The Fight

Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Q&A

How to Find Consensus to Build More Transmission

A conversation with Cici Vu and Morgan Putnam of DNV Energy Systems

Cici Vu and Morgan Putnam
Heatmap Illustration

Today we’re speaking with Cici Vu and Morgan Putnam from DNV Energy Systems, who helped craft a must-read report out this week on community relations in transmission with Americans for Clean Energy Grid (ACEG). Their report compiles findings of a roundtable with environmentalists, Indigenous rights activists, developers, and individual land owners, and finds transmission can fare better than solar and wind in this current political climate – and that community benefit agreements can be helpful for getting projects across the finish line. But some issues divided the roundtable, including how to structure labor benefits to ensure lots of people get job opportunities from transmission.

The following is a lightly edited and abridged version of our conversation:

Jael: Can you walk me through what you and ACEG found as a part of your research?

Morgan: ACEG identify – like you have – that there is a realness to the community opposition that can arise with these projects. While there are clearly cases of money being spent to augment that, it doesn’t mean the opposition isn’t present. ACEG’s interest was to help make meaningful progress on this issue and figure out how we can do better to accelerate the rate at which we develop transmission. As the report calls out early on, development really proceeds at the pace of trust within a community.

Cici: There are a lot of reports out there on best practices. There are 1,500-page reports on desktop research and lots of interviews and so forth. But I think ACEG hit the nail on the head by bringing in the voices at the same table. With my expertise in mediation, we were able to do that. The recruiting of all the voices helped make the report more inclusive, and more comprehensive and more holistic in viewpoints and perspectives.

The other thing that was really important was bridging the technical aspects of these large infrastructure projects that are so complex that communities don’t understand [them.] Being able to bring the large complexities of these projects – transmission, in this case – and community needs and interest, and being able to translate and interpret and be able to talk to one another, is a core piece of this report.

The tool that gets us there is these community benefits agreements, project work agreements. And they only work well and are effective if they are co-developed with the voices, the developers, the landowners, the host communities alike.

Jael: Did you feel there was a need for a consensus on best practices for community engagement?

Cici: It’s a differentiator. It’s one of the reasons we’re doing this.

We all recognize the needs of load growth demand. But to most effectively advance some of these best practices and make them actionable, these trusted voices have to discuss and agree. Or not agree – because we have a non-consensus segment as well where there were issues that did not meet consensus. When that happened, we made a recommendation to continue the discussion toward consensus.

Jael: What issues were most difficult to find consensus on and why?

Cici: The big piece of tension was how would these projects treat workforce development [and] bring in a local workforce while balancing the needs of labor,because labor has the skills. For instance, one of the issues was that local workforces need to be up-skilled in a way that is much more structured and systematic because there are safety issues in climbing a pole and doing electrification and things like that.

Jael: At a high level, are we seeing a similar broad backlash to transmission like what we’re seeing in specific communities with solar and wind?

Morgan: No, we’re not. It could happen. But those types of things you’re referencing are not yet occurring in transmission. I think it is less likely but not impossible, because–

Jael: What about Grain Belt Express or what’s happened around Piedmont? Do those situations give you any pause?

Morgan: So Grain Belt I think a little bit but it’s in a different category in my mind. Grain Belt is a specific project and, well, just look at the MISO region where that project sits. MISO’s moving forward with a lot of transmission. That project is but one project and it is being developed by an independent transmission developer that has… I think they face additional hurdles at times by virtue of their independence.

Having said that, I think the earlier statement still applies to all transmission. It’s about trust. It’s something where I think if you have the trust and support of the communities, you’re going to be able to move the projects forward.

Cici: We’ve seen a lot of momentum in favor of longer term regional planning of transmission. We haven’t seen as much attention on the triggering words we see with solar, or wind, and the incoming administration for transmission. And we also have a lot of the load demand, which is data centers.

We’re all crossing our fingers with the incoming administration. It’s so unpredictable.

This article is exclusively
for Heatmap Plus subscribers.

Go deeper inside the politics, projects, and personalities
shaping the energy transition.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Spotlight

The Blast Radius of Interior’s Anti-Renewables Order Could Be Huge

Solar and wind projects will take the most heat, but the document leaves open the possibility for damage to spread far and wide.

Wetlands, Donald Trump, and solar panels.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

It’s still too soon to know just how damaging the Interior Department’s political review process for renewables permits will be. But my reporting shows there’s no scenario where the blast radius doesn’t hit dozens of projects at least — and it could take down countless more.

Last week, Interior released a memo that I was first to report would stymie permits for renewable energy projects on and off of federal lands by grinding to a halt everything from all rights-of-way decisions to wildlife permits and tribal consultations. At minimum, those actions will need to be vetted on a project-by-project basis by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and the office of the Interior deputy secretary — a new, still largely undefined process that could tie up final agency actions in red tape and delay.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

Idaho’s Lava Ridge Wind Farm Faces a New Fight in Congress

We’re looking at battles brewing in New York and Ohio, plus there’s a bit of good news in Virginia.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. Idaho — The LS Power Lava Ridge wind farm is now facing a fresh assault, this time from Congress — and the Trump team now seems to want a nuclear plant there instead.

  • House Republicans this week advanced an Interior Department appropriations bill that would indefinitely halt federal funding for any permits related to the proposed wind facility “unless and until” the president reviews all of its permits issued under the Biden administration. Biden had completed permitting right before Trump took office.
  • Trump had already ordered a stop to construction on the project as part of a Day 1 flurry of executive orders. But if this policy rider becomes law, it could effectively handcuff any future president after Trump from allowing Lava Ridge to move forward.
  • While Democrats tend to view riders like these unfavorably and attempt to get rid of them, government funding packages require 60 votes in the Senate to break a filibuster, which often means partisan policies from funding bills passed by previous Congresses are challenging to get rid of and can stick around for long stretches of time.
  • By that same logic, one would assume that the need to hit that 60 number now requires Democrats, so wouldn’t they need them and want to ditch this rider? Except one thing: it is exceedingly likely given past congressional fights that the party’s right flank in the House requests fresh concessions. Policy riders like these become chits in that negotiation – and I do expect this one to be an easy sop for this flank given the executive order is already in place.
  • There’s also the whole matter of whether LS Power will try to proceed with this project under a future president amidst increasing pressure on the company. That’s likely why Sawtooth Energy, an energy developer interested in building new small modular nuclear reactors, is now eyeing the project site.

2. Suffolk County, New York — A massive fish market co-op in the Bronx is now joining the lawsuit to stop Equinor’s offshore Empire Wind project, providing anti-wind activists a powerful new ally in the public square.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Q&A

How to Fight Back Against Anti-Renewable Activists

Getting local with Matthew Eisenson of Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.

The Fight Q&A subject.
Heatmap Illustration

This week’s conversation is with Matthew Eisenson at Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. Eisenson is a legal expert and pioneer in the field of renewable energy community engagement whose work on litigating in support of solar and wind actually contributed to my interest in diving headlong into this subject after we both were panelists at the Society of Environmental Journalists’ annual conference last year. His team at the Sabin Center recently released a report outlining updates to their national project tracker, which looks at various facility-level conflicts at the local level.

On the eve of that report’s release earlier this month, Eisenson talked to me about what he believes are the best practices that could get more renewable projects over the finish line in municipal permitting fights. Oh — and we talked about Ohio.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow