Germany is requiring new HVDC transmission lines to be buried, so why aren't we?

The German Federal Cabinet just required new HVDC transmission lines to be placed underground. Why? Apparently Germans object en masse to 150' tall, 200' wide transmission lines being constructed within a stone's throw from residences and marring beautiful countryside, too. Imagine that, right? According to the German Energy Blog:

On 7 October the Federal Cabinet (Bundeskabinett) approved changes of draft bill amending various laws concerning power line extension. The draft bill inter alia gives priority to underground cables instead of overhead lines in case of new high-voltage, direct current transmission lines (HVDC). 

Yesterday’s decision paves the way for a faster and supposedly more accepted grid expansion. This shall lead to more acceptance, as in many places residents raised major concerns against overhead lines, Federal Minister of Economics, Sigmar Gabriel said.

1. Priority of Underground Cabling for New HVDC Projects

The draft bill changes the provisions in the  Act on the Federal Requirement Plan (Bundesbedarfsplangesetz – BBPlG). Draft Sec. 3 para 1 BBPlG gives priority to underground cables in case of HVDC projects. Close to residential areas overhead lines shall be in general not admissible (Draft Sec. 3 para 4 BBPlG).

These changes concern primarily the major north-south routes as SuedLink (South Link) or South East HVDC. Both lines – originally planned as overhead lines – have faced substantial protest of the public, especially in the Federal State of Bavaria. With the amendments pubic acceptance shall improve.

2.  Extension of Pilot Projects for Three-Phase Electric Power Lines 

In opposition to HVDC lines the DC cable projects retain their character as pilot projects. The reason for this difference is that the risks (technical risks and costs risks) of underground cable are lower for DC transmission. Furthermore less experience exists.

Nevertheless the pilot projects shall be extended. The draft bill lists four projects in the BBPlG where an installation of underground cables is admissible if certain criteria are fulfilled (e.g. short distance to residential buildings: less than 400m in case of a zoning plan, less than 200m in outside areas). The draft BBPlG stipulates that an installation of underground cables is also possible if the criteria for an installation are only fulfilled for a section of the entire power line. 

3. Next Steps

The bill will now undergo the parliamentary process, including readings in the Bundestag. The aim is to conclude the discussions in  autumn, so that the law can enter into force quickly and the necessary planning of the transmission lines can be started or continued swiftly.

I had to use Google Translate to translate the document into English from German, but, according to the legislation directly: 

With the changes in the federal law requirements plan is for the planning and Construction of HVDC lines a priority of underground cabling in the Bundesfachpla- tion introduced. The broad acceptance of the citizens is a key element for the success of the energy turnaround. In particular, described the construction of HVDC lines There are special challenges. The increased use of underground cables can optionally contribute to the acceptance of these urgently needed Strengthening projects. From a technical point of view, between the AC and the DC area to distinguish. In the power transmission over long distances by means HVDC underground cabling has fewer risks in terms of technical implementation and the costs as a relatively underground cabling of rotation power lines over long distances. In addition, more experience is available with DC current underground cables over longer distances than with three-phase underground cables before.

and: 

In DC area, the existing principle that the route planning Overhead lines based vice versa. In HVDC lines underground cabling is the rule. In the vicinity of residential areas of the overhead line is even always un-admissible. This is the highest level of acceptance for this new Created DC lines. 

and: 

§ 3 BBPlG - new - is the central norm, the prioritization of underground cabling will be implemented for the new HVDC lines.

So, as a country, what are we going to do? Germany is already going through this. The people have spoken there, and they will continue to speak here: the status quo is unacceptable. The people will not be mowed over by a massive overhead HVDC transmission line in Germany that is necessary, and they most definitely will NOT be mowed over by a private LLC in the United States for a massive overhead HVDC transmission line that is absolutely NOT necessary.

Listen, I am a progressive. I don't get any money from the Koch brothers, and I sure don't think the Keystone Pipeline would be a fantastic addition to our country, but at least the states have the option of choosing whether or not to give eminent domain to TransCanada. I am in favor of renewable energy expansion, but it's going to have to be done properly. The technology exists to put things like this underground, despite what Clean Line tells you. One of the proposed transmission lines in Germany that caused this is a 500 mile, 500kV, 4,000mW HVDC line, the SuedLink. Sound familiar? Clean Line has only one reason they don't want to put it underground: return on investment for the executives and their billionaire investors.

But, you know what? I don't care about Clean Line's return on investment. What I care about is being treated with respect, my friends and neighbors being treated with respect, and I want to see our future infrastructure be built properly. There are going to be a lot of projects that come along. Some of them will be good ones, and some of them will be bad ones. Clean Line's projects, in my opinion, are bad ones, and they are being developed by, quite frankly, a few arrogant and potentially corrupt people. The people aren't going to accept that.

To any progressive lawmakers who may be reading this, or any others for that matter: If you want to get any of this kind of stuff done, you're going to have to start listening to the people. Bypassing state authority isn't going to do it, Senator Heinrich. The status quo is over. Social media will not allow the Clean Line model to work. It just won't. Take a lesson from the Germans who are a few years ahead of us.

Why are we all still here? I don't have an answer for you.

Mea Culpa

We’re behind on our blogging again, but things have been moving so quickly it’s hard to keep up. So while I want to do a post on Michael Skelly’s recent interview in the Dover Times, which was incredibly juicy and chock full of sorta truths (40k “letters” to landowners during the scoping period? Really?... May want to reread that scoping summary report, my friend. No discussion of eminent domain during the Arkansas  Public Service Commission process? So this testimony from the Senior Assistant to the Attorney General somehow doesn’t count? Uncontested? Sure, but only because Arkansas Electric Consumers, Inc wasn't permitted to. They certainly had some interesting things to say. But no, this blog post is about something else entirely…

Oops! Not that! Though that’s important… and interesting since Clean Line had a few industry reps there to testify on their behalf, but no landowners. Why? Because all the landowners were too busy writing their names down to testify against Clean Line and for the committee’s letter to the Department of Energy. Big kudos to all the legislators at that meeting who asked their questions with the caveat: “I don’t want you to pull my leg!”

I’m sorry if I sound a little extra snarky and bitter tonight. It might because one of Clean Line’s reps told me that people who didn’t know about the scoping period should have read the newspaper (I didn’t realize a paper subscription was a constitutional requirement for landownership). It might be because after all this time, and all this opposition, they still don’t realize that landowners aren’t just your average “stakeholders” and that money doesn’t mean that much when it doesn’t come with respect. It might be because Jimmy Glotfelty sought to reassure our legislators that his extensive history with the Department of Energy had nothing to do with the project by testily proclaiming that anyone could submit a proposal under Section 1222... Except that no one else has.

Were we surprised that Mario continued to insist landowners will only experience a ten percent reduction in property value? (Especially when a man sitting in the audience was prepared to testify he’d been told by his mortgage broker that he can build the house he’s been saving for all these years, but if the line comes through, he will instantly be underwater?) Nah. That we could power our own light bulb with static electricity by holding it while we walked across a dry carpet? Uh-uh. That Jimmy pulled his relationship with GW out of his pocket the second he lurched out of the gate for us country folk? Nope.

The big surprise was in the modification of the Sierra Club’s endorsement of the project. Oh, they’re still endorsing it, for sure… but there was an extra sentence in Glen Hooks' testimony that was kind of similar to the one from Sierra Club OK’s official statement at the Muskogee DOE meeting last week:

“Sierra Club has heard concerns raised by several communities about how construction of this transmission line will affect their enjoyment of the natural environment in their region or disrupt their livelihoods,” Pearson said. “We believe the Clean Line Partners should take these concerns seriously and work with landowners and others to identify an acceptable route."

That bit right there about the landowners... we haven't heard that from them before. 

And this is where I have to apologize (I seem to be doing that a lot lately). Some months ago I wrote a blog post in which I made it pretty clear how angry I was that NGO’s had been given earlier and greater opportunity to have siting issues addressed than landowners.  At the time I assumed they did so knowingly… After talking to several members of these NGO’s over the past few weeks, and reading some of their public statements, I no longer believe that to be true. Rather, I think they were unaware of the lack of communication between Clean Line and landowners. 

In fact, after talking to one of Clean Line's industrial supporters on Monday before he was whisked away by a Clean Line rep, I feel like the same is likely true of the "jobs" people. They've been told we're just NIMBYs... I think they're learning that's not the case.  

I can’t explain all of my reasoning behind these hunches without breaking confidences, but I can say that it seems the NGO experiences have been vastly different from ours. Cocooned in Clean Line charm… 

I can’t say that others in the opposition feel the same, there are a lot of very deep wounds associated with this and a lot of people who still disagree with the endorsements for other reasons. But when we see statements like this one from an Audubon email (donated by a STO member):

“While the project could nearly double the amount of clean energy used in Arkansas, it would also completely bisect the state. That creates concerns about collision hazards to birds, habitat fragmentation, and private property rights along the 300-mile route. We also have concerns about how the proposed route will cross the Cache-Lower White River Important Bird Area. This IBA harbors significant populations of birds that are known to be susceptible to transmission line hazards.

Audubon Arkansas remains neutral on the issue right now, despite being urged by both sides to support their views. As conservation leaders in the state, we take this role seriously. Our team is thoroughly reviewing the Environmental Impact Statement and will draft a formal position to send to the Department of Energy. As we evaluate the science and specific mitigation and restoration plans – we want to ensure that you are kept aware of the plans and are empowered to participate in the process.”

And this one from SC Tennessee's Scott Banbury (posted on the SC Central Arkansas Group's Facebook page): 

"As the Conservation Program Coordinator (sole employee) of the Tennessee Chapter of the Sierra Club, I will be speaking at the Draft EIS hearing in Millington, TN. Here in TN we have taken the position of supporting the concept of wind power delivered from wind rich areas in the Midwest as a replacement for power generated at fossil and nuclear plants operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority. I will also speak to the need to avoid, minimize and mitigate the impacts that the siting of the power line might bring. Further, I will speak to the agreement that Clean Line made in their Sec 1222 application that they only seek the power of eminent domain if absolutely necessary. I will not state unconditional support for the project, nor will I reject the very valid objections that opponents of the project have raised. Rather I will do everything I can to ensure that their concerns are addressed and that all pertinent questions are answered in the final EIS."

That these environmental and conservation groups would recognize the importance of private property rights and concerns is impressive. That they can look beyond those glossy booklets… As a friend who attended our Hendrix College panel with Sierra Club said, “The Sierra Club’s position has changed significantly since last November.” Is it a withdrawal of the endorsement? No, but it counts for a lot. Especially because, whether this line comes through or it doesn’t, those of us who are divided on this issue now will want to come together again. On other projects and in other ways. This is our Arkansas.

Mea culpa.