights of way may be an appropriate path forward.  Building new transmission that does not take new land, or visit lasting visual impacts upon host communities, does not foment community and landowner opposition.  Without opposition, siting and permitting can happen much faster.  It’s the sensible solution.

Public Comment from Martha Peine (that's pronounced "pine-e", not "peen", BTW):

Communities and landowners affected by new transmission and electric infrastructure are not represented on the EAC. It may be that when the committee was formed, no one considered affected communities and landowners would have the expertise required to help guide the DOE’s involvement in transmission planning. However, many do become true experts on issues of necessity and environmental impacts when their way of life is threatened. That opposition is then successful because the evidence is on their side.

I believe the burial of new transmission on existing rights of way would meet with less resistance provided it is necessary. The IIJA provision that allows, and the committee’s consideration of, making the DOE an anchor tenant on merchant projects does raise a red flag as to necessity. Are these merchant projects roads to nowhere built to deliver electricity that no one wants? This could end up being a bill taxpayers get stuck with for up to 40 years in exchange for nothing.

Again, the burial of new transmission on existing rights of way will meet with less resistance provided it is truly necessary. Siting and permitting could then happen much faster.   

Comment of Mary Mauch:

I would like to address the following comment Tom Bialek made in the chat comments of today's session.  Tom wrote:

 "Also need to ensure that the program engages and educates the NIMBY/BANANA/CAVE stakeholders."

Does this disparaging of concerned and educated  taxpayer/ratepayer  stakeholders reflect this committee's attitude?   Who is really responsible for creating "equity" in this "deploy, deploy, deploy" energy transition? Respecting, including, and listening to the voices of educated citizen stakeholders might actually yield far better results than disrespecting and marginalizing them. After all, they're most likely the ones living in the "remote" industrial wind/solar plants and being forced to "host" private, speculative transmission lines and have researched and observed some of the TRUE costs to "remote" communities, non-renewable prime farmland, and the "remote" wildlife and environment.

 "Equity must be at the forefront of energy transition across all domains."

"In partnership with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, DOE will collaborate with industry stakeholders, communities, and regional and local governments to help identify pathways for necessary large-scale transmission system buildouts that meet regional and national interests."

recalcitrant |rəˈkalsətrənt|
adjective
having an obstinately uncooperative attitude toward authority or discipline: a class of recalcitrant fifteen-year-olds.
noun
a person with an obstinately uncooperative attitude.

Judge William Conley’s ruling throws the fate of the Cardinal-Hickory Creek transmission line into question just months after utilities began construction on the $492 million project.

Given these facts, plaintiffs contend, and the court finds credible, that the Utilities are pushing forward with construction on either side of the Refuge, even without an approved path through the Refuge, in order to make any subsequent challenge to a Refuge crossing extremely prejudicial to their sunk investment, which will fall on their ratepayers regardless of completion of the CHC project, along with a guaranteed return on the Utilities’ investment in the project. Thus, if the court does not treat consideration of the essentially inevitable re-proposal for a Refuge crossing as ripe for consideration now, the Utilities will have built up to either side of the Refuge, making entry of a permanent injunction later all the more costly, not just to the Utilities and their ratepayers, but to the environment they are altering on an ongoing basis.

Certainly, although a refuge manager has some deference in deciding which uses are compatible, the court is not compelled to take the agency’s final word when all factual findings weigh against it. In this way, “deference” does not become the unlimited, get-out-of-jail-free card that the Utilities seem to suggest...

Before granting a right of way through the Refuge, Fish and Wildlife must confirm that the proposed project comports with the purposes of the Refuge under 16 U.S.C.A. § 668dd. Fish and Wildlife originally finalized its “Compatibility Determination for the Case ... on December 20, 2019. Because the Utilities already had a prior right of way through the Refuge, where a 161 and 69kv transmission line had been previously installed and the Utilities had agreed to transfer back that right of way, Fish and Wildlife found the proposed CHC line was compatible with the purposes of the Refuge as “a minor realignment of an existing right-of-way” and granted a permit to the Utilities.
On March 1, 2021, however, the Utilities contacted Fish and Wildlife and asked for a slightly amended right of way through the Refuge, ostensibly to avoid Ho-Chunk burial grounds. Then, before Fish and Wildlife could issue a decision on the proposed amendment, the Utilities again contacted Fish and Wildlife on July 29, 2021, this time asking for an expedited land exchange instead of an amended right of way, ostensibly because approval for a new right of way would take too long. Specifically, in exchange for a land exchange in the Refuge, the Utilities were now proposing to transfer a 30-acre parcel to Fish and Wildlife.  On August 3, 2021, Fish and Wildlife confirmed receipt of the Utilities’ latest proposal, indicating that its response to such a land exchange “may” be “favorable.”
Then, on August 27, 2021, less than a month after Fish and Wildlife responded favorably to a proposed land transfer, and less than a week before summary judgment motions were due in this case, Fish and Wildlife “withdrew” its entire original Compatibility Determination, stating it “learned that an error had previously been made regarding the 2019 Compatibility Determination when identifying the existing rights-of-way proposed for re-alignment.” 
As a result, any approved right of way through the Refuge was rescinded, along with the compatibility determination. However, in its letter of withdrawal to the Utilities, Fish and Wildlife did note that the agency “is committed to working with you toward timely review of the land exchange you have proposed in lieu of your March 2021 application for an amended right-of-way permit . . . [and] concurs that a land exchange is a potentially favorable alternative to a right-of-way permit.”