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.”

“There’s been this move afoot in which markets have become something closer to a mechanism by which to harvest … subsidies, rather than what they were intended to do, which is ensure least cost dispatch of available resources and to incentivize new investment.”

For the most part, RTOs have embraced the goal of economic efficiency for the past 23 years (since Order No. 2000). However, some RTOs have begun to include the “clean‐​energy transition” and “environmentally sustainable power system” in their mission statements. Advocates of economic efficiency should be concerned that the IRA will push RTOs further into a new era in which the goal of economic efficiency is secondary to environmental goals or ignored entirely.

The value of the PTC today is $27.50 per megawatt‐​hour. In the price contour map above, several of the indicated hubs were trading below that amount (in the range of $25–26 per megawatt‐​hour). Again, in most other industries, a federal subsidy larger than the price of the commodity would be unimaginable—people familiar with the industry would sound alarms about the distorting effects of large subsidies. People would be justified in losing their temper, for example, if Congress implemented a new federal subsidy of $70–90 per barrel of crude oil produced in the United States (the going rate over the last year or so). With subsidies larger than the commodity price, will RTOs trade as much (or more) in federal subsidies as they do in electricity?

Coal and natural gas are dispatchable generation resources that presently provide 60 percent of our electricity. They are also essential if grid operators are to maintain reliability. Subsidies for intermittent generation will lead to the retirement or bankruptcy of dispatchable resources, which will not only create challenges in maintaining grid reliability but will open the door for subsidies for dispatchable resources (whether or not they are truly needed for reliability). Such a subsidy spiral could be endless and could pit federal subsidies in the IRA against state subsidies for preferred resources, all paid for by American taxpayers or electricity customers one way or another.

Counting the many reasons to repeal the energy subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) has become my favorite activity.

The determination of whether a project is ready-to-go relied on two criteria: 1) whether the project is at or near the finish line on the various federal and state permits they may need; and 2) whether the project is actively pursuing the cost recovery, allocation, and/ or subscriptions required for the developer to proceed. Inherently some judgment is re- quired. Based on these criteria we excluded over ten significant projects that are in earlier stages of development and not yet far enough along to be considered ready-to-go. 

Clean Line – Originally proposed in 2009 by Clean Line Energy Partners to deliver renew- able energy from the Oklahoma Panhandle to Southeast markets, the Oklahoma portion of this DC merchant line was purchased and is now being developed by NextEra Energy.

Lake Erie Connector – DC line under Lake Erie, connecting Ontario with PJM, the grid operator in the Mid-Atlantic and Great Lakes region. The project had been under devel- opment for approximately 10 years, but ITC Holdings, which purchased the rights to the project in 2014, placed the project on hold citing economic conditions.

“ITC made the decision to suspend the project after determining there is not a viable path to achieve successful negotiations and other requirements within the required project schedule. External conditions – including rising inflation, interest rates, and fluctuations in the U.S.-to-Canadian foreign exchange rate – would prevent the company from coming to a customer agreement that would sufficiently capture both the benefits and the costs of the project,” an ITC spokesperson said in a prepared media statement. “As a result, the company believes suspending the project is in the best interest of stakeholders.”

Not only has investment in regional transmission lines been decreasing, but at the same time the need for regional transmission has been increasing due to a variety of factors. These include increasing demand growth, electrification of transportation and other sectors, higher natural gas prices due to European demand, a changing resource mix due to the economics of new renewable generation, increased customer demand for renewable resources, significant utility commitments for renewable energy expansion and decarbonization, and new public policies from local, state, and federal governments promoting carbon-free generation. The aggregation of these trends suggests a shift in the generation mix and significant load growth over the next few decades, both of which will require new transmission capacity. 

Transmission capacity is also critical in helping shift national economic policy toward an increased focus on onshoring manufacturing to develop domestic supply chains. De- velopment of new domestic manufacturing along with growth in data centers, partially driven by AI, represents the potential for significant economic growth and job growth for the US.

These new manufacturing facilities, along with new data centers, often require additional transmission to ensure the grid has the capacity to reliably interconnect significant new industrial loads. However, delays are already beginning to occur. Interconnection requests for data centers have dropped across the country and in Northern Virginia – a national hub for data centers – there is a scramble to meet the soaring power demand as current grid capacity is limited. 

Some experts estimate that fully electrifying the US’s industrial load could more than double current US power demand. The current issues are arising even before manufacturing for microchips and additional electric vehicle production and battery manufacturing facilities fully ramp up, along with hydrogen production facilities. If sufficient transmission capacity is not available, these investments could be significantly delayed or even canceled. 

There are also additional policy levers that Congress and FERC could pull to help facilitate faster and more effective buildout of new transmission. Americans for a Clean Energy Grid’s Legislative Principles outlines a number of these potential approaches.

A grass fire near 199th and Lone Elm Olathe was likely caused by a downed power line. 
An Evergy representative reports the "excessive heat was likely a contributing factor" to a crossarm breaking, falling and igniting the grass fire.
About 1,900 customers were affected. Their power was restored within an hour of the incident.

“I think that sort of input that we got from the community and then also doing that modeling to show folks what it was going to look like when it’s constructed both helped along the project,” he said.

The commission observed that while many residents were still opposed to both the Garage Site and the Post Office Site, which is adjacent to the Victor Post Office on Route 60, they seemed more accepting of the Garage Site over the Post Office location.

...the permit holder has made good faith efforts to engage with landowners and other stakeholders early in the applicable permitting process...

Taking the time today to listen to property owners and adjust plans in response to their concerns, they hope, will lessen the likelihood of drawn-out legal or political battles delaying the project later.

Christina Hayes, executive director of Americans for a Clean Energy Grid, said the two Minnesota utilities are following the best practice of early stakeholder engagement to avoid later potential litigation.

The third powerline was the last straw for Marla Britton.  Her and her husband’s 40-acre farm near Brainerd, Minnesota, is already framed by electrical wires on the east and south. When she learned of plans for a new project running along the north end of her property, she took action.  Britton wrote to state utility regulators and contacted the companies behind the planned Northland Reliability Project. The 180-mile line will eventually make it easier to move clean electricity between central and northern Minnesota.  Soon, a utility representative was at her doorstep to discuss her concerns and ideas for rerouting the line where it would have less impact on her and her neighbors.

“They listened to me and wrote down what I said,” Britton said. “They agreed it was way too much for my property.”

It’s yet to be seen how Britton’s feedback will be reflected in the final route, but the interaction illustrates the type of engagement that project backers say they are aiming for with the project. Taking the time today to listen to property owners and adjust plans in response to their concerns, they hope, will lessen the likelihood of drawn-out legal or political battles delaying the project later.

“Initially, the town was told it would be 100 percent by rail,” said Glenville Town Supervisor Chris Koetzle of what CHPE first said when they explained that part of the land-based section of line would go through his town. 

But over the last few months, [the town] started getting phone calls from residents of the Woodhaven neighborhood who were contacted by CHPE for easements.

Negotiations over the easements and the idea the land could be taken through eminent domain has some people contacting their lawyers.

“I’ve had a couple of people call me,” said Patrick Seely a lawyer with the Jones Hacker Murphy firm in Troy. He hasn’t actually been retained, but noted that in easement cases, there is often a negotiation. “A little bit of horse trading goes on all the time,” he said.