When did we decide that remote, industrial scale solar and wind were our energy future? I don't actually remember this happening. What happened to energy efficiency? Distributed generation? Community-based renewables? Storage? Nuclear? Natural Gas? New technology? Or even the meaningless "all of the above" energy strategy? At some point all these ideas were put neatly on a shelf and the United States put all its energy eggs into the remote, industrial scale solar and wind basket. How did this happen? Was it because investors and the energy industry recognized that this was the energy "solution" that put the most money in their pockets? Our Big Government is nothing but a lackey for moneyed interests anymore. Any claims to care for people are pure posturing of the most despicable kind.
Utility rag T&D World asks, "Are utilities forgetting some key aspect of successful project development, or has the world changed, or both?" in a new piece entitled, "A Teachable Moment Regarding Transmission Development."
The article asks
Utility rag T&D World asks, "Are utilities forgetting some key aspect of successful project development, or has the world changed, or both?" in a new piece entitled, "A Teachable Moment Regarding Transmission Development."
The article asks
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 simple answer is "no." Utilities are no longer even pretending to care what the impacted population wants. There's too much money in it for the utility. As utility power increases, so to does its preference for simply running its opposition over with a bulldozer. Case in point... the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. T&D says
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.
And there's the problem. When you build across wide swaths of the country for the purpose of delivering power from Point A to Point B, without any benefit for all points in between, it's impossible to deliver demonstrable benefits to the fly over country between A and B.
These benefits cannot be created as a handful of colorful beads. Fly over folks aren't that stupid. We know we're not getting anything and condescending offers of measly bribes just aren't going to cut it. Take your bribes elsewhere... we know they're nothing but crumbs from your taxpayer-funded feast. We're not so dumb that we're going to pay to bribe ourselves while utilities laugh all the way to the bank.
These benefits cannot be created as a handful of colorful beads. Fly over folks aren't that stupid. We know we're not getting anything and condescending offers of measly bribes just aren't going to cut it. Take your bribes elsewhere... we know they're nothing but crumbs from your taxpayer-funded feast. We're not so dumb that we're going to pay to bribe ourselves while utilities laugh all the way to the bank.
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.
Well, gosh, none of these things actually provide a demonstrable benefit to affected landowners. Selling of land or easements under threat of eminent domain taking may only result in "just compensation." It's compensation, or payment, for something taken from the landowner. It's not a windfall or benefit. Also note that the author is trying to borrow bribery techniques from projects in which landowners may voluntarily participate and applying them to projects where landowner participation is mandated by eminent domain. In an eminent domain situation, there is no balance of power... the landowner must acquiesce or else their land is taken involuntarily. There is absolutely no comparison. In a voluntary situation, the benefits must be good enough to inspire participation. They must rise to a certain level to attract participation. In an involuntary situation there is no line at which participation is inspired by monetary bribes. The utility doesn't have to try that hard when it has eminent domain at its disposal.
Also, providing impact payments does absolutely NOTHING to remove the impacts. It's a payment in exchange for being impacted. Would the utilities spend more money trying to force participation than they could by creating projects that have no impacts? Certainly. How about not creating those impacts in the first place?
Transmission buried on existing rights of way does not create community or landowner impact. It's more expensive up front, but it produces a wealth of ratepayer savings over time. Such savings include not only the cost of battling opposition and the time saved in being unopposed, but also saves the costs of community bribes and outsized payments for obtaining land voluntarily. It also saves future vegetation maintenance costs (because an existing right of way is already being maintained), costs of land agents, legal costs for obtaining land through eminent domain, as well as the legal costs of contested permit proceedings. It saves costs of frequent repairs because underground lines fail less often since they are not subject to damage from weather, fire, or sabotage. Building underground will likely fully pay for itself if it prevents just one blackout.
Unopposed transmission can be built quickly, and spending more increases utility returns over the long term. A long slog to build opposed "cheap" overhead transmission on new rights of way would not end up being cheaper in the long run. When are these folks going to wake up?
Transmission opposition is not going away until transmission impacts go away. Shouldering the burden of new impacts is particularly maddening for landowners when the transmission project is driven by policy and politics, and not by need for the new transmission. Policy does not create physical need.
Also, providing impact payments does absolutely NOTHING to remove the impacts. It's a payment in exchange for being impacted. Would the utilities spend more money trying to force participation than they could by creating projects that have no impacts? Certainly. How about not creating those impacts in the first place?
Transmission buried on existing rights of way does not create community or landowner impact. It's more expensive up front, but it produces a wealth of ratepayer savings over time. Such savings include not only the cost of battling opposition and the time saved in being unopposed, but also saves the costs of community bribes and outsized payments for obtaining land voluntarily. It also saves future vegetation maintenance costs (because an existing right of way is already being maintained), costs of land agents, legal costs for obtaining land through eminent domain, as well as the legal costs of contested permit proceedings. It saves costs of frequent repairs because underground lines fail less often since they are not subject to damage from weather, fire, or sabotage. Building underground will likely fully pay for itself if it prevents just one blackout.
Unopposed transmission can be built quickly, and spending more increases utility returns over the long term. A long slog to build opposed "cheap" overhead transmission on new rights of way would not end up being cheaper in the long run. When are these folks going to wake up?
Transmission opposition is not going away until transmission impacts go away. Shouldering the burden of new impacts is particularly maddening for landowners when the transmission project is driven by policy and politics, and not by need for the new transmission. Policy does not create physical need.
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.
If you want landowners and communities rowing in your boat, you need to set sail in a new boat. Technology provides a way to get this done. Stop rowing the wrong way in an antique boat!
RSS Feed