A debate over the power grid is pitting environmental allies against each other in the Upper Midwest

A lawsuit that has halted the completion of a power line in the Upper Midwest is part of a long-running conflict that has exposed differences between the environmental and clean energy communities.

Developers of the $649 million Cardinal-Hickory Creek transmission line have built about 100 of the project's 102 miles, but stopped work after a March 22 order from a U.S. District Court judge in Wisconsin.

The lawsuit is part of a case brought by three environmental groups that say the final miles of the project will harm a sensitive section of the Upper Mississippi River National Fish and Wildlife Refuge along the Iowa-Wisconsin border. Clean energy advocates and developers say it's an unreasonable delay at a time when a lack of transmission capacity is slowing the growth of wind and solar power in the country.

Each side accuses the other of wasting money and time that would be better spent addressing other environmental and clean energy issues.

Howard Learner helps lead the fight against the power cord. He is the founder and executive director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center of Chicago, a non-profit organization active throughout the Midwest, and works pro bono as an attorney for the plaintiffs: Driftless Area Land Conservancy, the National Wildlife Refuge Association and the Wildlife Federation Life of Wisconsin.

“It's smart positioning,” Learner said. “We can develop the transportation network in our country without making national wildlife refuges and national parks sacrifice zones.”

On the other side are the project developers, which include ITC, a company that builds and operates transmission lines, and Dairyland Power Cooperative, a joint venture. They have the support of environmental and clean energy organizations, including the Clean Grid Alliance, the Iowa Environmental Council, the Minnesota Environmental Protection Center and Renew Wisconsin.

“This latest lawsuit, misguided at best, only serves to delay the completion of this important energy infrastructure and further increase costs for customers,” said ITC Midwest President Dusky Terry. a statement.

On Friday, ITC and Dairyland appealed the order to the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. It is not clear how this action may affect the timely resolution of the dispute.

Shelterdesignated by the federal government in 1924, it is fish and wildlife habitat and home to millions of migratory birds each year.

Emotions are high on both sides, in part because some of the participants are frustrated that they are fighting people and organizations that have been allies in the past. For example, Learner was once on the board of the Minnesota-based advocacy group Clean Grid Alliance.

Learner said proponents of the project are exaggerating the clean energy benefits of the power line. He notes that the line will be open to all sources of electricity and will carry power generated from fossil fuels along with power from wind and solar power.

Beth Soholt, executive director of the Clean Grid Alliance, said Learner's argument is a deliberate distortion of the facts.

“I'm going to be very blunt,” he said. “This is bullshit.”

He explained that the region's existing coal and natural gas power plants already have sufficient transmission line capacity. While it's true that any energy source will be able to use the new line, the increase in overall line capacity for the region will greatly benefit clean energy projects.

“We've had this huge backlog happen where projects can't deliver their full output to the grid or decide not to connect yet,” he said.

It counts 161 clean energy projects in various stages of development that need the new transmission line to become available.

Cardinal-Hickory Creek advocates suggest that the tenacity of Learner's defense is due, at least in part, to the fact that he has long owned a cottage near the route of the line.

Learner responded that this accusation is “complete and utter bullshit.” His home is near Spring Green, Wisconsin, about 20 miles north of a section of the line already built.

“Anyone who knows anything about the area, who isn't just interested in slinging mud, would remotely say the transmission line is close to where I live,” he said.

The last two miles

The work is complete on the Wisconsin side and part of the Iowa side, leaving only the river crossing and about 1 mile on the Iowa side of the refuge.

Currently, there are two smaller transmission lines in the reserve that cross the river near the site planned for the new line. The construction of the new line would be followed by the removal of one of the existing lines and the rerouting of the other to cross the river at the same point as the new line.

The result, according to the line's proponents, is to reduce the transmission lines' footprint on the refuge. But that's not convincing opponents, who point out that the new line is longer and will have more power than any of the existing lines, which they say will lead to increased negative impacts on the refuge.

Outside observers may wonder why the developers don't just put the line underground. The answer, according to the companies, is that burying the line would be much more expensive and lead to a construction process that is much more disruptive to the local ecosystem.

The project is part of one of the country's most successful regional planning efforts by network operators and one of the 17 priority transport lines in 2011 by the Midwest Independent System Operator, or MISO, under the Multi-Value Projects initiative.

As of today, Cardinal-Hickory Creek is the only one of the 17 that has not been completed.

The conflict over the line is unusual in its intensity, but the underlying issues are familiar from many cases of energy companies proposing major projects.

“There's obviously a big contradiction with environmental groups trying to tackle some problems while other environmental groups are working on other problems,” said Dustin Mulvaney, a professor at San Jose State University who writes on political ecology. study of how society interacts with nature.

The legal and regulatory process, as frustrating as it is, is the only formal way for stakeholders to raise concerns about a project's impacts, he said.

He is wary of the way these discussions are framed as a simple choice between building transmission lines and conservation, which he sees as the wrong choice.

The reality, he said, is that both sides would likely agree they want to see an expansion of the transit system and the preservation of a wildlife refuge, and the process helps balance those priorities.

Lack of consent

The main issue in the court case is whether the line's developers can move forward with a land swap with federal authorities that would allow the project to be completed. The land swap would give the developers 20 acres in the wildlife refuge, which they would exchange for 36 acres near the refuge.

“We must not set a precedent that a simple land swap is all it takes to destroy a national treasure,” said Jennifer Filipiak, executive director of the Driftless Area Land Conservancy. a statement.

U.S. District Court Judge William Conley issued an order requiring the developers to halt their plans to complete the land transfer and stop any work on the refuge.

Opponents of the line have argued that the federal government's approval of the land swap violates the National Environmental Protection Act and other federal environmental laws. The US Fish and Wildlife Service declined to comment.

The judge's order allows time for the legal issues to be settled without the threat of developers continuing construction while the lawsuit remains active. There is no timetable for when this might be resolved, especially now that ITC and Dairyland have filed an appeal.

The specifics of the current case are just one chapter in a conflict that goes back about a decade, when opposition to the line began coalescing with environmental advocates and local governments along the project's path.

The developers have received approvals from the Wisconsin Public Service CommissionThe Iowa Utilities Board and MISO. But it hasn't been a smooth ride, with legal and procedural challenges at almost every turn.

Opponents have a range of opinions, from not wanting the line at all to wanting the line to have a route that doesn't go through the shelter.

Kerri Johannsen, energy program director for the Iowa Environmental Council, said the project is unusual for the persistence of legal challenges.

Her group supports completing the line through the route that would be available with the land swap, which is the plan being challenged in court. He said developers considered a variety of alternatives and worked with environmental groups on options, including organizing tours of various routes through the reserve. She is confident that the current plan is the one that would be least harmful.

“Because we had this good process, we felt very comfortable with this particular river crossing, and we know we need the line to be able to bring clean energy to the Midwest,” Johannsen said.

But filings in the various regulatory cases involving the project show a lack of consensus.

In a Wisconsin file, Citizens Utility Board of Wisconsin has expressed concerns that the project may not provide enough benefits to justify its costs. The cost has risen significantly, from an estimate of $492 million in 2019 to the current estimate of $649 million, and utility ratepayers will end up paying through charges on their monthly bills.

The idea that rising costs are a reason to oppose the line is especially aggravating to project supporters because the high cost of litigation has helped drive up prices.