I once posed the question: If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it fall, does it make a sound? Likewise if a transmission developer wants to build a new transmission line buried along an existing right of way, does it inspire landowner opposition?
It seems like that question has finally been answered by folks in Iowa. SOO Green Renewable Rail recently completed required county meetings across the state, where the Utility Board and company personnel provided information about the project to adjacent landowners and other concerned individuals. Along its proposed 220 miles of underground transmission in Iowa, the project garnered only 3 landowner objections. For comparison, the Rock Island Clean Line overhead HVDC transmission project spurred dozens of landowner objections in every county it crossed.
The conclusion here is pretty simple... overhead transmission on new rights-of-way across private property are highly objectionable. On the other hand, underground transmission on existing corporate- or publicly-owned rights-of-way is only objectionable to a handful of people.
What reasons did the landowners cite for objecting to the project?
One simply objects to eminent domain for all power companies under any circumstances. Although it appears from the information on this docket that SOO Green would have eminent domain authority, I'm not so sure that they're using it. The company's information says it would construct the project within existing Canadian Pacific Rail right-of-way. Eminent domain would not be required. It's likely this objection is based on misinformation and that this objector did not attend the information meetings. This objector's address is miles away from the project. Of course, supportive transmission lackey Center for Rural Affairs doesn't live anywhere near the project either, but that never stops them from dropping misinformation into a regulatory process when the grant dollars are good. These two commenters ought to cancel each other out.
Another withdraws a previous objection from a couple of landowners on the route. The withdrawal states that the company has satisfactorily addressed this couple's concerns. Over and done. Imagine that... a company that took the time to listen to landowners and find ways to alleviate their worries. This is a novel approach in a stale and entitled industry.
The other two objections here and here are from landowners along the route and are much more involved. One worries about environmental impact to his riverfront property, how the transmission line would be impacted by flooding, and whether Canadian Pacific can grant use of its easement for electric transmission purposes. He also feels SOO Green isn't offering enough compensation. Seems like some of this may be alleviated by more information, and more money. It remains to be seen if SOO Green's innovative approach to landowner relations can overcome this objection.
The other objection is an long list very similar to his neighbor, plus worries about EMF, property values, need for the project, and demands corporate financials be made public. Both of these objectors promise legal action, one even threatening class action. I wonder if they attended the information sessions and asked questions about these topics? Both of these objections seem to be genuine and heartfelt but take a combative stance to insist the IUB reject the project. These landowners might be more successful talking with the company about their concerns than insisting that IUB reject the project outright. It's unlikely that would happen, so maybe it's better to work out the issues so that everyone is reasonably happy in the end?
On every transmission project I've ever written about, there have been hundreds, if not thousands, of landowners and citizens who got involved in the regulatory process to object to the project. For most of these people, eminent domain taking part of their property and converting it to an industrial use is the biggest objection. Many of these landowners seek to have the project buried, or sited on existing linear rights-of-way, such as roadways. For these people, SOO Green's approach is exactly what they want. A similar issue is the visual blight of new overhead transmission lines on lattice towers. SOO Green is buried. On some projects, new right-of-way is proposed adjacent to existing transmission corridor easements, doubling (or tripling) the visual blight and environmental danger from AC transmission. SOO Green proposes burying the transmission line on an existing easement so that the property will look the same after construction is completed. Some project opponents have faced increasing levels of EMF from new overhead alternating current transmission lines. SOO Green's transmission project is direct current and doesn't have the same dangers. Compared to the issues landowners have with overhead transmission of all kinds, SOO Green's project seems highly preferable. Maybe these two objectors would feel differently if they had been threatened with eminent domain takings across their properties to allow for the construction of lattice towers more than a hundred feel tall?
Perhaps objections are more about perspective? If you haven't seen Satan, his mischievous imps might look like the epitome of evil. However, gauging from my experience working with transmission opposition groups, I can say that SOO Green's underground on existing right-of-way approach seems to be working much better than the eminent domain, overhead, transmission company status quo.
Sometimes a transmission company is exactly what it appears to be. Companies that lie to landowners and regulators and talk incessantly about their own "power" can't be trusted. But what about a company that listens to landowners, negotiates with them fairly, and keeps its promises? I know... we've never seen one of those companies before so it's hard to even consider the possibilities. Can SOO Green keep its promises? So far, so good!
It seems like that question has finally been answered by folks in Iowa. SOO Green Renewable Rail recently completed required county meetings across the state, where the Utility Board and company personnel provided information about the project to adjacent landowners and other concerned individuals. Along its proposed 220 miles of underground transmission in Iowa, the project garnered only 3 landowner objections. For comparison, the Rock Island Clean Line overhead HVDC transmission project spurred dozens of landowner objections in every county it crossed.
The conclusion here is pretty simple... overhead transmission on new rights-of-way across private property are highly objectionable. On the other hand, underground transmission on existing corporate- or publicly-owned rights-of-way is only objectionable to a handful of people.
What reasons did the landowners cite for objecting to the project?
One simply objects to eminent domain for all power companies under any circumstances. Although it appears from the information on this docket that SOO Green would have eminent domain authority, I'm not so sure that they're using it. The company's information says it would construct the project within existing Canadian Pacific Rail right-of-way. Eminent domain would not be required. It's likely this objection is based on misinformation and that this objector did not attend the information meetings. This objector's address is miles away from the project. Of course, supportive transmission lackey Center for Rural Affairs doesn't live anywhere near the project either, but that never stops them from dropping misinformation into a regulatory process when the grant dollars are good. These two commenters ought to cancel each other out.
Another withdraws a previous objection from a couple of landowners on the route. The withdrawal states that the company has satisfactorily addressed this couple's concerns. Over and done. Imagine that... a company that took the time to listen to landowners and find ways to alleviate their worries. This is a novel approach in a stale and entitled industry.
The other two objections here and here are from landowners along the route and are much more involved. One worries about environmental impact to his riverfront property, how the transmission line would be impacted by flooding, and whether Canadian Pacific can grant use of its easement for electric transmission purposes. He also feels SOO Green isn't offering enough compensation. Seems like some of this may be alleviated by more information, and more money. It remains to be seen if SOO Green's innovative approach to landowner relations can overcome this objection.
The other objection is an long list very similar to his neighbor, plus worries about EMF, property values, need for the project, and demands corporate financials be made public. Both of these objectors promise legal action, one even threatening class action. I wonder if they attended the information sessions and asked questions about these topics? Both of these objections seem to be genuine and heartfelt but take a combative stance to insist the IUB reject the project. These landowners might be more successful talking with the company about their concerns than insisting that IUB reject the project outright. It's unlikely that would happen, so maybe it's better to work out the issues so that everyone is reasonably happy in the end?
On every transmission project I've ever written about, there have been hundreds, if not thousands, of landowners and citizens who got involved in the regulatory process to object to the project. For most of these people, eminent domain taking part of their property and converting it to an industrial use is the biggest objection. Many of these landowners seek to have the project buried, or sited on existing linear rights-of-way, such as roadways. For these people, SOO Green's approach is exactly what they want. A similar issue is the visual blight of new overhead transmission lines on lattice towers. SOO Green is buried. On some projects, new right-of-way is proposed adjacent to existing transmission corridor easements, doubling (or tripling) the visual blight and environmental danger from AC transmission. SOO Green proposes burying the transmission line on an existing easement so that the property will look the same after construction is completed. Some project opponents have faced increasing levels of EMF from new overhead alternating current transmission lines. SOO Green's transmission project is direct current and doesn't have the same dangers. Compared to the issues landowners have with overhead transmission of all kinds, SOO Green's project seems highly preferable. Maybe these two objectors would feel differently if they had been threatened with eminent domain takings across their properties to allow for the construction of lattice towers more than a hundred feel tall?
Perhaps objections are more about perspective? If you haven't seen Satan, his mischievous imps might look like the epitome of evil. However, gauging from my experience working with transmission opposition groups, I can say that SOO Green's underground on existing right-of-way approach seems to be working much better than the eminent domain, overhead, transmission company status quo.
Sometimes a transmission company is exactly what it appears to be. Companies that lie to landowners and regulators and talk incessantly about their own "power" can't be trusted. But what about a company that listens to landowners, negotiates with them fairly, and keeps its promises? I know... we've never seen one of those companies before so it's hard to even consider the possibilities. Can SOO Green keep its promises? So far, so good!
Of course, doing it SOO Green's way is likely more expensive. But will the company come out ahead when it avoids the cost and time sucks of entrenched opposition? How much money do other transmission companies waste battling with landowners and how much time does this add to their permitting process? Couldn't that money be better spent fairly negotiating with landowners and finding the least intrusive route possible? We'll find out soon when SOO Green begins selling its service to potential customers.
One thing's for sure... if this model succeeds, it's going to change everything about building new transmission in the future.
One thing's for sure... if this model succeeds, it's going to change everything about building new transmission in the future.
RSS Feed