As reported in our previous articles,  Balancing Energy Progress and Property Rights and Kansas Fights Back Against Federal Transmission Corridor Plans opposition to the National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETCs) is growing among landowners, state officials, and advocacy groups in Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico and Oklahoma. Concerns about eminent domain, environmental impacts, and potential health risks have been widely discussed. This is a reminder for you to contact your legislators on this issue and comment before the February 14 deadline.  

 What is a Rent-Seeker?
Rent-seeking occurs when individuals or businesses use government authority to increase their own wealth without creating proportional economic value. Unlike profit-seeking, which involves voluntary exchanges that benefit all parties, rent-seeking relies on coercion, such as regulatory capture or eminent domain, to redistribute wealth to a privileged few. The term was coined by British economist David Ricardo and gained prominence through the works of Gordon Tullock and Anne Krueger. Nobel-winning economist Robert Shiller often illustrated rent-seeking with the following example:

“The classic example of rent-seeking is that of a feudal lord who installs a chain across a river that flows through his land and then hires a collector to charge passing boats a fee (or rent of the section of the river for a few minutes) to lower the chain. There is nothing productive about the chain or the collector. The lord has made no improvements to the river and is helping nobody in any way, directly or indirectly, except himself. All he is doing is finding a way to make money from something that used to be free.”

This example highlights the core issue with rent-seeking: rather than creating value for both parties, NIETCs extract wealth from private landowners through regulatory manipulation and coercion. While the federal government presents NIETCs as necessary infrastructure, critics argue they primarily serve corporate interests, with limited transparency or fair compensation.

While the federal government presents NIETCs as necessary infrastructure to expand the energy grid, critics argue that they represent a clear case of powerful interests manipulating public policy to eventually extract wealth from private landowners without adequate communication, warning and ultimately fair compensation.

i
NIETC as a Example of Rent-Seeking
As discussed in Balancing Energy Progress and Property Rights: DOE Plans Spark Controversy in New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Colorado, the NIETC initiative has raised serious concerns in rural communities. The Department of Energy (DOE) has designated wide swaths of land for federally-backed transmission corridors, a move that critics argue disproportionately benefits corporate energy interests. This action allows private transmission companies to benefit from the use of eminent domain to seize land that they would otherwise have to purchase at fair market value. The result? A system where landowners could be forced to give up their property for the benefit of energy companies that profit from transmission with limited competition.

This raises several red flags:

• Eminent Domain for Private Gain – The use of eminent domain in this context does not serve a traditional public good (such as roads or schools) but rather benefits corporate transmission operators.
• Regulatory Capture – Transmission companies have influenced federal agencies to override state and local control, securing privileges that prevent fair competition.
• Concerns About Fair Compensation – Critics argue that landowners would not be adequately compensated for the long-term impact on their property values.
• The Urban / Rural divide  – Population density plays a significant role in shaping political decisions, often determining where power and control are concentrated.

A Counterpoint: The Need for Transmission Expansion

As outlined in Balancing Energy Progress and Property Rights and Kansas Fights Back Against Federal Transmission Corridor Plans supporters argue that the nation’s transmission infrastructure is in dire need of modernization. As demand for electricity grows and the country shifts toward renewable energy sources, the ability to transport power efficiently across long distances is becoming more crucial. Although I am concerned about property rights and eminent domain issues, I recognize the value of electricity and the need for a reliable power grid. The DOE and energy companies assert that NIETCs will:

• Increase Grid Reliability – New transmission lines can help prevent power shortages and blackouts.
• Enable Renewable Energy Growth – Wind and solar farms are often located in remote areas, requiring expanded transmission to connect them to the grid.
• Reduce Consumer Costs in the Long Run – A more efficient grid may lead to lower energy prices by eliminating transmission bottlenecks.

Balancing Progress with Fairness

The key issue, then, is whether NIETCs are being implemented fairly. If these corridors truly provide broad public benefits, then:

• Landowners should consulted be fairly compensated for their losses. This literally puts the livelihood of American Citizens at risk.State and local governments should have a say in the siting process.
• Alternative transmission solutions, such as underground lines or decentralized energy grids, should be considered.
• Competition should be encouraged, rather than allowing select companies to dominate transmission development.

Health Concerns and Public Resistance

Beyond economic and property concerns, public health considerations add another layer of controversy to the NIETC debate.  Shifting NIETCs toward rural areas may be public resistance based on health concerns. As noted in our most recent article, scientific studies have long examined the potential dangers of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) emitted by high-voltage power lines.Public concern over the health risks associated with high-voltage transmission lines may have influenced the DOE’s strategic shift. 

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified extremely low-frequency magnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” citing studies that found a weak association between residential exposure and childhood leukemia【cancer.org】. Additionally, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) has acknowledged concerns over increased risks of leukemia and chronic lymphocytic leukemia from prolonged EMF exposure.

Urban populations have greater access to scientific research and legal resources to challenge infrastructure projects on health grounds. By shifting NIETCs to rural areas, the DOE reduces the likelihood of mass opposition, lawsuits, and regulatory pushback based on health concerns.

The Need for Transparency and Accountability

• Why certain corridors were chosen over others.
• How eminent domain will be applied fairly.
• What measures will be taken to protect property values and public health.

Without these assurances, the NIETC project risks being seen as another example of corporate interests leveraging federal power at the expense of private citizens.

Connecting the Dots: From Urban Opposition to Rural Resistance

In our previous articles, we highlighted the rising concerns among landowners and officials in Kansas and Colorado over the federal government’s push to use eminent domain for energy infrastructure projects. Farmers, ranchers, and rural communities have been vocal about the potential economic and environmental damage the NIETC corridors could bring to their land.

But as opposition mounts in rural states, it’s worth looking at how the DOE has handled NIETCs in other regions. The pattern suggests a strategic retreat from high-density areas with stronger political opposition and media influence. Now, rural communities in states like New Mexico, Oklahoma, Colorado, and the Dakotas are becoming the new battleground for this energy expansion plan.

In May 2024, the DOE identified 10 potential NIETCs across the country. However, by December, only three corridors remained, with six projects canceled.   The population densities of the canceled versus remaining National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETCs) reveals a notable pattern. The corridors that were canceled predominantly traversed highly populated urban areas, while the remaining corridors are situated in less densely populated regions.

Population Analysis:

1. Canceled Corridors:
   • New York–New England Corridor: This corridor would have impacted major metropolitan areas, including New York City and Boston. The combined population of these cities and their surrounding areas exceeds 20 million residents.
   • New York–Mid-Atlantic Corridor: Encompassing cities like Philadelphia and Baltimore, this corridor covers regions with a combined population of over 10 million people.
   • Mid-Atlantic Corridor: Including Washington, D.C., and Richmond, Virginia, this area has a population exceeding 8 million.
   • Midwest–Plains, Delta–Plains, and Mountain–Northwest Corridors: These corridors would have affected various mid-sized cities and towns across multiple states, with cumulative populations in the millions.
2. Remaining Corridors:
   • Lake Erie Connector: This is an underwater corridor connecting Ontario and Pennsylvania, primarily affecting regions with lower population densities compared to major urban centers.
   • Southwest Connector (Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma): This corridor traverses largely rural areas with smaller cities and towns. The combined population of the affected regions is significantly lower than that of the canceled corridors.
   • Dakotas Connector (North and South Dakota): The Dakotas are among the least densely populated states in the U.S., with vast rural areas and few urban centers.

Unlike the canceled corridors, the remaining projects primarily affect rural states with significantly lower populations. These areas have fewer organized political groups to resist eminent domain actions and less media attention compared to urban centers like New York or Washington, D.C. By focusing on less populated areas, the DOE might anticipate fewer challenges related to eminent domain and public dissent.

Rural Communities are the Battleground.

While the DOE may have sought to avoid conflicts in urban regions, rural communities in Kansas, Colorado, and the Dakotas are beginning to mobilize. Kansas Senators Jerry Moran and Roger Marshall were able to secure a public comment extension for their state, while opposition movements in Colorado are urging their legislators to demand the same.

Take Action: Contact Federal Legislators

Concerned residents should contact their federal representatives and submit public comments before the February 14 deadline.

Colorado:

• Senator John Hickenlooper – (202) 224-5941 | hickenlooper.senate.gov
• Senator Michael Bennet – (202) 224-5852 | bennet.senate.gov
• Representative Lauren Boebert (CO-03) – (202) 225-4761 | boebert.house.gov

Kansas:

• Senator Jerry Moran – (202) 224-6521 | moran.senate.gov
• Senator Roger Marshall – (202) 224-4774 | marshall.senate.gov

New Mexico:

• Senator Martin Heinrich – (202) 224-5521 | heinrich.senate.gov
• Senator Ben Ray Luján – (202) 224-6621 | lujan.senate.gov
• Representative Teresa Leger Fernández (D-NM-3) – (202) 225-6190 | fernandez.house.gov

Oklahoma:

• Senator James Lankford – (202) 224-5754 | lankford.senate.gov
• Senator Markwayne Mullin – (202) 224-4721 | mullin.senate.gov
• Representative Frank Lucas (R-OK-5) – (202) 225-5565 | bice.house.gov

Public comments can be submitted via email to NIETC@hq.doe.gov or through the Federal Register before the deadline.

Keep Local News Alive Subscribe to the Plainsman Herald Here: