The United States, the second highest emitting country in the world, has seemingly turned a corner in the fight against climate change. The Biden-Harris administration has put forward the most ambitious environmental agenda in the nation’s history with a heavy emphasis on decarbonizing the electric grid. They have set clear goals, including a net-zero grid by 2035. They have justified their actions, with the 2021 Department of Defense Climate Risk Analysis Report confirming the irrevocable link between U.S. national security and climate change. And they have put money behind it, with $65 billion dollars in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law going to clean energy and grid-related investments. 

But something at the core of the U.S. identity may stymie these efforts: federalism.

Transmission siting and climate change

Zooming out first to better understand why federalism may be an impediment to this large national agenda, it is important to stress the role of transmission in achieving these goals. The electric power sector is currently the second largest emitting sector in the U.S., with 1,447 million metric tons of CO₂ emitted in 2020, representing 32% of U.S. emissions. And without a clean grid, all the U.S. efforts to electrify transportation, the largest emitting sector, will be for nothing.

While renewables have grown 15% annually in recent years and become increasingly competitive with fossil fuels, it is unlikely they will meet their full potential without new transmission capacity. More specifically, new long-distance high-voltage transmission lines are needed.

Why are transmission lines so important? The most common criticisms levied against renewables, like wind or solar, are their intermittency and their geographic constraints. These lines are a cost-effective source of grid flexibility, connecting areas with high renewable energy potential to high energy consuming areas. They also solve the “time diversity” problem of renewables, thus balancing these intermittent loads.

However, to reap these benefits, transmission lines need to criss-cross the country to increase capacity by 60%, which brings us back to federalism.

The lack of power sharing in the power sector

While the Biden-Harris administration has set grid decarbonization targets, justified and funded them, they cannot meet these targets with their authority alone. The Federal Power Act (FPA) of 1935 generally gives the state governments control of transmission line siting over the federal government.

Of course, the nature of electricity and transmission has changed drastically since 1935, when power plants fueled by coal, nuclear energy or natural gas were constructed near population centers.  The present context of electric systems, as outlined by a DOE commissioned report, includes:

1. States now depend on each other for the import and export of power
2. The distance between plants and the population they serve is much larger
3. Multi-state and multi-national companies are the norm
4. Most of the power industry is controlled and monitored regionally

This interconnection and interdependence prompts a different context for siting today, especially when considering the multi-state transmission build outs needed to bring renewables online.

The federal government has tried to gain more authority in this area in the past. The Energy Policy Act (EPAct) amended siting jurisdiction and increased the authority of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which is an independent agency within the Department of Energy (DOE), to make it a backstop authority in national interest cases.

Unfortunately, legal disputes and local challenges prevent the federal government from leveraging this backstop authority, leaving transmission siting, even when it is regional, to the state governments. As a result, transmission lines continue to take 10 years, from siting to construction, in adhering to the complicated cross-state permits and other siting requirements.

The existing literature underscores that there are shortcomings to the current transmission siting system, including its uncertainty, high costs and length of time. Some argue that the solution is better coordination amongst states and regions, while others believe federal pre-emption is necessary. Regardless, reform is needed urgently as transmission capacity is inexorably linked to decarbonization, something that almost all studies acknowledge. 

Comparing successes and failures to understand if and what reform is needed

To dig deeper into this trend for jurisdictional reform, we need to examine two similar transmission line projects with varying results. This case-study comparison will elucidate what specific reforms to siting authority are necessary.

The Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project (MMTP), also called the Great Northern Transmission Line (GNTL) on the U.S. side of the border, provides clean Canadian hydropower through a cross-border transmission line to a U.S. state. Another project, the proposed New England Clean Energy Connect (NECEC) would also provide clean Canadian hydropower to another U.S. state.

Key components of the two projects, the Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project (MMTP) and the New England Clean Energy Connect (NECEC) are laid out in the chart below.

Chart 1: NECEC vs. MMTP

The similarities of these two projects substantially outweigh the few differences, yet their fates are notably different.

After seven years of planning, two years of state and federal reviews, one year of permitting and two years of construction, the MMTP line was completed in June 2020. Meanwhile, construction of NECEC halted in November of 2021 following a referendum to curtail the project. *This prompted the Maine Department of Environmental Protection to suspend one of the state permits originally granted for the project.

What ultimately dictated these varying outcomes and could siting authority reform support a positive outcome change?

MMTP’s success: planning and collaboration

The seven years of siting planning (including five years of pre-planning before even filing for a permit) may seem excessive, but DOE and Minnesota Power claim that this was the key to the project’s success.

Minnesota Power spent these years hosting 70 public meets, through which they narrowed the location of possible siting areas from “a quarter of Minnesota” to the 132 miles selected.

Minnesota Power also reached out two DOE and other agencies in the Obama-Biden administration about two years before filing for any permit. From this federal outreach, Minnesota Power was able to have multiagency monthly meetings, through which DOE and the Minnesota Department of Commerce agreed to “prepare a joint environmental impact statement” to expedite the process. The Obama White House touted the project multiple times as the “poster child” for transmission siting and tried to duplicate this process.  

While this project was not included in the CapX2020 initiative, it would be remiss to not note the collaborative engagement (outlined in the report) that existed in the region prior to this project’s genesis.

CapX2020 coalesced 11 transmission owning utilities across four mid-west states around the same goals: to increase transmission infrastructure and sustain reliability, while encouraging the development of renewable energy. CapX2020 was involved in reforming the transmission siting process in Minnesota and started the process of working with landowners and other effected stakeholders to narrow the transmission siting area. Minnesota Power executives were actively involved in CapX2020 and MMTP.

It is logical to draw the conclusion that this overlapping engagement and the collaborative foundation laid by Capx2020 in the region supported MMTP’s success.  

NECEC’s downfall: parochialism and protectionism

Nearly 60% of Mainers turned out and voted to prohibit the construction of “high-impact” electric transmission lines, including the NECEC, and increase the authority of the state’s legislators in the transmission permitting process.

This occurred despite bipartisan support for the NECEC from state officials, including both the current and prior Maine and Massachusetts’ governors. The Secretary of Energy, Jennifer Granholm, also endorsed the project, asking Mainers to support the NECEC in the referendum via Twitter. 

But how did this referendum even come about?

In order to get the question added to the referendum, two fossil fuel companies in Texas, Calpine and Vistra, as well as the electric and gas utility based in Florida, NextEra, created a Political Action Committee (PAC) called ‘Mainers for Local Power’ to lobby for the referendum question. The PAC spent an additional $25.5 million on influence advertisements against NECEC and Clean Maine Power (CMP), prior to the voting. CMP, an in-state integrated energy utility service provider, is partnered on the project to oversee transmission line construction.

CMP and Hydro-Québec retaliated and launched their own PAC, ‘Clean Energy Matters’, and poured $64 million into this campaign. 

While competitive actions certainly influenced the referendum process, an important consideration here is the dissatisfaction with CMP that predates the referendum. CMP was rated worst in customer satisfaction among the U.S. electric utilities in a study released by J.D. Power and many have linked this rating to the project’s downfall. 

The actions by competing industry exemplify how protectionism at the state and local level for transmission siting can stymie renewable energy growth. The companies that provided energy, both renewable and non-renewable, for New England were fearful of their market share loses from the new line, prompting defensive actions. By leveraging the local unpopularity of CMP, they were successful in their efforts.  Parochialism triumphed over the regional and national benefits of emission reduction, as well as local benefits of reliability and low-cost electricity supply.

It is important to note the this wasn’t the first time the NECEC transmission project failed. Initially, the project was going to cut through New Hampshire to deliver clean hydropower to Massachusetts. But, after receiving all the necessary permits for siting, the New Hampshire’s Site Evaluation Committee (SEC) voted unanimously 7-0 to block the project, called the Northern Pass Transmission Line (NPT), due to public backlash.

Jurisdictional reform is needed to hit decarbonization goals

These two cases emphasize the inefficiency of the current authority regime in laying new and needed transmission lines. The MMTP success can be largely contributed to the strong foundation of regional collaboration and the clear balance of cost and benefits for citizens in Minnesota and Manitoba, as well as North Dakota. However, even with this success, it took thirteen years to bring the MMTP project online.

After over six years and two failed attempts, Massachusetts is still unable to connect to Québec hydropower. The mismatch of tangible costs and benefits in New England created a ripe environment for protectionist and parochial influence in both the cases, sinking both the New Hampshire and Massachusetts project attempts. The NECEC and NTP are examples of the future high-voltage long distance transmission lines needed to criss-cross the country to connect renewable energies to the grid.

These failures should be considered closely as the Biden-Harris administration contemplates transmission build out with similar variances in costs and benefits between states. The emission reduction numbers needed to hit a carbon-free grid by 2035 are unforgiving and no project with this level of renewable capacity can be left on the table.

Such issues with the jurisdictional layout together favor the fossil fuel industry’s continued dominance in electricity and thus undermine grid decarbonization efforts. Given the successful regional collaboration efforts used in MMTP, a complete overhaul of jurisdiction authority may not be necessary. However, the case of NECEC shows the limitations of this collaboration when multiple states are involved in the siting.

The overall findings thereby point to not only mandatory state-federal collaboration on transmission siting to overcome inefficiencies, but also a strengthened federal role in interstate transmission siting to overcome the current system’s ineffectiveness.

In this redefined federal role, the impact of climate change on public interest should be clearly defined to prioritize grid decarbonization, given its dispersed benefits.

Looking forward

Clearly the federal government foresaw these challenges, as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law includes more opportunities for DOE to designate national interest transmission corridors and strengthening of FERC’s backstop authority. Will this be enough to save NECEC?

Secretary Granholm says DOE is “going to sharpen our pencils and see how we can continue to help push” NECEC forward.

***

Abigail Hunter is Master of Arts in Sustainable Energy candidate at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. She is also the Attachée for Governmental Affairs at the Québec Government Office in Washington.