High Level

Transmission development is facing intensifying opposition from landowners, local governments, and even state utility commissions. Whether rooted in aesthetics, equity, due process, or outright skepticism of renewable mandates, challenges to major projects surfaced across the country this week. From West Virginia and Michigan to Texas and Wisconsin, project developers and regulators encountered lawsuits, legislative calls for reform, and mounting demands for greater transparency and local benefit. While utilities defend the grid upgrades as essential for reliability and decarbonization, the opposition is becoming too loud—and too diverse—to ignore.


Full View

West Virginia officials and counties unify against MARL transmission line, citing costs, land use, and lack of benefits
What happened: A bipartisan coalition of republican West Virginia lawmakers and county commissions have issued formal opposition to NextEra Energy’s proposed MidAtlantic Resiliency Link (MARL), a 105-mile, 500-kV transmission line slated to run through the state to serve Virginia data centers.
Who did it: Delegates S. Chris Anders (R-Berkeley), Geno Chiarelli and David McCormick (both R-Monongalia), and Rick Hillenbrand (R-Hampshire), along with commissions in Monongalia, Preston, Hampshire, Jefferson, and Mineral counties.
Why they did it: Officials object to the use of West Virginia land and ratepayer funds for a project that would bring no in-state benefit, raise transmission costs, and potentially displace farms and residences through eminent domain. Monongalia County officials criticized the project as “solving someone else’s problem” and noted that Virginia should bear the impacts of its own energy policy decisions.
Stakeholder views:
 •Del. Chris Anders: “It’s an immoral land grab dressed up as infrastructure.”
 •Del. David McCormick: “Virginia doesn’t have enough power? Well, maybe they shouldn’t have closed all the power plants.”
 •Commissioner Tom Bloom (D-Monongalia): “Why are we building the lines against the backs of our citizens?”
 •Commissioner Jeffrey Arnett (D-Monongalia): “It’s the most one-sided thing I’ve ever been a part of.”
What happens next: NextEra has not yet filed its formal application with the West Virginia Public Service Commission but is in the routing and engagement phase. Construction is anticipated to begin in 2029.
WV News
The Real WV
WVPB

Eaton fire reignites scrutiny of California rules on abandoned transmission lines
What happened: Investigative reporting revealed that Southern California Edison (SCE) successfully lobbied in the early 2000s to weaken a proposed California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) rule that would have required the removal of abandoned transmission lines. One such dormant line is now suspected of sparking the Eaton fire, which killed 19 people and destroyed over 9,000 structures in January 2025.
Who did it: The CPUC, under pressure from Edison and other utilities, revised its proposed rule in 2005 to allow companies to retain unused lines indefinitely if they claimed potential future use.
Why they did it: Utilities argued that premature line removal would increase ratepayer costs and reduce system flexibility. However, critics say the rule change prioritized corporate convenience over wildfire safety.
Stakeholder views:
 •Raffy Stepanian, former CPUC safety engineer: “There was a lot of pressure on us to agree with utilities on everything... This fire could have been prevented.”
 •Loretta Lynch, CPUC president in 2001: “The commission’s vote perverted the entire intent... Instead the commission’s final decision reduced safety requirements.”
What happens next: The CPUC and legislature face growing calls to revisit dormant line policies, with lawmakers questioning the absence of a statewide registry and timeline for line removal. The investigation into the Eaton fire is ongoing.
Los Angeles Times

Five state commissions challenge MISO’s $22B transmission portfolio, call MVP designation inflated
What happened: Utility commissions from Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, and North Dakota filed a formal complaint at FERC seeking to strip MISO’s Tranche 2.1 transmission projects of their “multi-value project” (MVP) status, which would eliminate regional cost sharing.
Who did it: The state commissions jointly filed the complaint on July 30, 2025, challenging MISO’s methodology and benefit projections for its 24-project, 3,631-mile, 765-kV transmission expansion.
Why they did it: The commissions allege that MISO overstated benefits related to reliability, capacity deferral, and decarbonization. They argue that the projected $38.3 billion in benefits was inflated and, when corrected, falls between $4.3 billion and $7.2 billion—well below project costs.
Stakeholder views:
 •State commissions: “Classifying the Tranche 2.1 projects as MVPs allows states with ambitious clean energy goals to shift transmission costs... to other states.”
What happens next: FERC will review the complaint and assess whether MISO’s MVP designation—and associated regional cost allocation—meets legal and tariff standards.
Utility Dive

Wisconsin residents raise opposition as PSC weighs two routes for $669M transmission project
What happened: At a July 24 public comment session in Lake Holcombe, Wisconsin residents voiced opposition to proposed routes for a new 500-kV transmission line project under review by the Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC).
Who did it: Community members along both proposed routes—Route 1 (94 miles) and Route 2 (80 miles)—raised concerns ranging from aesthetics to land use, environmental impacts, and procedural fairness.
Why they did it: While the project aims to increase grid reliability and support future generation and load growth, residents say it pits communities against each other and lacks demonstrated local benefit.
Stakeholder views:
 •Don Reck: “It’s a beautiful area, and I hope and pray that it stays that way.”
 •Craig Hinzmann: Warned that Route 2 would “take too much of [his] property.”
 •Mary Catherine Anglum: “Do they understand what they’re destroying…? I don’t support either one of those routes.”
What happens next: The PSC will decide whether to approve, modify, or deny the proposal. If approved, the line would enter service by 2029.
Courier Sentinel

Texas landowners challenge “routine” reroute exemption in Rim Rock transmission line dispute
What happened: Residents of Driftwood, Texas, filed a complaint with the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) challenging a proposed transmission line relocation that would move a 138-kV line closer to their neighborhood under a “routine reroute” exemption that bypasses standard public input.
Who did it: The Pedernales Electric Cooperative (PEC), in partnership with Discovery Land Company, sought to shift the line to accommodate luxury development. Local residents and State Rep. Erin Zwiener opposed the reroute.
Why they did it: Residents argue the exemption denies them due process and poses financial and aesthetic harm. The relocation would serve a private developer rather than grid reliability.
Stakeholder views:
 •Carly Barton (landowners’ attorney): “This case is very much a test case for transmission lines throughout the state of Texas.”
 •Rep. Erin Zwiener: “There’s nothing routine about having... an 80-foot-plus power line end up in your backyard.”
What happens next: The PUC added the case to its July 31 agenda. It could be denied, delayed, or advanced as a potential precedent-setter.
KVUE

Michigan landowners decry forced transmission siting, cite gaps in notice, legal redress, and accountability
What happened: The Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) approved two major transmission projects totaling 94 miles and $624 million, triggering backlash from rural landowners and bipartisan calls for siting reform.
Who did it: Michigan Electric Transmission Company (METC), a subsidiary of ITC Holdings, received 3-0 approval from the MPSC. Rep. Jennifer Wortz (R-Quincy) and MPSC Commissioners Peretick and Scripps raised concerns.
Why they did it: The projects support the state’s 100% clean energy targets. Opponents say the process limits public notice and local recourse, enabling eminent domain with little accountability.
Stakeholder views:
 •Commissioner Peretick: “Blatant disregard for the interests of landowners.”
 •Robert Williams: “Why are we letting a for-profit company use eminent domain on our citizens?”
 •Rep. Wortz: “Where’s the accountability?”
What happens next: Wortz has introduced a bill to allow courts to revise routes. Landowners are demanding stronger public notice requirements and CCN reform.
Detroit News

What’s the So What?

This week made one thing clear: transmission opposition is now politically organized—and predominantly partisan. Across West Virginia, Michigan, and Texas, Republican lawmakers are leading efforts to block major projects. Their arguments echo a familiar populist script: eminent domain abuse, disregard for rural identity, and resistance to perceived liberal energy agendas. This isn’t opposition rooted in procedural nuance. It’s ideological—and it’s spreading.

And yet, here’s the hard part: sometimes they’re right.

Southern California Edison’s 50-year-old dormant line—the suspected ignition source of the Eaton fire—is a textbook case of regulatory capture and industry pressure unraveling a safety regime. A rule meant to eliminate obsolete transmission infrastructure was gutted under utility lobbying. Now 19 people are dead, and more than 9,000 structures are gone. It’s proof that bad actors exist. They do exploit public trust. And they do put lives at risk.

So where does that leave us? In a dangerous gray zone. One where blanket opposition to transmission—no matter how justified it feels—can undermine projects that are well-designed, critically needed, and in the public interest. If every line is a land grab and every planner a villain, even the good ones won’t survive.

That’s the cautionary tale. The political right is winning the narrative war, but it’s doing so with a blunt instrument. And if this reflexive opposition becomes the default, we won’t just kill bad projects—we’ll kill the grid’s future.

What’s needed now is credible accountability paired with credible planning. Communities deserve answers. But they also deserve infrastructure that works. Discerning opposition—not universal obstruction—is the only path forward.


Bibliography

WV News. “Berkeley County, West Virginia, delegate announces opposition to MARL transmission line project.” August 2, 2025. https://www.wvnews.com/news/wvnews/berkeley-county-west-virginia-delegate-announces-opposition-to-marl-transmission-line-project/article_ae3c23b5-ded1-4047-ad26-985aea090ff9.html

The Real WV. “Morgantown Delegate joins opposition to MARL transmission project.” August 3, 2025. https://therealwv.com/2025/08/03/morgantown-delegate-joins-opposition-to-marl-transmission-project/

WVPB. “Monongalia County Commission Joins Neighbors in Opposition to Transmission Line.” July 31, 2025. https://wvpublic.org/story/government/monongalia-county-commission-joins-neighbors-in-opposition-to-transmission-line/

Los Angeles Times. “‘This fire could have been prevented’: How utilities fought removal of old power lines.” August 1, 2025. https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2025-08-01/this-fire-could-have-been-prevented-how-utilities-fought-removal-of-old-powerlines

Utility Dive. “5 utility commissions ask FERC to undo MISO’s $22B multi-value transmission portfolio.” July 31, 2025. https://www.utilitydive.com/news/ferc-complaint-mvp-multi-value-project-transmission/756411/

Courier Sentinel. “Transmission line project sparks concerns.” July 30, 2025. https://www.centralwinews.com/area-news/2025/07/30/transmission-line-project-sparks-concerns/

KVUE. “Rim Rock residents fear financial blow from developer’s power line plan.” July 30, 2025. https://www.kvue.com/article/news/investigations/defenders/power-line-rim-rock-reroute-driftwood-texas/269-a24b0890-60b9-46fd-89b7-82a4e8ec2cbe

Detroit News. “Property owners feel burned by push to upgrade Michigan's energy grid.” July 29, 2025. https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2025/07/29/michigan-clean-energy-electric-transmission-lines-property-rights-eminent-domain-itc-holdings-fortis/85212820007/