“There’s a reason why these adders have come to be known as ‘FERC candy,’” Christie said. “They’re really sweet for those who get it, but not the consumers who have to pay for it.”

The bill could provide a significant boost to transmission infrastructure, which is needed to ensure widespread renewable adoption. Where permitting a transmission line can now take a decade, the bill would limit federal environmental reviews to two years, put a statute of limitation of 150 days on legal challenges and give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission more authority to permit transmission lines.

The U.S. has a checkered history of transmission development. It has had some success building new lines, particularly in the Midwest, where 16 of 17 projects planned over the last decade were permitted.

But the country has also encountered a series of high-profile failures. An attempt to build a transmission line carrying hydropower from Canada into New England was first rejected by New Hampshire and then nixed by voters in Maine, only for the state’s high court to open the door for the project again. It remains in limbo.

A $4.5 billion line bringing wind from the Oklahoma Panhandle to Tulsa was scrapped in 2018, eventually replaced by a slightly scaled-back version of the project.

Perhaps most infamous was an eight-year effort to build a 700-mile line connecting Oklahoma wind power to the East Coast via Tennessee. The project died in 2017 but not before its trials and tribulations were captured in the popular book “Superpower” by Texas Monthly reporter Russell Gold.

Even when projects do succeed, it can take years. The Anschutz Corp. began planning a 732-mile line aimed at bringing Wyoming wind to Southern California in 2008. It received its last permit in 2020 after obtaining approvals from the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and Bureau of Reclamation, along with state and county regulators in four states. The project is still waiting on a notice to proceed from BLM, which is expected to arrive next year.

Greg Wetstone, president and CEO of the American Council on Renewable Energy, said permitting reform is needed to fully realize the emission-cutting benefits of the climate spending law Congress passed earlier this year.

“Senator Manchin’s bill includes provisions that will help streamline the transmission approval process, improving our ability to meet our nation’s decarbonization goals by better connecting our key renewable resources to our largest population centers,” he said in a statement.

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.

“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.”

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

Grid United Texas was created as an electric corporation in 2021. Grid United Texas is
wholly owned by Grid United LLC (Grid United) with a mission to unite the U.S. electric grid by
building new long-distance, interregional transmission lines to ensure that Americans have access to low-cost power when and where it is needed.

The Pecos West Intertie Project (Proposed Project) is a proposed 1,500 MW HVDC interconnection between ERCOT and the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC). The Proposed Project is proposed with an HVDC converter station at the LCRA TSC Bakersfield Switching Station in Pecos County, Texas, and an HVDC converter station at an EPE Station in El Paso County, Texas. Grid United Texas has evaluated interconnection at EPE’s Caliente Station and Newman Station, but the EPE interconnection will be determined following further consultation with EPE and the U.S. Army regarding a potential crossing of Fort Bliss (for the Newman Station interconnection). An approximately 250 to 300 mile ±525 kilovolt (kV) overhead HVDC tie line (Tie Line) will connect the HVDC converter stations at each end of the Proposed Project.

On the supply side in PJM, "we're seeing dramatic retirements" of coal-fired generation, with PJM retiring about 15 GW of coal in the next two years that it is not being replaced on a one-to-one basis, Thomas said.
The Midcontinent System Operator is experiencing a similar trend, with incremental generation resources being added that do not have the same reliability attributes as those being retired. "They are adding megawatts that are less valuable than the megawatts being retired, meaning they need to add significant multiples to replace what's being retired," he said.
In MISO, the accredited capacity being added goes down out to 2041, while the future load scenarios continue to go up.

"This is kind of a fascinating trend, and arguably not a sustainable trend, because what all these other regions are counting on is importing power from other areas of the country to make up the difference and that's a house of cards waiting to fall," Thomas said.
PJM is not one of the areas identified by the North American Electricity Reliability Corporation, an international regulatory authority, as having reliability concerns, but "they're coming in a big way," he said.
The PJM interconnection queue of resources planning to connect to the grid is 95%, if not more, wind and solar power resources, which is where the economic signals are right now.
"There is going to be very little to no new natural gas coming into the system and coal is going to continue to retire" with the nuclear power resources remaining because they are subsidized at the state and federal level, Thomas said.

One of the core tenets of the PJM capacity market is that in order to have capacity it must be deliverable. A megawatt of power on the system only has value if it can be delivered at peak demand periods, Thomas said.
PJM has been giving capacity accreditation to intermittent resources above their approved capacity injection rights levels, so these resources were selling capacity that was not deliverable, and that is a problem, he said.

The problematic aspect is consumers have been paying for capacity that has no value at peak, and suppliers "are getting boxed out of the market by these undeliverable megawatts," Thomas said.

Utility regulators in Missouri and Kansas have already approved construction of the line. An Invenergy spokesperson didn’t immediately respond to an email asking if the expansion plans required additional approvals.

“We heard that story over and over: ‘We want to see more of it brought to Missouri,’” said Shashank Sane, who leads Invenergy’s transmission business, after a Monday news conference in St. Louis. “It was really about bringing benefits to the state.”

Invenergy did not disclose which Missouri entities it expects will buy the additional power, but it is “confident that the customer base is there,” said Sane.