Public Reactions To Electric Transmission Line Siting

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

Abstract: Using data from a 2011 survey of Idaho adults, this paper assesses the degree to which Idaho residents support or object to siting high voltage electric transmission lines. Furthermore, we consider whether support or opposition is tied to place attachment or to NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) reactions. Our research demonstrates that overall, the Idaho public overwhelmingly supports building new high-voltage electric transmission lines, but there are clearly a number of areas that people oppose putting them. According to our results, this opposition is largely the effect of place attachment that extends beyond their backyards.

Keywords: electricity; transmission line siting; energy infrastructure; place attachment; NIMBY

In the efforts to diversify our energy portfolio, many are considering the expansion of alternative energies, some of which offer great promise. Yet, it is widely acknowledged that regardless of the energy pursued, alternative or otherwise, transmission and siting of transmission lines plays a major role in the energy debate. While the need for energy production is real and important, and while many Americans support pursuing the use of different energy sources in general, energy transmission lines and sites are often met with strong opposition. In fact, electric transmission lines generate some of the fiercest opposition in the realm of energy development.

One of the significant issues associated with public opposition to electric energy transmission lines is the perceived risk of the elector-magnetic field that is produced, especially the risk of childhood Leukemia (Draper et al. 2005), the negative impact lines have on property values (Kroll and Preistley 1992; Hamilton and Schwann, 1995; Sims and Dent 2005); the perception of damage to the landscape (Soini et al. 2011). Yet, proximity to such structures does not adequately explain opposition. According to Priestly and Evans’ (1996) study, proximity does not correlate with perceptions of health and safety, house values, or aesthetics. In fact, other studies found more positive attitudes by individuals living closer to such developments than those who live farther away (Braunholtz 2003; Warren et al. 2005). However, according to one survey, a majority of Americans oppose new high-voltage transmission lines in their community, opposition drops significantly if those lines deliver electricity generated from wind. Specifically, support for new transmission lines increases from "46% to 83% when respondents are asked specifically about high-voltage transmission lines delivering wind power" (Saint Consulting Group). An important caveat is that this was a national survey about hypothetical projects instead of projects attached to a specific place or a sample that ensures both rural and urban populations are surveyed.

Nevertheless, the public and local residents are important stakeholders in this process and the construction of new lines might not only affect the local aesthetic, the value of their land, but also their quality of life. However, very little scientific research has been done to understand the attitudes that the public, especially the Idaho public, has toward electric transmission lines, which might differ according to a variety of demographic or psychological measures such as place attachment, level of environmental commitment, or on aspects related to a particular site such as land use or proximity to one’s home, for example.

Nimbyism (Not In My Backyard) posits that individuals would be better off if a particular facility were to be built elsewhere. Individuals are unwilling to accept facilities, especially those considered to be a nuisance in proximity to their homes and, as a result, will protest any such facility. While early academic studies often cite Nimbyism to explain opposition to a variety of developments including landfills, nuclear plants, hazardous waste facilities, and more recently renewable energy technologies such as windfarms (Burningham 2007), Nimbyism is highly criticized in more recent literature as too simplistic. Kraft and Clary’s (1991) review of the academic literature on Nimbyism concludes that responses to development proposals are generally described as extreme opposition to local projects characterized by: (1) distrust of project sponsors; (2) high concern about project risks; (3) limited information about project siting, risks, and benefits; (4) highly emotional responses to the conflict; and (5) parochial and localized attitudes toward the problem, which exclude broader implications. Indeed, scholars find that in some cases the expected explanations do not hold up, and more complex explanations are needed. For example, number three above implies that once individuals are "enlightened" support for the project will increase. Yet, research finds that even highly informed individuals are able to assimilate very complex information and thus, opposition is quite informed and rational (Irwin 1995; Petts 1997; Teel et al. 2006). Indeed, Devine-Wright (2009) examines the Nimby literature and proposes an alternative framework to explain local opposition as place-protective action. Thus, as Devine-Wright posits, opposition results from the disruptive threat that developments have on an individual’s place-centered identity. While Devine-Wright does not dismiss individual psychological responses, he does suggest that by considering place attachment and place identity one can more deeply understand the social and psychological aspects of change arising from the siting of energy technologies in specific locations (p. 432). This perspective precludes one from identifying locations as mere sites and instead understands them as places.

Place Attachment

While Devine-Wright (2009) urges consideration of place attachment in the development of energy infrastructure, the concept is not novel. Geographer Yi-Fu Tuan (1974) a presents an early examination into the notion of attachment to place. What begins as space develops into place for individuals as they come to know and value places. Place attachment is a positive, collective orientation and describes the process of becoming attached to an environmental setting (Vorkinn and Riese 2001). Manzo (2003, 2005) characterizes place attachment as a positive connection with what is familiar such as home or neighborhood, and others link place attachment to length of residence (Ahlbrandt 1984; Taylor 1996). For environmental psychologists, place-identity relates to the dimensions of self that develop through interaction with the environment via beliefs, preferences, feelings, values, etc. (Prohansky, Fabian, and Kaminoff 1983). When change is proposed to a place, it can be perceived as a "disruption" or "threat" and can be met with action in order to preserve the community or neighborhood to which individuals are likely closely attached. Threats or disruptions to place attachment can result from development, crime, neighborhood decline, and even natural disasters (Brown and Perkins 1992). Individuals develop a sense of place belonging from the environmental experiences that individuals accumulate over time, and such experiences are usually characterized as positive, but not necessarily so.

Place attachment often implies a localness due to the fact that individuals are most likely to use local areas more than those who live far away. Thus, locals are likely to have greater place attachment to local areas than are those who live elsewhere. As a result, scholars have found that the neighborhood, residential environment, or community is to what individuals tend to attach themselves. However, areas that possess value as a national symbol can also garner such place attachment by individuals who live farther away. Moreover, places and thus place attachment can vary with regard to scale (e.g. a house, playground, or forest, etc.) and tangibility of an area. Finally, Riger and Lavrakas (1981) identify two distinct dimensions of neighborhood attachment: Rootedness and Bonding, the latter of which also identified as Local Bonds by Taylor et al. (1985) and centers on social bonds and also includes length of residence

Our study seeks to assess the degree to which public support or opposition of electric transmission lines is the result of place attachment. In the case of high voltage electric transmisstion lines, we expect place attachment to be more predictive of opposition to siting lines nearby to one’s home and to land types on which respondents value greatly, as determined by our survey results, and would therefore prefer not to disrupt with the construction of new high voltage electric transmission lines. To test this, we consider a variety of different land types and assess whether opposition to building high voltage transmission is consistent across the land-types or whether opposition is greatest when the proposed site is proximate to one’s home.

Transmission expansion in Idaho

The reasons for transmission line expansion in Idaho include economic development, relief of transmission congestion, enhanced reliability, flexibility, and fuel source diversity. In addition, Idaho’s rapidly growing population and increase in demand make the need for siting additional transmission lines in Idaho all the more relevant and urgent. According to the US Census Bureau, Idaho was the sixth fastest growing state in 2007-2008 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008) and with population growth, there is usually a proportional increase in electricity demand. In fact, according to Idaho Power (2005), an investor-owned utility with the largest service area in the state, approximately one thousand new customers were added each month equating to a growth rate of about 2 to 3% each year throughout the company’s service area. Moreover, it is important to recognize that the growth in electricity demand is not geographically uniform. For example, the Treasure Valley, which includes Boise, the largest population center in the State, has seen peak load growth of "about 50 megawatts annually" (Idaho Power, 2005).

With regard to generation capacity, Idaho has limited options to meet its growing electricity needs. After the development of baseload natural gas facility, the first option is to utilize Idaho’s renewable energy potential. Idaho has 3,410 MWs of potential developable class 4 wind or higher (Stein & Darin, 2008). Additionally, there exist significant geothermal and biomass resources that can be utilized for energy production. Because utility-scale renewable resources such as wind, geo-thermal, and solar power generation are frequently located distant from the population, or "load" centers that consume the electricity, large investments in transmission facilities are usually required (Tierney 2008; Schumacher, Fink, and Porter 2009). In fact, a Western Governor’s Association report on the potential for renewable energy cites the primary obstacle as the overall "lack of cost effective transmission access" (Western Governer's Association 2009). The problems of efficient transmission access is problematic throughout the West and Idaho is no exception. While there were 1900 MWs of proposed wind projects in various stages of development, the current transmission system is can only support 350 MWs of additional electricity (Citation??).

The second option deals with importing energy from outside the state so that Idaho can meet its growing demand. The state, which has generally relied upon hydropower and is resource poor with regard to exploitable fossil fuels, is currently meeting about half of its energy needs from out of state resources. That is, Idaho is importing about half of the energy that is demanded by its citizens. If the population increases as expected, the current limitations in transmission will require the energy transmission infrastructure to be expanded and updated.

This research is relevant to energy policy because of the huge influence of public opinion on energy production in the U.S.. Public opposition ended the growth of the nuclear power industry in the 1970s and brought about the moratorium on offshore oil drilling in many coastal areas around the nation that began in 1990 (Freudenburg and Gramling 1994; Freudenburg and Rosa 1984; Smith 2002; Wellock 1998; Wilder 1998). Reports indicated that then President Bush had possibly considered continuing the moratorium on oil drilling off the California coast because he did not wish to defy the public will (Sollen 1998). Moreover, developers have relied upon the least-cost path when proposing transmission corridors yet often fail to understand and include public opinion in the process and thus tend to create severe public opposition, perhaps a result of a perceived threat or disruption to place. .Many other states are also currently considering proposals for updating their transmission infrastructures or will be doing so soon. In fact, the Western Electricity Coordinating Council, in charge of coordinating bulk power for fourteen western states and parts of Baja Mexico and Western Canada, lists 44 proposed transmission projects for completion by 2020. Thirty of these projects are classified as "foundational," defined as having a firm financial commitment or needed for reliability. The foundational projects propose the addition of almost 6,000 miles of transmission lines at a cost of $20 billion (WECC regional transmission 10-year plan 2011; SPG Coordination Group Foundational Project List 2010). Two of these projects would traverse Idaho, including Gateway West, the longest proposed project in the US at over 1,100 miles. Therefore, it is important for us to understand the nature of public sentiment regarding the building of new high-voltage electric transmission lines and understand whether place attachment factors into support or opposition to this sort of infrastructure.

Data and measures

Our data come from a stratified, dual-frame telephone survey of adults in southern Idaho. The survey was conducted in March and April, 2011. The stratification was based upon whether the county of residence is classified as rural or urban and the sample was drawn so as to receive an equal number of responses in those two strata in order to make comparisons between urban and rural residents. The urban counties in this study are Ada, Bannock, Bonneville, Canyon, and Twin Falls. The rural counties are Bear Lake, Bingham, Blaine, Boise, Camas, Caribou, Cassia, Elmore, Franklin, Gem, Gooding, Jerome, Lincoln, Minidoka, Oneida, Owyhee, Payette, Power, and Washington. In addition, the dual-frame survey methodology uses both a sample of household landlines (n = 1,200), and a random digit dial sample of wireless phone numbers with an Idaho (208) area code (n = 3,000). Half of the landline numbers (n = 600) and half of the wireless numbers (n = 1,500) were drawn from rural counties; the remainder were drawn from urban counties. [1] 

While the primary purpose of our instrument design was to support the development of a GIS based siting tool that includes sociopolitical constraints, the survey was specifically designed to test and relate to theories such as place attachment and NIMBYism . Funded by the Department of Energy through a grant from the Idaho National Laboratory, the GIS-based siting tool assesses proposed alternatives and/or perform least cost path analyses to identify feasible and potentially optimal transmission corridors. In order to design this tool, we designed an instrument that assessed the value that respondents placed on a variety of geographic features and which of these they would like to see protected from the siting of transmission lines or those that they considered preferable for siting transmission lines.

Our analyses consider place attachment as indicated by the following measures: homeownership, belief that transmission lines will disrupt one’s view, belief that transmission lines sited and built proximate to one’s property will decrease its value, and urbanicity. Each measure is discussed in turn below.

As discussed above, place attachment is a concept that has been used to understand connection to place and rootedness. It is a result of this attachment that individuals oppose disruption of or separation from a place to which they are attached. Asking whether one owns their home allows us to assess place attachment from the perspective of bonds likely to have been developed. Individuals who own a home are more likely to have developed a greater number or deeper bonds and are therefore more attached to place in this regard and, as a result, a proposed transmission line is perceived as a disruptive threat to this place attachment. That is, homeowners might likely have a stronger attachment via bonds to neighbors and community than do renters. Renters are often more transient and might not work to foster such bonds. Thus, we expect that individuals who have lived in Idaho longer and who are homeowners will be less likely to support transmission lines, regardless of whether they are proposed nearby to their home or in places that are generally valued by respondents.

Our assessment of place attachment also utilizes measures that consider whether the degree to which respondents believe that a new transmission line will disrupt ones view and also the degree to which the respondent believes a new transmission line will negatively impact the value of their property. Again, these two measures are tapping into the notion that the construction of new high voltage transmission lines will be perceived as disruption of place by respondents. In considering urbanicty we posit that rural dwellers will be less likely to support rural areas as sites for transmission lines than urban dwellers. Those who live in the rural areas tend to live and work closely with nature. For example a farmer might likely place a high value on nature and place and accordingly would seek to protect it because their lives and livelihoods depend so much on it. However, this might also be quite the reverse insofar as rural dwellers are generally negatively impacted by deficient transmission infrastructure and, as a result of benefitting from new and improved transmission, they might likely support building it. Nevertheless, with regard to one’s viewshed and property value we predict that those who consider the construction of transmission lines as disruptive to viewshed and property values will be less supportive of siting them nearby to one’s home.

Including the above measures, we also include socio-demographic control variables: income, education, sex, race/ethnicity, and age. Finally, we include as a control a measure that asks respondents the degree to which they would support a transmission line being built nearby if it transmitted renewable energy.

Here we discuss our dependent variables. The coding details for our independent variables are reported in Appendix 1. We use four dependent variables for this study. The first asks individuals whether or not they support building more transmission lines in Idaho. The second dependent variable is a statement that deals with siting in proximity to one’s house; the third, also a statement, deals with siting on public land used for recreation. The final statement focuses on siting transmission lines in rural areas versus urban areas. We consider the different locales to try to understand whether one’s place of residence yields a stronger degree of attachment than do places more broadly defined (e.g. recreational areas or rural vs. urban areas). The four questions are as follows:

How supportive are you of building new electric transmission lines in Idaho?

New electric transmission lines should not be constructed close to or nearby my house

New electric transmission lines should avoid recreational areas such as camping, fishing, boating, hiking, visitor’s centers, and city, state, or federal parks

New electric transmission lines should be built in rural areas rather than urban areas.

Results

First we consider the the degree to which survey respondents support or oppose building high voltage electric transmission lines in general and then with regard to different land types. Results for the first question show that overall, southern Idaho residents are supportive of building new electric transmission lines in Idaho. Approximately 87% of southern Idaho residents support building new electric lines in Idaho and only about 12% oppose their construction. The vast majority of respondents who support building new high voltage electric transmission lines believe that they are needed. Due to population growth, increased demand, poor and outdated infrastructure these responses support the building of new transmission lines. Other reasons cited by those who support their construction include the nearly 4% who believe that Idaho will achieve greater economic growth as a result and nearly 4% who believe that new transmission lines might mean lower energy costs for the consumer. Of the 12% who oppose new transmission lines, nearly 15% do so for fear of health or environmental risk, 17% due to aesthetics (that they are unsightly or loud), 12% suggest that they are not needed, and only 5% come right out and admit they do not want transmission lines in their back yard. However, the largest proportion, 37%, of respondents is concerned with "location" or the fact that the energy will be exported out of state.

The next question in our survey asks to what extent the respondent agrees or disagrees with building a new transmission line near to their house. This question is one that allows us to assess the general level of place attachment among our respondents. And, not surprisingly, 75% of respondents agree that a new electric transmission line should not be built next to their house. So, while Idahoans generally support the building of new high voltage electric transmission lines, they oppose building them nearby to where they live. This finding is in accordance with both place attachment and Nimby expectations. In terms of place attachment, individuals are more likely to oppose disruption of places to which they are attached. While those attachments could be places near and far, individuals are more likely to be attached to their proximate surroundings. As well, Nimbyism predicts that individual self-interest will yield opposition to facilities that are proposed proximate to one’s residence. Thus, based on these frequencies we cannot differentiate whether place attachment or Nimby is or is not the better explanation . Once we consider support and opposition in terms of other types of land, the picture may become clearer.

We now consider the level of support Southeastern Idaho residents have when they were asked whether new electric transmission lines should be built in rural versus urban areas. According to Nimby and place attachment, we would expect urban residents to be more supportive and rural residents less supportive of rural sites for high voltage electric transmission lines. In looking at Table X, we see that nearly three-quarters agreed that high voltage electric transmission lines should be constructed in rural areas. When we consider rural/urban differences, we see that, XYZ. This number is not altogether surprising as a majority of survey respondents live in urban areas and thus are unlikely to want transmission lines nearby although as the responses to the first question above point out, the majority of respondents agree that new transmission lines are needed especially as a result of development.

Finally, our survey includes several questions that ask respondents how much they want to protect natural and open spaces from new electric transmission lines, including questions about whether it was agreeable to build new transmission lines public or federally owned land, national forests or parks, recreational areas used for outdoor activities, near rivers, streams, or lakes, or near migratory habitats, etc. Again, these questions attempts to tap into the degree of attachment that respondents have toward a more general and far away area than to their own property. Our analysis demonstrates that respondents in general want to protect all the above environments from new transmission lines. That is Idahoans in general place equal value on different types of land and therefore do not want to see their own land, land nearby, and public land, perhaps far away, sited for transmission lines. Nevertheless, we select as our final dependent variable a question asking to what extent the respondent agrees that recreational areas that are typically used for a variety of outdoor activities ought to be protected from new electric transmission lines. Again, the distribution of responses for this question is quite indicative of the other, similar questions included in the survey. Overall, over 80% of respondents agree that new transmission lines should avoid recreational areas. According to these frequencies, XYZ. Thus, it appears that with Idahoans opposed to development of high voltage electric tranmsssion lines in a variety of locations, even those beyond one’s own backyard, a Nimby explanation is less than plausible.

Models

We now turn to a series of regression models to explore the role that place attachment plays in support of new electric transmission lines. In doing so, using PLUM (ordinal probit), we regress each opinion on a set of measures for place attachment as well as a variety of control variables associated with individual demographics (income, education, sex, race, age). We also include a measure that asks to what extent the individual would support building new transmission lines if those lines were used for renewable energy [2] .

Table 1 contains the regression analysis for our first model. Here we consider support for building new transmission lines in Idaho. In brief, two of the measures for place attachment are statistically significant. Specifically, those who agree that transmission lines built in view of one’s property will decrease its value are less likely to support building new transmission lines in Idaho. Likewise individuals who believe that it would be intrusive to one’s view to build transmission lines nearby are significantly less likely to support building new transmission lines in Idaho. These findings are consistent with our hypothesized relationships regarding the predicted effect that these two measures of place attachment would have with regard to support or opposition toward the building of new transmission lines. There is also a positive effect for both sex and age insofar as men and older individuals are more supportive of building new transmission lines in Idaho. Additionally, those who are more supportive of building transmission lines for renewable energy are less likely to support building new transmission lines, in general. Overall, the effect of all significant variables is modest and only 21% of the variance is explained.

[Table 1 About Here]

Turning to our next model we consider opposition to building new electric transmission lines nearby to one’s house. The results are presented in Table 2. First, what is striking is all measures of place attachment are statistically significant and in the expected direction. Specifically, as one would expect, homeowners are more likely to oppose construction of a new transmission line nearby their home than are non-home owners. Similarly, individuals who agree that building a transmission line near their home will decrease its value are more likely to oppose the construction of one nearby his/her home.

Also, the same relationship holds for those who believe that it would be intrusive to build a transmission line in view of his/her nearby landscape. As with our first model, above, age is significant and in the positive direction. Therefore, older individuals are more likely to oppose building new electric transmission lines near their home. Additionally, race demonstrates statistical significance. The negative coefficient shows that whites are more likely to oppose building new transmission lines nearby their home than are non-whites. Finally, there is significant and positive support to build new transmission lines nearby one’s home by those who support building transmission lines for renewable energy. Compared with the first model, above, the R-square for this model is much higher—we have explained 40% of the variance.

[Table 2 About Here]

The results for our next model can be found in Table 3. Here we have regressed the same predictors used above on a question asking individuals whether they support new transmission lines being built in rural rather than urban areas. Here we seek to see if attachment to place exists based on the land type. Considering that the majority of our sample reside in urban and suburban areas, we would expect that they would rather see new transmission lines built in rural areas than in their urban areas, places where they live in and experience more directly and frequently). The results show this to be the case, sort of. While the effect is in the positive direction for both urban and suburban dwellers, it is only significantly so with suburban dwellers. The other measures of place attachment fail to reach statistical significance. That is, while the relationships between homeownership, belief that new transmission lines will decrease one’s property value, and belief that new transmission lines will be intrusive to one’s view and support for building new transmission lines in rural areas, all three fail to reach statistical significance.

Our results also show that Caucasians are less supportive of building new electric transmission lines in rural areas than are non-Caucasians. We presume that in many cases neighborhoods that are lower income are also those that are more likely to have a larger proportion of minorities. As a result of lower SES it has been suggested that these neighborhoods are more often chosen for sites of less than desirable developments—such as jails, garbage dumps, and the like largely because lower SES individuals are less likely to stage opposition. We suppose that the minorities in our survey are expressing that they would like, as would any other group, to avoid having transmission disrupt the attachments to place that they created. On the other hand, older people and suburban dwellers are more supportive of building the lines in rural areas than are younger individuals and rural dwellers, respectively. Finally, those who support the building of new transmission lines for renewable energy are also more likely to support building new transmission lines in rural areas. The overall performance of this model is not remarkable with an R-square of 13%.

[Table 3 About Here]

Finally, we turn to Table 4 of our regression models. With this regression we have again used the same predictor variables that were used in the three previous models. Our dependent variable is the extent to which the respondent agrees that recreational areas (e.g. camping, fishing, boating, hiking, visitor’s centers, and city, state, or federal parks) should be avoided as a possible site for building new electric transmission lines. With regard to place attachment, we suspected that those who are concerned about decreased property value and the intrusiveness of view that new lines would cause if they were to be built nearby, would also be concerned if new electric transmission lines were built in recreational areas for which they also have a sense of place attachment. This appears to be the case. Our results demonstrate that attachment to place extends beyond one’s own property, beyond one’s immediate community out to locales that are used for recreation purposes. Idahoans are outdoors people, generally. They appear to put as much value and have developed an attachment to the recreational land that they almost assuredly use less frequently than their own property, but likely have fond memories of (e.g., a seasonal hunting cabin or a state park they visit every summer on family vacation would eventually be viewed as a family tradition and be the source of many stories that go down in family lore). We do see that homeowners, however, are much less supportive of protecting recreational areas from new lines than are non-homeowners. This relationship is interesting considering that those who are more like to believe that new transmission lines will decrease their property’s value are also more likely to oppose siting them in recreational land, which is likely distant from their property. These two findings seem to contradict each other. Overall, these findings suggest that while the vast majority of respondents agree that new electric transmission lines are sorely needed, there are not many places that they will support putting them. Except for age, our control variables prove to be insignificant. According to our results, older individuals are more willing to build new transmission lines in recreational area. Thus, younger individuals are more likely to want to protect them from such structures. This finding does comport with expectations that younger individuals tend to be more environmental than older individuals and perhaps utilize such recreational areas more than do older folks.

[Table 4 About Here]

Discussion

Our overall finding is that people’s opposition to siting new high voltage electric transmission lines is largely explained by place attachment. We were not sure to what extent Idahoans would support the building of new electric transmission lines when we embarked on this study. However, the irony is that those who overwhelmingly believe that Idaho needs an updated and expanded infrastructure, are also those who do not want them built in places to which they are likely attached. We believe this explanation conforms with the notion that individuals are opposed to disruption of areas to which they are more tightly and deeply attached, regardless of whether it is nearby (their own home) or in other places they value (such as their broader community or recreational areas.

We do not see that demographic measures play a large role in our understanding of support and opposition to siting and construction of new high voltage electric transmission lines as many of the control predictors failed to produce significant results in our models. Furthermore, for those measures that are significant, the impact was low and the consistency of those measures across all four models weak. Age and support for lines to transmit renewable energy are the variables with the most consistent impact across all three models. Yet, we do see that when posed with the question about whether new lines should be placed in rural areas over urban ones, race seemed to play a major role. While this might be due to threat of disruption to place more strongly felt by minorities than non-minorities, our data are limited and therefore we cannot tease out a more solid explanation.

The role that place attachments plays here is not surprising. Many scholars have shown that when it comes to siting proposals that when residents perceive to yield a negatively impact, a disruption to place, opposition is mounted. Yes, the fact that Idaho does need new transmission lines and that an overwhelming proportion of Idahoans recognize that need does not mean that they care to have them in places they value and to which they are attached. As further evidence of public opposition, the Gateway West line is now more than 3 years behind schedule in permitting and approvals, and a small "loop" line essential for reliability by the municipal utility in Idaho Falls is tied up in lawsuits over property rights (Statesman article; Post Register 2/10/2013), The losses, explained in terms of disruption, perhaps outweigh the advantages of economic development, relief of transmission congestion, enhanced reliability, flexibility and fuel source diversity. It is our hope that developers and politicians appreciate public sentiment and work with the public when siting lines. Doing so might likely diffuse the strength of the opposition. After all, politics is about compromise.

Appendix

Dependent variables

How supportive are you of building new electric transmission lines in Idaho: (1) Strongly Support; (2) Somewhat Support; (3) Somewhat oppose; (4) Strongly oppose

New electric transmission lines should not be constructed close to or nearby my house: (1) Strongly disagree; (2) Somewhat disagree; (3) Somewhat Agree; (4) Strongly Agree

New electric transmission lines should avoid recreational areas such as camping, fishing, boating, hiking, visitor’s centers, and city, state, or federal parks: (1) Strongly disagree; (2) Somewhat disagree; (3) Somewhat Agree; (4) Strongly Agree

New electric transmission lines should be built in rural areas rather than urban areas: (1) Strongly disagree; (2) Somewhat disagree; (3) Somewhat Agree; (4) Strongly Agree

Independent variables

Income: (1) less than $24,999; (2) $25K-49,999; (3) $50K-74,999; (4) $75K-99,999; (5) $100K or more

Education: (1) 12th grade or less (but did not graduate); (2) high school graduate; (3) some college (but no B.A./B.S); (4) Bachelor’s degree; (5) Graduate or professional degree

Sex: (1) Male; (0) Female

Race: (1) White; (0) Non-white

Age: (1) 17-29; (2) 30-39; (3) 40-49; (4) 50-59; (5) 60-69; (6) 70+

Suburban: (1) Suburban; (0) Non-suburban

Urban: (1) Urban; (0) Non-urban

Homeowner: (1) Homeowner; (0) Non-homeowner

Property Value: "Building new electric transmission lines within view of my property will decrease its value." (1) Strongly disagree; (2) Somewhat disagree; (3) Somewhat Agree; (4) Strongly Agree

Intrusive: How intrusive or non-intrusive would a new electric transmission lines be if it were constructed as part of the nearby landscape that you see from your private property?

(1) Not intrusive at all; (2) Somewhat non-intrusive; (3) Somewhat intrusive; (4) Very intrusive

Renewable Energy: Now, suppose a major portion of the electricity carried by new electric transmission lines planned to be built in your town or city was generated by renewable resources. Would you support or oppose its construction? (1) Strongly Oppose; (2) Somewhat Oppose; (3) Somewhat Support; (4) Strongly Support