Photo Credit: Warren Gretz
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 (5) 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
April 14, 2009

Transmission's Time in Congress

In spite of the associated complex issues that must be confronted, legislation is in the works.
by Chris Madison, AWEA
Washington, DC, United States [RenewableEnergyWorld.com]

This is turning out to be a crucial year for renewable energy legislation in Congress. First, in rapid fashion compared to its usual pace, Congress in mid-February passed the economic stimulus bill, which included numerous financial incentives for wind and other renewables. Soon after, a trio of renewable issues were put on the legislative agenda: a national renewable electricity standard (RES), then climate change and, finally, transmission.

In addition, a white paper on the issue of transmission developed by AWEA and other groups notes that almost 300,000 MW of wind projects, more than enough to meet 20% of our electricity needs, are waiting in line to connect to the grid because there is inadequate transmission capacity.

All three issues are closely intertwined. To solve the climate change problem, proponents of legislative action say we need to reduce carbon emissions through a cap-and-trade program. But other incentives are also needed to spur use of more renewable energy in power generation; hence the RES legislation. But a national RES requires still other measures for it to be successful; specifically, many states that have enacted RES legislation cannot meet RES targets without more transmission. Thus, at the national level, transmission legislation is also seen as key to renewables' success.

The Challenge

For the wind industry, the need for new transmission has been obvious for some time. Last year, for example, the U.S. Department of Energy concluded that insufficient transmission was the biggest obstacle to meeting 20% of U.S. Electricity demand from wind by 2030. In addition, a white paper on the issue of transmission developed by AWEA and other groups notes that almost 300,000 MW of wind projects, more than enough to meet 20% of our electricity needs, are waiting in line to connect to the grid because there is inadequate transmission capacity.

To meet such challenges, transmission legislation would be intended to help clear the way for construction of a high-capacity, green superhighway system that would connect the renewable energy sites, often in rural areas, to the urban population centers where electricity demand is growing.

All of the legislation that has been proposed would tackle the "three p's": planning, paying, and permitting. First, the legislation would create a planning process for the eastern and western halves of the nation to design plans to develop transmission to access and deliver renewable energy. Second, in general, the legislation would set up a means to pay for the system by allowing the regions to propose a manner in which to allocate the costs of new transmission infrastructure; if they fail to do so, it would be done broadly across the region and spread, on a pro-rata basis, among all the users of the grid in that region. Third, all of the proposed bills would create federal siting authority to override state or regional objections, if needed.

Much of the new authority needed to get new transmission going would fall to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which would be given clear authority to certify new entities to undertake the planning process, approve and, in some instances, create the cost allocation mechanism and authority to site transmission.

Proponents say these reforms are needed because the current system for planning, financing and building transmission dates back half a century. State utility regulators do not have the authority or the incentive to approve plans for transmission projects that do more than serve ratepayers in their own state, while no effective federal authority exists either, creating crucial problems given that new transmission infrastructure would need to cross state lines and serve customers in multiple states as well.

The Legislative Landscape

With transmission legislation having been introduced but not passed in the last Congress, the latest effort has been underway for many months. A number of energy groups and companies, including AWEA, the Energy Futures Coalition, American Electric Power, and the Solar Energy Industries Association, have been meeting in an effort to reach consensus on the outlines of a bill while coordinating with key Congressional offices. Both Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) have called for action on the issue.

This month Reid and Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, separately introduced major transmission legislation, and Bingaman held a hearing on the issue March 12. In the House, the leader on transmission has been Representative Jay Inslee (D-Wash.), who has recently introduced a bill. Democrats in the House and Senate have been seeking Republican support, too.

The outlook for passage of transmission legislation is unclear. One problem is that it could get tied up in legislative wrangling over the RES and climate change. Democratic leaders in the House and Senate now are advocating putting all three measures into a single, omnibus energy bill. That could be a risky strategy, some renewable energy lobbyists believe, and it's not clear yet whether, in the end, that course will be chosen. At this early stage, the three proposals are being offered, considered and debated separately.

Another complicating factor is that some utility interests do not believe a federal role is needed, and so they may try to block any bill giving FERC sweeping new powers. There also will be disagreements among transmission legislation proponents about whether coal-fired electric plants should be given access to the new transmission system that is specifically designed for renewable energy.

Nevertheless, balanced against those potential hurdles is a sense of positive momentum among renewable energy advocates. They believe that this year the political atmosphere is favorable toward renewable energy legislation and that Congress will be prodded into action.

Underscoring the importance of the issue, the WINDPOWER 2009 Conference & Exhibition, which takes place May 4-7 in Chicago, includes a whole lineup of sessions devoted to transmission. One of those, in fact, will examine the federal policy side of the issue (AWEA Strategic Transmission Policy) and will be moderated by AWEA Policy Director Rob Gramlich. In addition, given that transmission issues can get highly technical, for the first time WINDPOWER will include an introductory session on the topic, "Wind Power and Transmission." Other transmission-oriented sessions include "Wind Integration Issues Today," "Overcoming Transmission Roadblocks-Transmission Planning," and "Grid Interconnection Rules and Queues."

This article first appeared in the March 2009 issue of Windletter and was republished with permission from the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA).

Chris Madison is senior writer at AWEA.

Image Gallery (1)
 
Reader Comments (5)
 
No image available
April 14, 2009
Transmission

Complex issues, to discuss and then to solve,
On our transmission problems, much needs to evolve,
Where are lines to be built and who is to pay?
Who has authority and who has the say?
Proponents tell us that we have to refine,
And develop many a brand new transmission line,
From each and every source of fresh clean power,
To carry current underground or high in lofty tower,
And what about, the FERC,
Can they help distribution of this source of energy,
Regulations are needed, to settle points of view,
In planning, approving to see that all gets through,
Yes, our country is ready to move on, indeed,
New transmission's our goal, our veins of energy.

adrianakau2aol.com
Comment 1 of 5
No image available
April 15, 2009
Re: we need to reduce carbon emissions through a cap-and-trade program.

This program will eventually take the pricing for our cheapest forms of energy out of the hands of the producer and into the hands of the free-range speculator, the strong-arm payoff man, the confidence racket, the Ponzi schemer, and the petty nickel-and-dime grifter.

Society does not need to support these people. They produce nothing. We owe them nothing.
Comment 2 of 5
No image available
April 15, 2009
The currently policy are still supporting the large power system and little attention is paid to distributed generation. Without feed-in tarrifs, the whole program does have a good foundation. We need to adopt the FIT's first, then work on the transmission and smart grids second. Having a strong FIT's program will allow for real distributed generation to take place thus lessen the effects of large transmission needs.

One only needs to look at Demark where since 1980's, they have a FIT's program in effect, and their wind turbines are distrubuted throught the country allowing for the reduction of two coal/gas fire plants and no changes in transmission.

If you are interested in working on FIT's legistaion or support please contract us at clyde at-skyvolts.com
Comment 3 of 5
No image available
April 16, 2009
"Anythings worth getting CSP with storage developed on a massive scale" as that is THE ONLY renewable that could even come close to powering the world!

Problem though, I've "stumbled" upon a much simpler (and unlimited) yet to be (re)developed source of power. A spin off from nuclear tech, the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor is about a thousand times safer and produces less than one percent of wastes, which has a halflife of about a thousandth of what the dummies want to put in Yucca Valley! (So in 300 years, if the casings crumble, the contents would be less radioactive than natural uranium itself!) Better yet, this thing can even "burn" the high level wastes! Infact, it requires such to "kick start" the process of thorium fission (as I think I understand it)!

The reason why it is not used is because the infrastructure and design went towards the weapons making form of nuclear, that is of "burning" uranium, which I oppose.

Just search it and see if this is not truly the answer since the tech has been around half a century ago... Imagine, no need to spend billions on extra lines, no need to fight off global dust storms caused by desert bulldozing (the easiest way to do CSP), and being able to use the deserts to desalinate water and to grow food and with all that unlimited power, to not have to worry about the few times when CSP doesn't provide baseload power, not having to impose STUPID wealth restricting carbon caps (before cheap unlimited alternative is in place) and most importantly, a way for the rest of the world to produce power for less than that of coal!

Global warming, PROBLEM SOLVED!

As someone who really wanted CSP, I must admit, that something better is available, something that EVERYONE should look into! I am asking more questions about the LFTR concept as it seems almost to good to be true, but it is for real and the science has been around to prove it!
Comment 4 of 5
No image available
April 27, 2009
Grid expansion is a quagmire of conflicting local issues, state issues, eminent domain issues, property rights issues, state laws, state borders, and interstate commerce issues.

However, today's grid is terribly insufficient. When more wind energy is produced than there is local demand, power companies must PAY others to take the energy or risk damage to the grid.

The energy costs in Iowa, Minnesota and North Dakota (states with high wind penetration) have been driven negative at a rapidly increasing rate. In March there were 47 hours of negative pricing, 8 of which saw prices lower than -$50/MWh. April, being a more temperate month (requiring less power for overnight climate control), will have a greater instance of negative pricing throughout that region.

The problem will continue even with federal transmission legislation – building a wind farm is relatively quick, while laying a hundred miles of new transmission has taken 10 years to fight through all the local issues involved.

One solution would be a symbiotic technology that offers flexible local demand for energy. Doty Energy is currently developing a "WindFuels" system that can use variable electrical energy to convert waste CO2 and H2O back into standard liquid fuels.

The system begins with the electrolysis of water into H2, which is stored to allow constant operation of the RFTS system during times when excess low-cost energy is not available. Some of the H2 is then used in an RWGS reaction to reduce CO2 to CO, and the balance of the hydrogen is combined with the CO in a FTS reactor to produce standard fuels.

The important part for the discussion at hand is the electrolyzers, which could adjust to match the load in one cycle – or ~0.017 seconds. In return for advantageous pricing, the power companies could be given control of the electrolyzers, enabling them to efficiently offload the excess energy in real time. This energy would produce highly profitable fuels.

www.WindFuels.com
Comment 5 of 5
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
Michigan Economic Development Corporation Sharp Solar Energy Solutions Group Solar Nation MKS Instruments, Inc Solar Power Partners, Inc. PeopleSense Consulting LLC
WORLD'S #1 RENEWABLE ENERGY NETWORK
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network Logo