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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bates said he didn’t realize running a power line to a data center was considered a transmission line. 

comparison_of_pjm_state_installed_capacity_2022.pdf
File Size:	2140 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

---

If care is taken to make sure that host communities benefit in the short and long term from the energy projects in their backyards, they will be less inclined to oppose them, leading to faster timelines for clean energy and transmission projects. 

Community opposition to large-scale wind and solar projects is growing across the United States. There are many reasons for this trend, including misinformation about renewable energy, concerns about project impacts, and concern that most of the benefits flow outside of the community while the burdens fall within. Communities often see hosting renewable energy projects and transmission (which touches multiple communities) as an impediment to their goals, such as preserving community identity, land preservation, and in some cases ensuring ecosystem conservation. While some landowners see these projects as a potential source of revenue from leases, others worry that the projects will reduce the value of their land. Finally, in many communities, while there may be both supporters and opponents of clean energy projects, the opponents are often more vocal, better resourced, and more passionate than the supporters. Because of all these factors, an alarming number of communities are adopting restrictive zoning and land use ordinances that effectively ban the siting of clean energy projects.

​This rise in opposition highlights the importance of ensuring that developers and local officials disseminate accurate information about potential projects and that the permitting process allows engagement from a broad range of voices so that decision-makers can accurately assess the environmental impacts as well as benefits of projects. Furthermore, it is important to ensure that host communities share in the benefits of projects in their own backyards.

Several states, including New York, California, Illinois, and Washington, have enacted laws that improve the siting process for large-scale renewable projects and provide potentially powerful models for similar legislation in other states. Among other things, these laws modernize the permitting process and explicitly provide benefits to host communities via mechanisms like utility bill discounts. States should be encouraged to adopt model siting and permitting laws that expand community engagement while limiting the ability of localities to unreasonably ban all wind and solar projects.

​Bringing communities from opposition to support—or at least to open-mindedness—is a major challenge to renewable energy growth that needs sustained effort, engagement, and thought. Our recommendations provide a starting point.

Coalitions should work together to build support for well-sited projects that benefit the host community. In cases where developers have done their due diligence as outlined in the preceding recommendations, environmental and conservation groups, labor groups, local landowners and businesses, and other stakeholders—including, where relevant, environmental justice and tribal groups—should form coalitions and work together to support the project. A key part of this support should be highlighting the community benefit agreements, payments in lieu of taxes or other mechanisms for benefit sharing, the creation of local jobs, and addressing other ways to compensate local landowners for any perceived or actual diminution in property values.

“I think that really, really rankles people here in Port Isabel, to see somebody from another city writing a letter saying, ‘hey, you know what? You ought to hurry up and put this polluting, dangerous facility in somebody else's town,’” Port Isabel City Manager Jared Hockema told TPR.

“We’re on the verge of energy abundance and independence if we can just get the energy from where it’s made to where it’s needed,” said Colorado Sen. John Hickenlooper who co-sponsored a bill that would establish a minimum-transfer requirement for regions to be able to transfer at least 30% of their peak electrical loads with other regions. “Show me a new power project in this country and I’ll show you red tape and haphazard grid planning holding us back.” Democrats pushed to have the bill included in the debt ceiling deal but Republican opposition prevented it.

Often, transmission projects fall by the wayside because of the capital required upfront and the logistics of tying together buyers and sellers in regional marketplaces with different rules and processes. “If you’re going to inject power you have to put money down ahead of time for system upgrades. Independent developers are asked to say yes or no on those down payments before having firm interconnection permissions and timeline certainty from grid operators,” said Rob Taylor, director of transmission at Chicago-based Invenergy. “Our request is to standardize the processes, timelines and definitions so you can have a level playing field."
Invenergy’s Grain Belt Express transmission project, the highest-capacity line in development in the US, will connect four states across 800 miles, taking mostly wind from Kansas (in the Southwest Power Pool) and delivering it into MISO and PJM, the ISO/RTO covering much of the northeast. With a capacity of 5 GW, the proposed project will use HVDC technology. Since Invenergy acquired the project in 2020, it has progressed through key state approvals, with one remaining approval expected at the end of August. Assuming full construction starts at the end of 2024, the project will have been in the works for over a dozen years.

Grain Belt Express has kept Staff apprised of the updates that are the subject of this Motion, including as recently as March 1, 2023.

How will the Amended Financing Requirement protect landowners?

The Amended Financing Requirement will prevent any possibility that Grain Belt Express begins construction of the Project and installs structures on easements but later abandons them because of insufficient funds to complete the Project.

Constructing the Project in two phases is in the public interest of Kansas because it will allow the benefits of Phase I to accrue much earlier than would otherwise be possible. The regulatory approval process in Illinois had been subject to extensive delays because of now resolved appeals of the ICC’s 2015 decision to grant a CPCN to Grain Belt Express Clean Line LLC in ICC Docket 15-0277.

Grain Belt Express will use project financing as previously approved in this Docket. As a reminder, after advancing development and permitting activities to a status at which developers of wind and solar generation facilities and other potential customers of the transmission line are willing to enter into commercial agreements for an undivided interest (purchase or lease) or long-term contracts for transmission capacity on the Project, Grain Belt Express will enter such contracts with interested parties that satisfy necessary creditworthiness requirements. Grain Belt Express will then raise debt capital using the aforementioned contracts as security for the debt. Grain Belt Express may also raise additional equity capital.
In addition to obtaining state regulatory approvals, Grain Belt Express will need to enter contracts for a portion of the transmission capacity on each Phase prior to obtaining full financial commitments for the Project. The exact percentage of capacity that needs to be under contract prior to obtaining full financing commitments for each Phase will depend on the price, counterparty creditworthiness and terms in years of the signed transmission contracts.

Phase I being independently economically viable ensures that Phase I will be completed. Phase I is independently economically viable because, upon completion, it will be operational and capable of delivering power into Missouri. As described above, Phase I will be capable of delivering power into Missouri via its interconnections with the MISO system along the Ameren 345 kV AC transmission line connecting the McCredie substation and the Montgomery substation and with the AECI system at the McCredie 345 kV substation. Not only do these circumstances ensure that Phase I will be completed, they also ensure that Phase I by itself will allow large amounts of renewable energy to be built in southwest Kansas and to access the MISO markets and AECI system and compete to serve customer load without impacting Kansas ratepayers.