Introduction

A substantial transmission buildout is now widely understood to be of critical importance for the nation’s energy future. However, this buildout faces many challenges, including a complex permitting process, funding shortfalls, opposition by many incumbent generation and transmission owners (who stand to lose financially from new transmission), and pushback from landowners and other local stakeholders. Government initiatives to address these challenges are making some headway, including increasing federal funding, streamlining permitting, reforming cost allocation and reinforcing the National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor program. Thought leadership from think tanks and nonprofits is also having an impact, for example, offering evidence-based recommendations for overcoming permitting barriers, disseminating information to improve the community-developer engagement process, promoting co-location of transmission lines in existing transportation rights-of-way, and advocating for a high-efficiency national macrogrid. 

To date, however, there has been little focus on stakeholders as potential drivers of the transmission buildout. Typically, stakeholders are viewed as skeptical, and, in many cases, opposed, to new high-capacity transmission lines. For example, stakeholder opposition has caused or contributed to the cancellation of a number of proposed high-capacity transmission lines.1 Recently, however, there has been more progress in permitting high-capacity transmission, due, at least in part, to arrangements made between developers and stakeholders. These developments point to a reimagined role for stakeholders — not merely as alleged barriers but as proactive participants and potential catalysts in the transmission expansion effort. We propose that under some circumstances, self-interested actions by stakeholders, such as negotiating for desirable co-located infrastructure, can be a key part of enhancing the high-capacity buildout. This paper illustrates actual stakeholder-developer arrangements, lays out scenarios in which states and Tribes might proactively seek out transmission, and proposes initiatives to facilitate future win-win arrangements.

How transmission developers have addressed stakeholder concerns

Developers have addressed stakeholder concerns in a number of ways, including burying lines, offering line co-ownership, providing special funds, siting in existing corridors, and agreeing to alternate routes. Table 1 provides information about some specific developer-stakeholder relationships. At a high level, the takeaway of Table 1 is that developers can be highly flexible – financially and/or on route design – in order to incent stakeholder acceptance. For example, in some cases where it is technically (e.g. long depth to bedrock, minimal flood risk) and economically (e.g. a large price difference between the transmission line terminal points) feasible, developers have been willing to bury high-capacity lines in order to avoid community objections, even though buried high-capacity lines may be two or more times costly than overhead lines. In another instance, a developer offered co-ownership of the line to a Tribe, in order to incent acceptance.

Table 1: Selected Transmission Developer Incentives/Concessions (hover to enlarge)

Transmission-Developer-IncentivesDownload

In this section, different ways in which developers have addressed stakeholder concerns are described, with examples provided. 

Undergrounding

In the view of many stakeholders, overhead transmission lines raise issues of safety, reliability and harm to the viewshed. For these reasons, buried transmission lines are typically viewed by stakeholders as much less objectionable. As attractive as buried transmission is to stakeholders, it is not a simple solution: It may be costly, for reasons such as rugged terrain, shallow depth to bedrock, or a large number of intersections with other infrastructure (e.g,. road crossings and pipelines). However, the viability of building buried transmission is not only a matter of construction cost – benefits also matter. Higher population density and certain types of risks (e.g. high wildfire risk, high flood risk) are examples where burial may potentially pay back in terms of lower maintenance risk and/or higher likelihood stakeholder acceptance. Below are some instances of recently sited buried/partially buried transmission. 

Co-ownership of a transmission line

  • The West of Devers Transmission Line is an upgrade of an existing 220 kV Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission line to a double circuit of 220 kV lines. The existing line used a right of way (ROW) that traversed the Tribal land of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians. The original ROW, for which SCE paid very little, had expired. SCE wanted to widen the ROW in order to increase the capacity for transmitting renewable power. In 2012, after five years of negotiations, the Morongo Band agreed to a new, wider ROW in exchange for an option to invest up to half the total construction cost for the West of Devers Project, which would allow the Band to earn revenues well into the future. If no agreement had been reached, SCE would have needed to route around the Reservation, traversing either a wilderness area or national park, at an estimated cost of $500 million. The upgraded line was put in service in 2021.

In-kind arrangements

  • Environmental 
    • The Susquehanna-Roseland Transmission Line Project, a PPL-PSEG upgrade of an existing Pennsylvania to New Jersey 230 kV transmission line to a 500 kV line, needed to traverse four miles of national park land. While the project would be contained within the existing line’s right of way, the new higher voltage necessitated taller towers. The National Park Service’s analysis of the project determined that the new towers would significantly impact the views and character of the traversed national park land. To address these impacts, PPL and PSEG established a $66M “Middle Delaware Mitigation Fund”. This Fund is being used for land acquisition, wetland improvement, enhancement of historic structures, and other improvements. The upgrade was completed in 2015.
    • The Champlain Hudson Power Express faced concerns from environmental groups about how running the transmission line underwater through the Hudson River and Lake Champlain would impact fish. In 2013, CHPE obtained an “Article VII Permit” (the order granting the Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need) establishing a $117M fund to provide assistance to projects that “improve and enhance the aquatic environments in Lake Champlain, the Hudson River, the Bronx, Harlem and East Rivers, and New York Harbor.”
    • The New England Clean Power Link will contribute $202 million to the Vermont State Clean Water Fund, $109 million to Vermont’s Clean Energy Development Fund, and $61 million to support habitat restoration and recreational improvements in Lake Champlain.
  • Community Benefits
    • Five communities signed memorandums of understanding with Champlain Hudson Power Express in which TDI pledged $31 million for capital improvement projects and the towns agreed not to oppose CHPE.
  • Capital Infrastructure
    • The Grain Belt Express, is an approximately 800 mile overhead 5000 MW HVDC line, from western Kansas to western Indiana, being developed by the merchant company Invenergy. (Invenergy bought the Grain Belt Express development assets from the original developer, Clean Line, in 2018.) In Missouri, Invenergy increased the amount of power deliverable to Missouri from 500 MW to 2500 MW to incent the Missouri Public Service Commission’s approval of Invenergy’s proposed Grain Belt Express line.

Site in Right of Ways/Existing Corridors 

  • Soo Green is sited entirely on private land within a railroad right of way.
  • Champlain Hudson Power Express’ terrestrial route will be entirely sited along existing highway and rail rights-of-ways.
  • Southline Transmission Line Project, being developed by merchant developers Grid United, is a proposed 280-mile bi-directional line connecting the El Paso and Tucson metropolitan area transmission systems. Southline is a combination of an upgrade of an existing 115 kV transmission line to a double-circuit 230 kV line and a new 345 kV double-circuit line. The upgrade will use the existing utility ROW (although in some places an additional 50 feet of ROW will be needed).
  • The terrestrial portion of the New England Clean Power Link is sited entirely along existing road and rail rights-of-way. 
  • Ten West is a 3200 MW 125-mile Arizona to California line developed by DCR Transmission, a merchant developer, is sited primarily within existing Bureau of Land Management (BLM) utility corridors. Ten West started construction in 2023. 

Provide the Option of/Agree to Alternate Routes

  • Grain Belt Express Clean Line, the original developer, initially contemplated three routes — a northern route, a central route, and a southern route. Based on stakeholder feedback, Clean Line settled on the northern route for Grain Belt Express, before selling the project to Invenergy in 2018.
  • Ten West’s Proposed Action route crossed the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge, paralleled an existing 500 kV line, and in some areas paralleled other corridors such as transmission and natural gas pipeline ROWs. This route was rejected by BLM in favor of an alternative emphasizing existing BLM utility corridors, while avoiding the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge, areas identified as important recreational resources, and areas identified as important cultural or residential development; and minimizing impacts to Tribal and agricultural land. 
  • Champlain Hudson – TDI made two significant route alterations: First, a crossing was planned for an ecologically sensitive area, critical for fish species, north of New York City called Haverstraw Bay. The route was altered and now includes a terrestrial portion in suburban Rockland County which avoids Haverstraw Bay. Second, due to opposition in Rockland County to the new route, TDI altered the route to avoid historic sites and other areas of concern.

Potential stakeholder actions

There are two basic reasons why stakeholders might support high-capacity transmission lines: benefits from line construction (e.g., construction jobs, co-location of desired infrastructure such as broadband) and/or benefits from line operation (e.g., lower prices, lower outage probability). Individual states may wish to give thought to both construction and operation benefits when considering support for a line.

The examples above should be useful to stakeholders dealing with developers who are already proposing a line. But the trend toward agreements suggests that a state may also wish to consider whether it is worth approaching developers to build lines through their territory seeking significant advantages from both the construction and operation. Here are four scenario examples:

  • Rural states with an agricultural base – If such a state has both (a) areas of no broadband or low-quality/expensive broadband that is preventing a significant uptake of precision agriculture2 and (b) concerns about the possibility of catastrophic electric outages, the state may wish to approach developers to request considering running a transmission line co-located with middle-mile broadband through farmland needing better coverage.  
  • States seeking to expand renewable energy and green amenities – If such a state both (a) desires lower cost, “green” energy and (b) has an abandoned rail line running through scenic areas, the state may be a candidate for a co-located rail trail, and if the technical and economic circumstances are right, perhaps even some or all of the co-located transmission could be buried.
  • States seeking business development – Many electricity-intensive companies are seeking to locate in places with low-cost renewable energy.3 For example, in a filing to the Illinois Commerce Commission, SOO Green noted that:

SOO Green’s ability to deliver low-cost, reliable renewable energy on a large scale is attractive to large commercial and industrial energy users, such as data centers, electric vehicle manufacturers, and other energy-intensive economic development .. private real estate developers are already marketing sites adjacent to SOO Green’s Yorkville, Illinois converter station as attractive locations for data center development…

  • States with large renewable resources seeking both grid interconnection and increased reliability – Some states may have very high-quality wind and/or solar resources with many utility-scale renewable energy plants stuck in “interconnection queues” and at the same time have concerns about extreme weather events causing significant power outages. In such states, whether emissions reduction is a priority or not, support for a new high-capacity transmission line may bring significant net benefits. 

Potential initiatives to assist stakeholders and developers to identify mutually acceptable routes

This section will explore three types of initiatives that could facilitate such “win-win” deals: Mapping tools to identify potential “win-win” routes, a scenario calculator that can estimate the benefits to a specific state assuming a specific line is built; and grants to states to expand their knowledge about opportunities for “win-win” deals.

Mapping tools – While there have been mapping tools created by environmental organizations to identify environmentally sensitive areas to potentially be avoided for inclusion on transmission routes,4 there do not appear to be tools to help stakeholders identify routes where other infrastructure could be co-located with transmission. Ideally, a mapping tool to identify candidate co-located routes would have a number of layers. Here is a suggested list:

  • Existing and planned transmission and generation.
  • Candidate rail right of ways (“ROW’s”) map – Abandoned and de facto abandoned rail ROW’s may be attractive candidates for co-location with transmission lines, especially if the rail corridor could become a compelling rail trail or a prairie strip.
  • Broadband needs – Broadband is absent, low-quality, and/or expensive in many rural parts of the country where it could dramatically reduce agricultural costs while reducing environmental impacts in addition to improving educational, healthcare and career opportunities. Many of these areas are also where high-capacity transmission is needed. “Middle-mile broadband”, a necessary conduit for “last mile broadband” (broadband to the final user), can be economically co-located with high-capacity transmission. In some circumstances, it may be a “win-win” to let broadband needs drive the routing of high-capacity transmission corridors. While there are existing broadband maps that attempt to identify underserved areas, the most promising map is under development by a Federal Communications Commission working group.
  • Environmental/cultural/historical sensitivity maps – A number of maps exist that identify sensitive areas.5 These could be useful to include in a “co-location” tool to prevent siting in vulnerable areas.
  • Areas conducive to undergrounding – Undergrounding high-capacity transmission is very attractive to stakeholders, but also quite costly. Factors affecting the viability of undergrounding include terrain, intersections with other infrastructure (e.g., road crossings and pipelines), population density, and certain types of risks (e.g., high wildfire risk, high flood risk).6 

Scenario analysis tools – High-capacity transmission generally improves reliability and resiliency, and reduces emissions and costs. However, transmission lines do impact views and line construction is disruptive. States may ask whether the benefits received are worth the costs, especially if emissions reduction is not a local priority. We are not aware of tools that would estimate the benefits to a particular state of a particular line going into service. Such tools might encourage more interest and enable fruitful negotiations.

Stakeholder education grants to organizations representing states – While there have been some educational efforts by organizations of states on transmission siting and permitting generally,7 we are not aware of efforts to educate states to consider whether it may be in their interest to actively recruit transmission lines for the purpose of gaining co-located infrastructure. Grants could be used to design educational programs such as reports, websites, and webinars; fund conferences that would facilitate stakeholder, developer, and regulatory agency interactions; and fund consultants to advise stakeholders on potential attractive co-location options.

Conclusion

This paper has focused on a topic that heretofore has received relatively little attention: Casting high-capacity transmission lines as potential opportunities for stakeholders to engage in “win-win” dealmaking. In particular, this paper provides stakeholders with information on actual deals made in the recent past, scenarios under which different types of states may wish to engage in dealmaking, and potential initiatives to facilitate future win-win arrangements.

Footnotes

  1. For example, the Rock Island Clean Line, the Potomac Appalachian Transmission Highline, the Plains & Eastern Clean Line, and the Northern Pass Transmission Line. ↩︎
  2. Note that John Deere recently made a deal with SpaceX for satellite communications for all its precision agriculture equipment. While this is a significant step forward, satellite communications are not as desirable to users as fiber broadband ↩︎
  3. Another example: David Ferris, “Why EV battery makers are so hungry for clean energy”, E&E News, Aug. 1, 2023. ↩︎
  4. https://www.nature.org/en-us/what-we-do/our-priorities/tackle-climate-change/climate-change-stories/site-wind-right/; https://bogi.evs.anl.gov/section368/portal/ ↩︎
  5. For example, Argonne National Lab’s (ANL) Geospatial Energy Mapper, ANL’s Section 368 Energy Corridor Mapping Tool, and The Nature Conservancy’s “Site Renewables Right” online map. ↩︎
  6. Mapping risks that are low-probability events in any given area may entail mathematical models. See, e.g., Gemma Cremen et al., “Modelling and quantifying tomorrow’s risks from natural hazards” Science of the Total Environment, 817 (April 2022). ↩︎
  7. National Governors Association, “Transmission Siting And Permitting: How Governor Leadership Can Advance Projects,” Feb. 8, 2023.; Alex McWard, “Electric Transmission Planning: A Primer for State Legislatures,” (National Conference of State Legislatures, December 2023). ↩︎