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.

ruthless |ˈro͞oTHləs|
adjective
having or showing no pity or compassion for others: a ruthless manipulator.

bureaucratic |ˌbyo͝orəˈkradik|
adjective
relating to the business of running an organization, or government: well-established bureaucratic procedures.
• overly concerned with procedure at the expense of efficiency or common sense: the plan is overly bureaucratic and complex.

How a little ruthlessness in the bureaucratic interest could advance electric corridors in the national interest....

Are we not doing an adequate job of incorporating the input of all stakeholders or resolving major conflict during the development stage? If parties remain opposed to a project after a final decision is made, have we reached a time in our society that the risk of proceeding with a project may be too great even if an approval has been granted? In the project sited above (NECEC), the primary benefits appear to accrue to one state and most opposition as well as the agency suspending construction are from another. In fact, the issue on the ballot in the opposing state, which could permanently enjoin the project under construction, supports local transmission while increasing the difficulty of gaining approval for EHV and DC transmission that does not directly benefit the local communities it impacts.

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (the Act) passed in November 2021 grants FERC broader transmission siting authority within national interest transmission corridors and allows the DOE to become an anchor tenant for new transmission projects.

Frankly, we do not know if the Act will help get new transmission built. Unquestionably, it has never been more difficult to obtain consensus regarding major new long distance, interstate, and international transmission projects. Such projects should be designed to deliver demonstrable benefits outweighing the impacts for all affected parties.

Transmission developers may need to borrow from other energy business segments to provide compelling economic strategies for landowners, host communities and other stakeholders to support new projects. The outright purchase of the required land for a project as opposed to a one-time purchase of a ROW is one example utilities have employed. Offering a production-based payment to landowners and providing a community stipend or other benefits has proven successful in the gas exploration and wind industries. Applying these methods to transmission projects would ensure those living with the project will receive continuing tangible benefits.

The power industry is operating in a new era of public activism complicated by policy driven as opposed to strictly need based infrastructure development goals. Successful future projects will require in depth collaboration to get all stakeholders on board and rowing in the same direction.

In accordance with 2020 ILCS5/8-406, Invenergy Transmission LLC, an affiliate of Invenergy LLC, hereby provides notice to the Shelby County Clerk of the first of three phases (“Phase 1”) of public meetings for the Grain Belt Express project.

...a new 175-mile, underground transmission line, will enable the delivery of more than 7.5 million megawatt-hours of emissions-free energy into New York City every year.

DOE is authorized to serve as an anchor customer on new and upgraded transmission lines in order to facilitate the private financing and construction of the line. Under this authority, DOE would buy up to 50 percent of planned capacity from the developer for a term of up to 40 years. A purchase of capacity will not be considered a “major federal action” that would trigger environmental review pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). DOE will then market the capacity it has purchased to recover the costs it has incurred once the project’s long-term financial viability is secured.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today launched the “Building a Better Grid” Initiative to catalyze the nationwide development of new and upgraded high-capacity electric transmission lines, as enabled by President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.

Building a Better Grid will work with community and industry stakeholders to identify national transmission needs and support the buildout of long-distance, high voltage transmission facilities that are critical to reaching President Biden’s goal of 100% clean electricity by 2035 and a zero emissions economy by 2050. This program will make the U.S. power grid more resilient to the impacts of climate change, increase access to affordable and reliable clean energy, and create good-paying American jobs across industry sectors – boosting transmission jobs which employs over one million workers across the country.

One of the lessons was that power companies need to engage the public early and be willing to change course in the face of well-reasoned criticism, as opposed to ramming through a project.

...new transmission can be sited and routed with broad support from the public and the communities most impacted by it.

Power companies can reduce conflict by building transmission lines in existing corridors, like along highways and railroads, but those options can be more complicated and costly.

The changes—which include giving the federal government more authority to intervene in state-level permitting decisions—are meant to expedite the approval of new transmission lines, which often encounter regional opposition and face years of delays.

Developers expect the new measures to streamline approvals but say they might not be enough. Companies proposing transmission lines say they often face local opposition, protracted state-level study processes or pushback from rival companies that don’t want new sources of electricity coming into regional markets.

“You look at the history in the U.S., and it’s very tough,” said Mike Garland, chief executive of transmission and renewables developer Pattern Energy Group, which recently started operating a 155-mile transmission line in New Mexico that took about seven years to finish.

“A couple of people can stop a transmission line, and that’s really bad news,” Mr. Garland said. “For us, the infrastructure bill provides a number of benefits that can help. It doesn’t solve the problem.”

Rob Gramlich, founder and president of power-sector consulting firm Grid Strategies LLC and executive director of advocacy group Americans for a Clean Energy Grid, said the Energy Department’s expanded ability to resolve and perhaps override state-level decisions could have a significant effect on efforts to expedite projects. But he said it remains unclear how the agency would use the new tools.
“It may just be the big stick they carry around while speaking softly in these regional transmission efforts and state siting proceedings,” Mr. Gramlich said. “But when everybody knows that stick exists, their behavior might change.”

Critics of transmission projects over the years have cited various concerns including the use of eminent domain, environmental impacts and potential effects on property values, among other factors.

Transmission line projects often face pushback during the permitting process, including opposition from established power providers. Companies that own nuclear and fossil-fuel plants have raised concerns about their ability to compete with wind, solar or hydropower delivered from other markets.

Maine residents last month voted to reject a $950 million transmission line under construction by Spain’s Iberdrola SA that would carry Canadian hydropower into the New England market. NextEra Energy Inc., a power company that operates a nuclear plant and an oil-fueled power plant in Maine, donated about $20 million to a political-action committee opposing the project and was joined by several other companies with plants in the area.NextEra declined to comment. Avangrid Inc., the U.S. subsidiary of Iberdrola that is behind the project, is fighting the ballot measure in court.

“This is really about the transition from the old to the new, and how we manage that,” said Avangrid’s deputy chief executive, Bob Kump.
Some Maine residents also raised concerns about the project’s potential harm to state forests and questioned whether the developer overstated its environmental benefits.
Sandi Howard, a music professor and Registered Maine Guide who leads a grass-roots opposition group, said the removal of tree canopy could hurt tourism and pose environmental and wildlife harms, including disturbing deer wintering areas and hurting native brook trout.
“Sometimes people throw up NIMBY,” said Ms. Howard, referring to the acronym for “not in my backyard.” “It’s bigger than that.”

Chris Miller, the council’s president, said he remains concerned that the federal government could override state-level decisions on transmission projects without having to consider alternatives with potentially less environmental impact.
“You’re basically taking state and local self-determination and exchanging it for the administrative fiat of FERC,” he said. “If your goal is to protect the environment, that is not acceptable.”

Radicals Using MVP Case to Void Eminent Domain for All Pipelines
In 2019 a group of Virginia landowners filed a lawsuit against the Equitrans Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) project, because they didn’t like how the pipeline left a mark across their horse pastures. The landowners arrogantly argued Congress improperly delegated its legislative powers to FERC and that ALL pipeline approvals made by FERC that have led to property being “taken” against a landowner’s wishes, including MVP, should be invalidated. In May 2020 a federal court dismissed the case. Using money from Big Green groups (who are funded by foreign countries like Russia and China), the uppity landowners appealed once again and, unfortunately, the case remains active and live, now in a higher court.

Plundering the land of Missouri landowners for private gain is not heroic nor commendable, but rather a shameful abuse of eminent domain laws by an out-of-state billionaire who aims to ship government subsidized wind energy across our state’s borders and profits into the pockets of investors. It does not benefit the state when private companies manipulate our eminent domain laws to serve only their bottom line and not our citizens.

... the author’s attempt to equate the corporate behemoths behind Grain Belt Express to true Missouri trailblazers like Mark Twain, J.C. Penney and Walt Disney is an insulting attempt to mislead, misguide and distract readers from the facts. 
First, the Grain Belt Express is not a product of a Missouri genius, but rather an outdated idea of a Chicago billionaire whose intent is to drive profits for investors. If Grain Belt Express was truly innovative they would be taking notes from the SOO Green which delivers renewable energy underground on existing rail rights of way through Iowa to the Eastern U.S., eliminating land and environmental impacts of above-ground merchant transmission lines.

Even the Clean Path NY project (of which Invenergy is a partner) is buried underground. One would think an actual genius could modify the Grain Belt Express project to provide all of the “benefits” of clean power without the major disruptions. But corporate greed stands in the way of actual progress.

... it may surprise some readers to learn the Grain Belt Express is a purely optional merchant transmission line which has not been ordered or required for any ratepayer need. Instead, it is a private, supplemental, profit-making endeavor as a merchant transmitter of electricity that is not restricted to wind energy. It is NOT funded by ratepayers because it is not for them. It is funded by investors who receive the benefit from the project. As an optional project, Invenergy can cancel the Grain Belt Express at any time. In fact, the project may never be built if the economics do not translate into returns for investors. For this reason, the project should not be allowed to take land “for a public use.” Landowners deserve certainty, not smoke and mirrors, and Grain Belt Express should not interfere with landowner rights before it even has customers and financing for their project.