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.”

To so depart from "the regulation's obvious meaning" would "permit the [Commission], under the guise of interpreting a regulation, to create de facto a new regulation." Christensen v. Harris Cnty., 529 U.S. 576, 588 (2000); accord Chase Bank USA, N.A. v. McCoy, 562 U.S. 195, 211 (2011) (internal quotation omitted)

Petitioners initially succeeded—twice—on those claims.

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.

PG&E will unveil plans in February to bury about 10,000 miles of electric power lines across California in a bid to curb wildfire risks in the scarred North Bay region, the utility giant’s chief executive told The Press Democrat Monday.
Patti Poppe said the San Francisco-based company will build upon the efforts of burying almost 100 miles of electric distribution lines by year’s end. That includes 4 miles within Rincon Valley that now allows 11,000 customers to avoid preventive power outages during wildfire season. Projects in other North Bay counties haven’t yet been identified.
“Even 100 miles makes a difference. You know 200, 300, 500, 1,000 miles makes a huge difference in our highest-risk areas,” Poppe said. “We are getting great feedback on our ability to do it at an affordable cost for customers, which a lot of people doubted at first.”

According to the TVA, at least 100 transmission towers and poles were damaged and destroyed; with 29 TVA transmission lines knocked out of service. More than 20 customer connection points – where the TVA power system meets with local power companies – went offline leaving more than 250,000 customers without power amid and after the storms.

The Missouri State Emergency Management Agency (SEMA) found the heaviest damage to electric cooperatives infrastructure occurred in the bootheel counties of Dunklin and Pemiscot, where more than 20 large transmission towers and lines were destroyed or heavily damaged. 

Utility crews have rerouted power from other sources until a permanent repair can be made. At its peak, more than 30,000 people were without power.

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.

... landowners and community groups represented solely by the undersigned Consumer Organizations are the elephant in the room that is ignored by nearly all other commenters.

No matter the new rules implemented through this proceeding, the Commission cannot avoid the elephant. All commenters support their own version of transmission utopia, with very few acknowledging that the transmission the new rules are designed to encourage can be made more expensive, delayed, or perhaps even cancelled, through opposition from affected landowners and communities. No rule made by the Commission can overcome the will of the people to join together to protect their interests against what may be seen as an invasion that jeopardizes their homes, health, heritage, and ability to earn a living.

the fair market value for the use of the transmission capacity, as determined by the Secretary, taking into account, as the Secretary determines to be necessary, the comparable value for the use of the transmission capacity of other electric power transmission lines; and (B) on a schedule and in such divided amounts, which may be a single amount, that the Secretary determines are likely to facilitate construction of the eligible project, taking into account standard industry practice and factors specific to each applicant, including, as applicable-- (i) potential review by a State regulatory entity of the revenue requirement of an electric utility; and (ii) the financial model of an independent transmission developer.

If natural gas pipelines are difficult to permit and build, and if the federal regulatory process has a durable bias for transmission, and if gas-fired generation will be a necessity especially as nuclear power plants and coal-fired generation retire at alarming rates, it seems reasonable to assume that eventually, companies are just going to start building power plants at natural gas wellheads and hooking up to the grid from those sites.
To assume otherwise is to assume that the people who run energy companies are incapable of second-order thought. It also requires one to assume that traditional fuels, which made up around 80% of primary energy use in 1970, 1995, and last year, will vanish in the next few years.
Clearly, both assumptions are likely to be wrong. So, it seems likely that we are heading towards a world of — throwback warning — gas by wire.
The lesson for this and pretty much everything in life? Be careful what you wish for.