Photo Credit: Al Puente
article tools
Increase Text Size Increase Text Size Decreate Text Size Decrease Text Size
Share Email This Story Share Share This Story Reader comments Reader Comments (12) View image gallery Image Gallery (1) Add to favorites Add to Bookmarks Printer friendly version Printer Friendly Version
Article Tool Sponsor:

Advertise with us

More Jobs
0 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
July 14, 2008

Cleaning the Transmission Process

by Ken Silverstein, EnergyBiz Insider, Editor-in-Chief

Things are adrift in places around the country. In the Northeast, for example, the states all have renewable portfolio standards while they also participate in a regional greenhouse gas initiative, all of which is meant to cleanse the air and cut global warming pollutants. The dilemma there and elsewhere is that the transmission line permitting process is tumultuous and impedes those goals.

While there have been increases since 1998, FERC says that the level is still less than what was invested in 1975. Over the same time period, however, the demand for electricity has doubled. That's resulted in a significant decrease in transmission capacity, requiring new lines get built.

Transmission limitations, in fact, are a major barrier to the growth of renewable energy. The process is meant to be inclusive and to elicit the views of all stakeholders. Regulators should strive for reasonable compromises. But if such deals cannot be reached, then they must seek to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number. Transmission planning requires it. And so does the federal law.

A recent U.S. Department of Energy study found that wind alone could provide 20 percent of U.S. electricity by 2030. To do so, though, significantly more investment in transmission is needed. Not only is there is competition among all types of generators to carry their electrons in the current lines but new lines are necessary to transport wind resources from the remote locations where they are most abundant.

"As renewable energy becomes more popular, the request to move these resources is growing," says John Bear, president of the Midwest Independent System Operator (ISO,) at the Edison Electric Institute's annual conference in Toronto. "There is not enough infrastructure" — a situation that denies utilities access to lower cost generation.

The Midwest ISO, in fact, has determined that adding 5,000 miles of new transmission to transport wind from the Dakotas to the New York City area would result in substantial savings for customers. While the generation and transmission costs would total $13 billion, the grid operator says that customers would save about $600 million annually. In the case of New England, a greater investment in transmission has paid off, enabling prices to fall in congested areas such as Southwest Connecticut.

But more needs to be done there and elsewhere around the nation. To supply 20 percent of the electric generation market by 2030, the Energy Department estimates that $60 billion in new wires would be necessary — something that the agency says would cut greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent.

Tough Sell

The objective is to provide reliable, cost-effective and diverse energy resources to customers. Federal regulators have been given more authority to site projects. Now it's up to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the North American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC) that reports to it to carry out and enforce compulsory standards that could add greater certainties and bring innovative projects to the fore.

To succeed, federal regulators advise utilities to begin the process early — to meet with all constituents well in advance of filing the initial paperwork. It's about ensuring that the procedure is inclusive and transparent. They must understand the legitimate concerns of the stakeholders involved. It's about building relations with the business community, environmental groups, landowners, public officials and the press.

"You don't want neighbors to fear the project," says Jane Peverett, CEO of the BC Transmission Corp., at the Edison meeting. "The process must be fair and open. The people must have a say and have access to credible third parties."

In theory, utilities are supposed to have an easier time constructing new lines. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 sets out to give federal regulators the ability to override state regulators if key projects are unnecessarily delayed. It also allows them to provide some financial incentives to entice investors to spend capital on transmission projects, which have been considered risky because they can take years to come on line.

As a result, transmission investment has declined in real terms — adjusted for inflation — from 1975 to 1998. While there have been increases since 1998, FERC says that the level is still less than what was invested in 1975. Over the same time period, however, the demand for electricity has doubled. That's resulted in a significant decrease in transmission capacity, requiring new lines get built.

NERC is particularly concerned about Southern California, which depends on imported power that is transported across heavily burdened transmission lines. At the same time, the state has increased renewable energy initiatives and now requires the major utilities there to provide 20 percent of their power from green sources by 2010.

Those requirements and the current congestion are the reasons behind San Diego Gas & Electric's effort to build the Sunrise Powerlink transmission line. It's also the basis for Southern California Edison decision to spend $15.5 million on transmission and distribution, of which $2.1 billion will be dedicated to carrying renewable sources.

"The nation has tremendous renewable energy reserves, but the existing electric transmission system was not designed to tap these new kinds of generation," says Don Furman, senior vice president at Iberdrola Renewables. "The good news is that we have the opportunity to solve both problems at once, while strengthening our economy, the environment, and energy security."

Investing in infrastructure has always been a tough sell. Private entities have limited resources and the pay off is often too distant. But the transmission grid is aging and it needs to be updated and expanded so that it can meet the expected future demand for power. Doing so would give utilities the access they need to clean generation while also helping to increase the reliability of the grid.

Ken Silverstein is an award-winning journalist who is the editor-in-chief of Energy Central's publication, EnergyBiz Insider. With a background in economics and public policy, he has spent several years writing about the issues that touch the energy and financial sectors, and his work has been published in more than 100 periodicals.

Republished with permission from CyberTech, Inc. EnergyBiz Insider is published three days a week by Energy Central. For more information about Energy Central, or to subscribe to EnergyBiz Insider, other e-newsletters and EnergyBiz magazine, please go to http://www.energycentral.com/.

Image Gallery (1)
 
Reader Comments (12)
 
No image available
July 14, 2008
Solar energy can be collected from roof tops of existing buildings. Solar does not require these transmission lines and it can be done now!

When calculating the cost of a new energy facility, be it wind, nuclear, or coal, is the cost of new transmission included in the cost of the new facility? I bet not, so that the project can seem more cost effective. With solar on roof tops, that cost can be zero.
Comment 1 of 12
No image available
July 15, 2008
An improved transmission grid is key to renewable energy growth. Rooftop solar is part of the answer, but will not satisfy our energy needs alone. We need to build a better grid to make wind, csp, etc more viable. We are already seeing bottlenecks in the grid, when it comes to transmitting wind power from where it is produced to where it is needed. The same will be true for large solar plants.
Comment 2 of 12
No image available
July 16, 2008
I'm a big advocate for the "Solar Grand Plan" as described in the Jan 2008 issue of Scientific American - available on line in which Southwest generation of solar, probably CSP thermal with storage is the backbone of a national resource base; and using high voltage dc to go across the country.
I have also carried a number for transmission lines of about a million dollars per mile; hence, a single line from the Southwest to the East would cost less than $3 billion. Is my number wrong? Can someone steer me to studies that back up the $60 billion? I acknowledge not being an expert in transmission costs. You can write to me at Somarl@msn.com
Comment 3 of 12
No image available
July 16, 2008
New lines are necessary to transport future electrical energy needs. Wind power is a good beginning. Investment in transmission is needed and utilities simply cannot afford the cost of this undertaking.
Ike gave us the interstate system, Kennedy put us on the moon, the next president needs to get us clean renewable energy self sufficient.
Comment 4 of 12
No image available
July 16, 2008
Here in Belgium we have an energy gird that could be a good joke to your. It's a good Energy grid but know we need to re-design the energy grid because there is going to be a Wind Energy Turbine Park off shore. Because normally the grid was design to handel the power going to the sea it will a become reversed. In time the government wants the entire country to work on Wind Energy. Because we have 2 places where a Nuclear Power plant is active all that power will come from the Off shore wind turbine park and needs to be distributed across the country. BUT that Energy grid isn't calculated for those transportation currents nor voltages.

Your country's doing it more efficient then here. be glade

This is a perfect example how a country can screw up and then asks more taxes.

Our lone we can spend is about 25% of the lone our boss has to pay to make it able to feed our selfs because entertainment is only for the mid-class and not anymore for the lower classes.
Comment 5 of 12
No image available
July 16, 2008
Roof top solar may eventually be a contributor but not for everyone. Some of us live surrounded by trees and have no interest in cutting them down just to have solar panels. Many businesses don't have enough rooftop to generate a self sufficient amount of energy.

A better transmission grid is needed.
Comment 6 of 12
No image available
July 16, 2008
So you say a $13 billion dollar investment is a good deal because consumers will save $600 million per year on electricity? This equals about a 22 year simple payback which would NOT qualify as a good investment in any business books I have read.
Comment 7 of 12
No image available
July 17, 2008
While it is understandable that our transmission system needs serious upgrades, I'm not sure I follow the logic of it being so important to the renewable sector. The system is based on the need to move large amounts of power from generating facilities to the population centers they serve. But with many small generators, (no RE can compare to the output of a nuclear plant, for example) more of the power would be generated where it is used. Grid-level storage can provide for the time offset between peak production and peak demand. Transmission lines in this country are definitely grossly outdated, but an increase in use of renewables should decrease the demand for more lines, not the other way around.
Comment 8 of 12
No image available
July 17, 2008
Some of the questions posed could be addressed by further research through: https://www.energy-portal.siemens.com/static/de/de/products_solutions/1654_kn0301120302.html , showing the Siemens HVDC Plus system. Transmission of power from remote renewable sources clearly needs some advancement in tech, but I think the real advantage of improving long distance transmission is the potential for serving distal peak loads with underutilized base load plants/renewables, (e.g. a West Coast wind field or base load plant could supply the morning East Coast peak and the East Coast resources could supply the afternoon peak load on the West Coast).
Comment 9 of 12
No image available
July 18, 2008
Solar power was a good idea in the 70's until investers and speculators pushed out most of the inventors and folks who knew what they are doing. To buy a solar pane now you have to pay back the inflated investment first before seeing the polysilicate.
Most comments are correct about impoving the grid. This was necessary even before Texas and California put up wind turbins. Call me innocent but I like seeing those birds making power and consuming no fuel. Bringing in the transmission lines should have always been part of any electrical system expansion.
Commment 9 is good however the wind turbins are mostly away from population centers. The Mid West systems being developed now may be different and more along his thinking. Solar concentraitors in the desert will casue even longer and heavier transmission lines. The algebra on the 3 billion VS the 60 billion transmission lines is loose. Many lines or paths have to be doubled or tripled up, plus step up and step down transformers. switches and interconnects. Like Senator Dirkson once said, " A billion here and A bilion there, after a while it all adds up to a pretty big number"!
Comment 10 of 12
No image available
July 20, 2008
The bottom line here,...we don't have a choice do we? We redefine our priorities and we all (all 320 million of us) take ahold of what must be done in the next 20 years,...or the planet dies a dismal, slow death.

I'll be dead, you'll be dead,...so should we care? Well the old American thought process would be to just "milk the S. out of all of our resources" and all get rich by drilling, investing, etc.

Why is T.Boone switching his thought processes? He's is one of mankinds all time biggest exploiters of oil drilling for riches. He doesn't give a S. about the planet, he cares about extending his legacy and power onto his family and knows that the oil days are numbered. Period.

We need a HVDC system across North America (Including Canada), that works or is implimented before all the new 2.5 and 3MW turbines are installed. "Build the infrastructure,....and they will come".

We didn't build the internal combustion engine before we had ample gas stations did we? We're not going to speculate about building hydrogen cars without the infrastructure.

What makes us think that we can keep building or establishing multi MegaWatt turbines without the necessary power line infrastructure?

This issue of establishing a functional backbone is all over the net, and the costs are justified. We need to keep our polar ice caps people and keep our climates from changing around the world.

All the Best,.. see ya out there workin' at the Turbines.
Comment 11 of 12
No image available
July 22, 2008
To better understand why transmission infrastructure is so critical to renewable energy, and wind power in general, access the REPORT tab here: www.20percentwind.org and go to the chapter on transmission. This is an excellent resource and will answer Mr. Shestak's questions, above.

Jeff Anthony
American Wind Energy Association
Comment 12 of 12
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In
Featured Total Access Partners
Click company logos to learn more
Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc. Atlantic Wind & Solar Inc. SunWize Technologies American Wind Energy Association Financial Research Associates, LLC Suntech Power Holdings
WORLD'S #1 RENEWABLE ENERGY NETWORK
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network Logo