Under the Department of Energy’s Transmission Facilitation Program, as envisioned in Section 40106 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the Department of Energy may serve as an anchor tenant on new and upgraded transmission lines, by buying up to 50% of the planned commercial capacity of lines for a term of up to 40 years. Yet, under MISO’s interpretation of Attachment FF and BPM 20, a merchant transmission project with a Department of Energy contract, and meeting Invenergy’s other suggested indicia of being sufficiently advanced stage, would still not be accounted for in MISO’s transmission planning processes unless it had an executed interconnection agreement with MISO or was included in a state or utility IRP. This cannot be a just and reasonable interpretation of MISO’s Tariff and BPM language which requires MISO to “analyze the performance of the Transmission System in meeting both reliability needs and the needs of the competitive bulk power market, under a wide variety of contingency conditions,” to “give full consideration to the needs of all Market Participants,” and consider “a wide range of potential conditions that comply with Federal, State, local and transmission owner reliability standards and public policy mandates . . . as well as other industry trends,” as Invenergy quoted in its Complaint.

Is it advisable for DOE, when selecting eligible projects for capacity contracts, to prioritize projects that have a certain percentage of capacity already subscribed? If so, what should that percentage be? What level of commitment (firm supply versus other types of capacity subscription) should DOE require eligible entities to demonstrate to be selected for a capacity contract? How should applicants be required to document such commitments? Should DOE's capacity be capped as a ratio of the firm subscription obtained before the execution of a capacity contract? If so, what should that ratio be?

MISO TOs cite to the Rock Island Clean Project as an example of why advanced-stage merchant transmission should not be accounted for in MTEP/LRTP base case analyses.  However, the Rock Island project never had final, non-appealable permits in any state. See Illinois Landowners Alliance, NFP v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 2017 IL 121302 (2017) (finding that the owner of the proposed merchant transmission project was ineligible under Illinois law to obtain a required certificate of public convenience and necessity). Rock Island subsequently discontinued efforts in neighboring Iowa in light of the Illinois developments. In contrast, Grain Belt Express has final, non-appealable permits in Kansas, Missouri and Indiana.  Although Grain Belt Express is making minor modifications to those permits approvals, which is typical for new project development, the underlying approvals are sound and Grain Belt Express has significantly advanced the development of the project since securing those permits including securing rights of way and land.

Compensation for property taken under this subsection shall be determined and awarded by the district court of the United States in accordance with section 3114(c) of title 40, United States Code.’’.

Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm on Friday backed the much-debated permitting overhaul provisions unveiled in Congress this week, saying they would enhance the department’s efforts to speed up electric transmission lines that connect clean energy to the grid.

“We are very excited at DOE about the potential for streamlined permitting on clean energy projects,” Granholm told reporters on the sidelines of the Global Clean Energy Action Forum in Pittsburgh.

“And I think that holds the greatest promise of the goals we’d like to achieve, which of course is getting to 100% clean electricity by 2035,” Granholm said.

“Community input is important in all of this,” she said. “We have to be very intentional about that, and we’ve got a team that is focused on that as well.”

“Obviously, the transmission process has been ridiculously slow, and so many NIMBY issues related to it,” Granholm said, using an acronym for the “Not In My Backyard” movement.

We don’t think that removing the states is actually going to reduce the time frames,” said Greg White, executive director of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, which represents state officials.

He called the permitting proposal “draconian,” arguing it does nothing to solve delays stemming from federal environmental reviews. NARUC has pressed the department to scrap the proposal and bring states to the table.

“The sense is, if they can remove the state authority on siting these, that these projects will proceed quicker—and we disagree with that,” White said.

Enhance federal government permitting authority for interstate electric transmission facilities that have been determined by the Secretary of Energy to be in the national interest.

Replace DOE’s national interest electric transmission corridor process with a national interest determination by the Secretary of Energy that allows FERC to issue a construction permit.

Require FERC to ensure costs for transmission projects are allocated to customers that benefit.

Allow FERC to approve payments from utilities to jurisdictions impacted by a transmission project.

These arrogant greedsters will continue to push their narrative that only a boot on the neck of rural America can usher in a renewable energy future.  Instead of working with rural America to find a solution, these folks continue to push for more authority to simply take what they want.

At a recent Australian energy conference, the program indicates that the energy industry is acutely aware of, and concerned about, the urgent need to develop trust and acquire social licence for transmission. So much so that a panel discussion specifically focussed on the best ways to combat anti-transmission line sentiment. The panel included key industry representatives from the Victorian Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP), the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner, AusNet Services, Powerlink Queensland, Nous Group and CutlerMerz.

Interestingly, the panel did not include members of the public, representatives from community advocacy bodies or community groups calling for better transmission planning and framework reform.

This raises an important question; how can anti-transmission sentiment be truly understood by the industry if those representing the Australian public are not involved in the discussion? The lack of public inclusion in forums such as this suggests there is still much work to be done in understanding best practice engagement principles.

Firstly, communities are not upset that their concerns haven't been heard as there is no doubt opposition has been voiced. Communities are upset because their concerns are not being understood, listened to or respected, with collaborative action being taken to understand and accommodate this opposition to bring about a more mutually beneficial outcome. There is a significant difference between being heard and being understood. Communication is not simply about the transmission of information; it is about the reception and understanding of it. Genuine engagement is then demonstrated by taking meaningful, constructive and collaborative action.

Secondly, in the case of the WVTNP, there are no foreseeable benefits to communities expected to carry the burden of 190km of overhead transmission. How can the industry better sell the benefits to host landholders and neighbouring communities when there are no benefits to sell?

The energy industry and governments can do more to understand and appreciate that community benefits and compensation may not be the quick-fix solutions they hoped they might be. In fact, pushing the ‘talk to them early and pay them more’ agenda is very likely to further dilute trust, increase opposition and dissolve any credible opportunity to acquire social licence. Without empathy in the social licence and public policy equation, it will be near to impossible to develop trust for transmission.

Empathy is the ability to emotionally understand what other people feel, see things from their point of view, and imagine yourself in their place. Essentially, it is putting yourself in someone else's position and feeling what they are feeling. The ability to feel empathy allows people to "walk a mile in another's shoes". It permits people to understand the emotions that others are feeling.

The admonition to walk a mile in someone else's shoes means before judging someone, you must understand his/her experiences, challenges, thought processes, etc. Truly listening to another persons view creates empathy, something that community sentiment suggests is lacking within the energy industry.

It’s not difficult to understand why it may be challenging for the energy industry to demonstrate empathy. For decades, its has been insulated from the need to consider social or environmental externalities and has rarely had to meaningfully engage with, or have empathy for landowners and communities.

Empathy helps develop trust; therefore, it is important that transmission network planners and policy makers spend time to consider, understand and respect landowner and public perspectives, experiences, and motivations before making a judgment about them and asking rural communities to shoulder the burden of overhead transmission for the benefit of the masses. Economic benefits, community benefits, compensation, the climate, environment, emissions, jobs, and green energy, are often wielded by governments and the industry to garner public support for overhead transmission. While there may be truth in some of these benefits, many in the community view this strategy as an intentional attempt to reduce credible objections to those of NIMBYism (Not in my backyard). For many, this strategy demonstrates a concerning lack of empathy as to why overhead transmission projects are being objected to in the first place.

In addition to legitimacy, credibility and trust, empathy should be added to the list of social licence components. Without empathy, it is impossible for the other three components to exists. Without empathy, it will be challenging to garner community support. To develop empathy, it is necessary to first explore the deeper reasons for objection to offer these objections the respect and attention they deserve.

When discussing compensation and engagement with potentially impacted landowners throughout the eastern states of Australia, many have indicated, in no uncertain terms;

‘I'll never sell'; 'We will not be bought off'; 'No amount of money will compensate for the impact on our properties, community and environment'; 'We will not risk our kid's inheritance'; 'Our land is our superannuation, we will not sacrifice that'; ‘This is our livelihood, who has the right to take that away.

When speaking with stakeholders in the energy industry and those living in more urbanised environments, reactions suggest a level of confusion. Comments often conveyed indicate it’s difficult to comprehend why people would not accept payment for the burden they are expected to carry.

'They are only transmission lines'; 'We drive past them every day to work, what's the issue'; 'This is the price we must all pay for progress and to reduce our impact on the climate'; 'Transmission towers remind me of our engineering mastery'; 'It's only farmland, plant your potatoes somewhere else'.

To understand this, we need to dig a lot deeper than early engagement and financial motivation. We need to understand the connection between people, the environment, the land, and rural areas. We need to understand the person-place interaction that leads to attachment to place. This connection to place is experienced by traditional owners, landowners, neighbours, and visitors alike. The strength of this attachment often surfaces under threat of loss of place.

Family farms are a unique institution, continuing through time in a world where considerations of hard work, long-term thinking and commitment are often sparse. Families in agriculture have long provided a steady backbone to rural Australia, serving as stewards of our natural resources and taking care of the neighbours, communities and environments in which they live. Because of their dedication to preserving farm operations and improving land for native wildlife, farm families are very emotionally close to their way of life and to the land on which they live. Many see themselves as temporary stewards of their land, managing it for future generations, just as their great-great-grandfather might have done for them.

A statement by one landholder was, “I don't have a sense that I own it as such. But I've been given the privilege to influence it, to protect it, to enhance it and among other things – stop other people influencing it, without me giving them permission."

It’s also important to note that a cost seen by some, is viewed as an investment by others. Communities impacted by proposed overhead transmission projects argue that despite potential increase in capital by avoiding a shorter more impactful route, use of existing easements, longer least-impact routes or an investment in undergrounding (particularly HVDC), is a long-term economically viable investment in achieving climate change objectives, protecting our environment, avoiding land use conflict, and providing increased redundancy, resilience and reliability to our transmission networks. Despite the increased cost, Star of the South, a private development, is undergrounding its transmission to minimise the environmental impacts. This has been well received by potentially impacted communities.

On March 17, 2021, MISO laid out its initial roadmap for LRTP transmission solutions based on the Futures analysis. The initial roadmap included a proposed line from central Iowa, through northern Missouri, with two offshoots further south into Missouri with one in a similar area as the proposed Point(s) of Connection for the GBX Line, and finally into central Illinois.
 
It was announced during that meeting that the analysis had been completed on the proposed Transmission Solutions linking central Iowa to Northern Missouri to central Illinois and that those upgrades would be included in the LRTP portfolio. It was only after this announcement that Invenergy approached MISO to express its views regarding the GBX Line and how it interacted with LRTP.

In comments to MISO, Invenergy claimed that “[f]ailure to account for the GBX Line may cause economic harm to GBX.”

Grain Belt Express acknowledges how it intends to edge out new MISO projects by taking their place:

“Across the Midwest and Great Plains, several potential transmission projects have been proposed over the next decade to address regional reliability needs, enable the delivery of power to load centers, reduce congestion, and unlock renewables potential. While there still may be a need for localized upgrades, given that the Project addresses these broader goals, it stands to logically reason that the Project could plausibly defer/eliminate the need for certain future major transmission developments."

Invenergy also compares the expected timeline of its proposed projects to the expected timelines of the LRTP Tranche 1 projects, but that comparison does not help Invenergy’s argument, even if taken on its face value. Under the Tariff, the MTEP is “developed to facilitate the timely and orderly expansion of and/or modification to the [MISO] Transmission System.

Including projects without sufficient certainty, regardless of timeline, does not advance system reliability.

Invenergy also fails to show that the GBX Line should receive special treatment and circumvent the MISO planning process. As a project that is not yet certain, MISO properly excluded the GBX Line from the planning studies for LRTP projects.

Invenergy claims that its GBX Line, a merchant high voltage direct current (“MHVDC”) transmission project designed to carry up to 5,000 megawatts (“MW”) of energy, should have been accounted for in MISO’s transmission planning analyses even though it has not yet obtained all necessary approvals and interconnection agreements, and its prospects for achieving such statuses are not at all certain.

While Invenergy explains the status of the GBX Line noting the number of approvals and permits it has obtained, the prospects for the project are far from certain. For example, as Invenergy concedes, permits are still required in one state. In addition, on August 24, 2022, Invenergy submitted an amended Certificate of Convenience and Necessity Application in Missouri to request significant changes in the GBX Line.   Invenergy also has not yet executed interconnection agreements with half of the transmission systems it proposes to interconnect—MISO and PJM.

The Commission should deny Invenergy’s attempt to obtain preferred treatment for the GBX line.

In its Complaint, Invenergy claims “Grain Belt Express has secured voluntary easements for over 75% of the necessary right-of-way in Kansas and Missouri.” However, in its Application in Missouri, Grain Belt claims it has “[a]cquired 72% of all easements required for the Kansas and Missouri portion of the Project.” While only a difference of 3%, it is notable that the percentage of easements acquired went down in the two weeks between the filing of this Complaint and the filing of the Missouri application.

“Subject to additional oversight and approval by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”), Grain Belt Express may sell and/or lease an undivided interest in the project to potential buyers and/or lessees, and Grain Belt Express and those buyers/lessees may seek to provide transmission service over the line to eligible customers as defined by FERC on a non-discriminatory basis under a FERC-approved open access transmission tariff (“OATT”). Any co-owner or lessee of Grain Belt Express that seeks to provide transmission service will be required to operate pursuant to an OATT on file with FERC that will meet the requirements of the Federal Power Act and FERC’s regulations. Grain Belt Express may also sell a cotenancy interest or lease a long-term leasehold interest in the transmission line, in which case it is not providing transmission service to such buyer/lessee because the buyer/lessee has control over that undivided interest”.

“If the shoe were on the other foot, would Invenergy or its executives consent to a forced sale of their property to Missouri farmers and ranchers? We could run cow-calf pairs on their lawns in Chicago, and they’d probably even come out ahead on mowing cost. But something tells me they might feel differently about the eminent domain doctrine if that were the proposal.

“I am a farm wife, and we live in Boone County, but our farms are in Audrain and Callaway,” Stemme said. “There are several residents from Audrain that will be attending the protest. I don’t have the commissioners schedule, so I don’t know if they will be in house or not. It doesn’t matter: We will still be able to get our message across, that we are opposed to any decision that allows the Tiger Belt (Connector) to move forward. I don’t feel the (House Bill) 2005 is very comforting. Our Fifth Amendment rights are being abused.
“The PSC has no agricultural representation. They also have no oversight.”
According to Stemme’s press release announcing the protest, Invenergy proposes to add a “completely unnecessary” 40-mile double circuit 345-kV electric transmission line on a destructive course that would impact prime farmland that is presently producing crops for ethanol and biodiesel. These valuable farms are helping reduce emissions in St. Louis, Columbia and Kansas City.
Stemme noted that Invenergy has only revealed customers for less than 10 percent of its planned delivery to Missouri.
“As a merchant transmission project, the company cannot charge captive ratepayers for its project and can only recover its costs from voluntary customers,” the press release states. “Without customers, there is no revenue to pay for the project.”
Stemme’s press release adds, “The PSC’s prior granting of a permit and eminent domain to Grain Belt’s speculative plan have directly caused the Tiger Connector proposal by encouraging the company to take land for a route that has now changed and must be extended into Audrain and Callaway in order to connect with Missouri’s electric grid. Without an approved grid interconnection and enough customers to pay for its construction, Grain Belt Express remains nothing more than speculation and could change again in the future.”

a) Appropriation.--In addition to amounts otherwise available, there is appropriated to the Secretary for fiscal year 2022, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $760,000,000, to remain available through September 30, 2029, for making grants in accordance with this section and for administrative expenses associated with carrying out this section. (b) Use of Funds.-- (1) In general.--The Secretary may make a grant under this section to a siting authority for, with respect to a covered transmission project, any of the following activities:

(2) Economic development.--The Secretary may make a grant under this section to a siting authority, or other State, local, or Tribal governmental entity, for economic development activities for communities that may be affected by the construction and operation of a covered transmission project, provided that the Secretary shall not enter into any grant agreement pursuant to this section that could result in any outlays after September 30, 2031.

(3) Economic development.--The Secretary may only disburse grant funds for economic development activities under subsection (b)(2)-- (A) to a siting authority upon approval by the siting authority of the applicable covered transmission project; and (B) to any other State, local, or Tribal governmental entity upon commencement of construction of the applicable covered transmission project in the area under the jurisdiction of the entity. (d) Returning Funds.--If a siting authority that receives a grant for an activity described in subsection (b)(1) fails to use all grant funds within 2 years of receipt, the siting authority shall return to the Secretary any such unused funds.

As stated above, Grain Belt Express then intends to raise debt secured by the revenue stream from the transmission capacity contracts to raise the capital necessary to complete the remaining development activities, construct the Project and place it into operation. Grain Belt Express anticipates utilizing a combination of commercial and governmental sources of financing, and at this time is still evaluating all potential options for financing. Options for governmental sources of financing include the Western Area Power Administration (“WAPA”) Transmission Infrastructure Program (“TIP”); and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill Transmission Facilitation Program; Department of Energy loans to non-federal borrowers for transmission facilities pursuant to the Inflation Reduction Act and potentially other government funding options. Additional equity capital may also be raised to help finance construction of the Project, or Grain Belt Express’ existing investors may make additional equity investments in the Project.

Have you entered any new agreements with any potential partners or “customers” who will use the Grain Belt and the connector?
We have an existing contract with a consortium of 39 Missouri communities to take power from the Grain Belt Express at an annual savings for $12.8 million, and we see very strong market interest in transmission capacity from the line, which is one factor in the recent announcement to expand local delivery capacity.
Will you move forward prior to an agreement or wait until you get enough before beginning construction?
Kuykendall: “We will begin construction after acquiring the necessary easements and approvals from regulators.”

So, to clarify customers that pay into Grain Belt Express through money or service, who, if anyone, have you entered into an agreement with? If you have no one paying into the line - a customer - you are saying you would build anyway? Or do you want to expand on this?
Kuykendall: ““Grain Belt Express will be bringing power to 350,000 electric consumers across Missouri through a signed transmission service agreement with the Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission (MJMEUC) representing 39 Missouri municipal utilities. Grain Belt Express has seen strong interest in the market and expects to secure additional customer agreements prior to construction beginning.”

What measures will the company actually take to minimize negative impacts for affected landowners?
Kuykendall: “Missouri stakeholders have urged Invenergy to develop solutions to deliver more power to Missouri from the Grain Belt Express project. The Tiger Connector is necessary to meet that request, and in doing so provide billions in energy savings to Missourians.

What will the company do to avoid condemnation, which is likely the biggest issue?
Kuykendall: “This is always a last resort for us. We’ve already acquired 84 percent of the parcels needed along the Phase I portion of the Grain Belt Express HVDC route, with nearly all of them coming through voluntary easements.

Can you confirm that Invenergy intends to honor the 7-year Sunset revision on easements as stated in the law?
Kuykendall: “The company is still reviewing that provision of (House Bill 2005) and expects this issue to be addressed in any regulatory filings before the Missouri Public Service Commission. As you know, HB2005 does not apply to Grain Belt Express and any commitment to comply with portions of the law would be voluntary in nature.”

We will engage further with the Missouri Farm Bureau, other ag groups, and the Missouri Public Service Commission to implement these commitments to balance energy affordability and reliability and landowner interests in Missouri.”

Will Invenergy move lines from the middle of fields? Bury lines?
Kuykendall: “We will propose a route that takes the input gathered from these public meetings into account. We understand the desire for some or all parts of the Tiger Connector line to be buried.  Undergrounding the Tiger Connector would require burying two separate transmission systems to meet safety and reliability requirements. This makes undergrounding a non-starter.

“The Tiger Connector line will have one circuit for MISO and one circuit for AECI.
“Overhead line maintenance can be performed by shutting down one circuit while the other continues to deliver power.
“This is not possible underground because workers cannot work with a live circuit present, and federal reliability requirements prohibit a system design that would shut down power delivery to multiple markets at once. This would require two separate buried systems.
“Undergrounding would also have much greater impacts on ag operations, including:
Eight times as much land permanently taken out of production.
Over 80 times the excavation that can reduce yields from compaction and soil mixing.
Permanent “call before you dig” requirements for landowners in easement areas.
Ag impacts result from:
Excavating two buried cable trenches across the entire length of the line – with the trenches separated sixty feet from each other. Recent studies of other buried infrastructure projects have shown reduced yields for corn and beans between 15-25 percent due to compaction and the mixing of topsoil and subsoil caused by trenching.
Installation of permanent access bunkers which are like U-Haul trucks parked in the ground every 2,000 feet in pairs, one along each set of buried cables. Crops cannot be grown over these, and each set would be farmed around.
“In addition to the significant land impacts, this request could set a precedent for other future transmission lines in Missouri, representing billions of dollars in added costs for Missouri electric consumers over time.
“Stakeholders have cited the importance of balancing energy affordability and reliability while also serving landowner interests. Burying any part of Grain Belt Express would fail both of these goals.”
Kuykendall added these statistics to the response:
1.3 acres permanently out of production, vs. 0.16 acres
484,853 total cubic yards of soil excavation for undergrounding, vs. 5,759 cubic yards for monopole foundations