@Sammy_Roth hits it out of the park with this article on transmission. As a conservationist that supports strategic transmission investments, I have thoughts! https://twitter.com/latimes/status/1278512474380263424

I have worked on transmission (or TX to save space), in some way or another for 17 years. From reducing avian collisions, to environmental strategies for operations & maintenance, to long-range planning for decarbonization.

When I think about new investments in TX, I think it’s important to follow a few principles: (1) no wires solutions - before choosing to build a new TX line are there other no-wire investments that can be made to solve the same challenge or yield similar value to the system?

(2) maximize existing TX lines - can upgrades be made to existing lines to increase their capacity first?

(3) maximize existing corridors - if safety allows, can another TX line be built adjacent to existing TX (some corridors will be too narrow, but for some this could be a strategy to maximize space).

(4) prioritize new TX investments to renewable energy zones - after the steps above have been exhausted, then its time to prioritize where to make these strategic TX investments to yield best outcomes (cost, maximizing potential, and minimizing conversion of important habitats).

(4 cont’d): zones or development areas for wind and solar are being identified across the US. Linking transmission investments to places where investments have been made into identifying areas specifically for scaling up renewable energy development is important.

(4 cont’d): this is also essential to a least impact development approach: identify areas where new clean energy can be built with less impact to natural and agricultural lands and plan transmission upgrades to deliver that electricity.

(5) And given what we have experienced with wildfires in CA, I think planning processes need to assume that ongoing O&M costs of TX will be much higher - at least in some areas - to mitigate risk. Accounting for increased costs could help reveal trade offs in routing decisions...

...is it feasible (and better) to have a longer route to avoid high fire threat areas from the start? Making those costs visible will be helpful in decision-making.

How can policy and planning processes change to accomplish this? A few thoughts:

(1) land use planning for clean energy should be integrated with transmission planning - connect the dots between what are often separate regulatory agencies and processes.

(2) transmission planning has to look much farther into the future - in CA we’re on roughly a 10 year planning horizon. It takes that long for a single line to be built. If we really want to decarbonize & electrify - we seriously need to think about 2045 *now* to make it happen.

(3) multi-state and regional transmission planning needs to improve, and while we are at it, let’s add criteria for natural and agricultural lands. We find that including these considerations early in planning can reduce downstream conflicts & delays.

The WECC Environmental Data Task Force has done some great work over the years related to high-level transmission planning, mitigation cost considerations when selecting route, and more.

That said: There are places that are inappropriate to site/route new TX - example: protected wildlife areas - but there are many options available to solve grid challenges and maximize system benefits - from no wires alternatives to siting decisions.

To sum it all up: I am a conservationist that supports strategic transmission investments as a necessary and ‘gating step’ in decarbonizing our economy. We need to have these nuanced planning discussions *now* to avoid ‘decadal delays’ in accomplishing clean energy buildout.