Big Grid: The Creeping Crisis

When Ed Risse and I write about dysfunctional human settlement patterns, the context is usually transportation gridlock and affordable/accessible housing. That’s because the dysfunction in transportation and housing are so painfully evident to all. But dysfunctional human settlement patterns manifest themselves in other ways, and one of those is the cost of electric power.

We do not find ourselves at this moment in an electric power “crisis” — at least it’s not a crisis as defined by the political class. That’s due in large part to the fact that Dominion, Virginia’s dominant power company, has frozen its electric rates (with relatively minor fuel cost adjustments) through 2010. Not only are rates lower than the national average, they are stable.

Under these circumstances, electricity, like water, is one of those things that people don’t give a rip about until they don’t have it. Thus, for most Virginians, the shape of our electric power system is a non-issue — until the power goes out. In which case, it rockets to the top of the list, most likely provoking some ill-considered, short-term remedy to allow the politicians look like they’re “doing something.”

The good news is that a state commission is currently in the process of assembling a 10-year energy policy for Virginia, which means that, crisis or no, our electric-power system is under scrutiny. There are two aspects of the problem, one of which is getting the attention it deserves, and the other of which is not.

A growing chorus of voices is questioning what I call “Big Grid,” an electric power system that relies upon a relatively small number of giant power plants, located in out-of-the-way places where they don’t bother the neighbors, and upon giant, high-powered transmission lines to move the electricity to the population centers. That system exists because economies of scale had traditionally favored large power plants, despite the fact that transmission lines leak about six percent of all the electricity generated. However, any cost-benefit analysis of Big Grid needs to take into account the social costs of pollution as well as hidden vulnerabilities and risks — as demonstrated vividly by the blackouts up north that affected 50 million people back in 2003.

The alternative to Big Grid is “distributed generation” in which small-scale power production takes place in proximity to the electric consumers, decreasing the load on the power grid. We’re talking solar and cogeneration in tandem with a reduction of electricity consumption through investments in energy efficiency. I explore those issues in my recent column, “Big Grid.”

One commonly touted strategy for reducing energy consumption is variable pricing: Rate structures that reward business and residential consumers for shifting consumption from peak seasons and times of the day to off-peak periods. That spares the power companies from running their expensive, peak-load generators. I’m all in favor of peak-load pricing. But it’s incomplete. The concept of variable pricing should encompass location-variable pricing as well.

Here’s a little-noted fact: Scattered, low-density development requires major investment in power lines and sub-stations and is more expensive to serve with electric power than is more compact development. Unfortunately, electric rates do not distinguish between energy-efficient and energy-wasting settlement patterns: Everyone pays the same rate. In effect, people living in energy-efficient settlement patterns are subsidize those who live inefficiently.

Any reform of state energy policy needs to adopt location-variable pricing as a supplement to peak-load pricing. Failure to do so will translate into unnecessary capital expenditures on transmission lines and sub-stations, unnecessary electricity leakage and unnecessary costs for electric consumers.

Electric power rates are not a crisis in Virginia… yet. But they’ve become a major political football in Maryland where rate caps have been lifted. We will face the same issues as Maryland soon enough.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

31 responses to “Big Grid: The Creeping Crisis”

  1. Jim Bacon Avatar

    I received this comment by e-mail and have reproduced it here with the author’s permission. — Jim Bacon

    All of your proposed solutions to the energy problem have been proposed, again and again, since I joined the energy business in the 1960’s. My area of expertise is renewable energy. I am an engineer.

    Since 1960, some of the energy technologies have been improving, but only gradually. Implementation of each strategy hinges on economics. You discuss only the possibilities of the various technologies. You need to show a cost-benefit analysis of each strategy. Establish by solid science, not just “expert” opinions, the cost of the pollution and global warming from each source. Establish by solid economic analysis the costs and benefits of having distributed systems in the face of possible terrorist attacks. Do a probability and countermeasure analysis. We don’t require anything to be 100% safe –not automobiles or homes or food. Don’t rely on government planning. Government action distorts the economics and, therefore, the energy-resource usage. Keep the environmental issues out of the courts, where difficult science is presented in superficial sound bites so non-experts can rule.

    Keep in mind that the fossil-fuel crisis stems from the environmental movement, which caused natural-gas-fired power plants to be built, consuming a convenient fossil fuel, rather than nuclear power plants. While the rest of the world installs more and more nuclear power plants, less safe than ours, the environmentalists are keeping the U.S. from doing the same.

    So don’t just tout technologies. Demonstrate which are superior from a factual cost-benefit analysis.

    Frederick A. Costello, Ph.D.
    President
    Frederick A. Costello, Inc.
    12864 Tewksbury Drive
    Oak Hill, VA 20171-2426
    (703)-620-4942

  2. Waldo Jaquith Avatar
    Waldo Jaquith

    My wife and I will start building a house in the spring that will generate its own power — we’re currently looking at a combination of active solar and microhydro. It won’t be zero-energy, mostly because we figure it’d require about $40k worth of PV arrays to generate enough power to do the trick, and that’s with a passive-solar home with the standard array of power-saving measures.

    Anyhow, the point of this comment is to kvetch about Virginia Power’s approach to net metering. They buy electricity at a lower cost than they sell it to you. Now this makes sense from Virginia Power’s perspective because, hey, who else am I going to sell it to? But from a public policy perspective this is lousy. Under a proper distributed power generation model, the power companies should function as a battery where I store my power when I’m making more than I can use. This doesn’t scale as a business model for Virginia Power, but given their 1/10% cap, it would work quite nicely for them to generate extra power during those peak hours in the summer when people with PV arrays are making lots of extra juice and the power company could really use it.

    I haven’t done the math, but I have to imagine that it would be cheaper for me to shift my investment from PV arrays to batteries and not sell anything back to Virginia Power, particularly once I factor in that PV arrays and batteries get folded into my mortgage (on which I can claim a tax exemption) but my electrical bill enjoys no such benefit.

  3. Jim Bacon Avatar

    Fred, The intention of my column is not to dictate policy — it is only to emphasize possibilities that do not appear to be fully appreciated in the public debate. The fact is, there is much that we in Virginia can do to achieve energy independence. We don’t have to wait for the federal government to save us.

    I totally agree that any reform should be market-driven rather than ideology-driven. If a technology, whether wind, solar, biomass, whatever, fails to meet the market test, it’s probably not a good idea. The difficulty comes when adjusting for externalities and risks. Clearly, coal-fired power plants are cheaper than solar as base-line energy source. But the advantage is less clear when you factor in pollution (based on sound science, not fear mongering) and when you factor in the necessity of building more and more high-voltage transmission lines.

    When it comes to public policy, I’m not suggesting that the Commonwealth of Virginia dictate the use of one fuel or technology over another. I do suggest that we remove regulatory barriers that unfairly hinder one technology or another, and that we create mechanisms, such as variable pricing and net metering, that will allow the marketplace to work.

  4. Jim Bacon Avatar

    Waldo, I will be very interested to follow your experience installing PV solar. I’m really interested to see how your numbers crunch out. I’d love to do something similar with our house in Richmond. (For the record, when I lived in Charlottesville some 20 years ago, I installed a solar hot water heater. It worked very nicely and generated a decent return on investment.)

  5. Toomanytaxes Avatar
    Toomanytaxes

    Waldo – Best of luck to you on your house and energy project. Isn’t it reasonable to expect that a business will charge more at retail than it’s paying at wholesale? If you sell a car to a dealer, you will receive less than the retail price for that automobile when the dealer sells it on the market.

    I don’t see that electricity is any different. However, since DVP is a regulated utility, the difference between wholesale and retail may be appropriate to question before the VSCC.

  6. Waldo Jaquith Avatar
    Waldo Jaquith

    Waldo wrote:
    They buy electricity at a lower cost than they sell it to you. Now this makes sense from Virginia Power’s perspective because, hey, who else am I going to sell it to? But from a public policy perspective this is lousy.

    Toomanytaxes wrote:
    Isn’t it reasonable to expect that a business will charge more at retail than it’s paying at wholesale?

    It seems we’re in agreement here.

  7. E M Risse Avatar

    Spelling out the full cost of delivering a kilowatt in a neighborhood that is part of a Balanced Community at 10 persons per acre vs the same number of dwellings scattered on 1, 5, 10 and 20 acre lots is a wonderful first step in developing a basis for fair allocation of location variable costs.

    Big Grids leak only 6% because of high voltage. The distribution systems systems are where the real loss occours. Not just the cost of more wire for scattered users but line loss at low voltages.

    EMR

  8. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    more fodder in today’s NYT (exerpts):

    Flaws Seen in Markets for Utilities

    A growing chorus of large industrial power users, municipal utilities and consumer groups say there is a reason the price of electricity has not fallen since the federal government opened the heavily regulated utility industry to competition a decade ago. The new markets, they argue, do not work right.

    They point to a variety of reasons.

    For one thing, when electricity producers offer to supply power for use the next day, utilities pay everyone the highest price accepted. One study in Texas, where electricity bills have been rising sharply, found that because of this auction system, consumers pay a lot more than they would have under the old system where the state regulated prices.

    They also contend that producers can withhold power or limit production, with little risk of penalty, even when demand is at its highest, meaning prices soar.

    Allowing producers of electricity to compete for utility customers should assure the lowest possible price, the commission says.

    But the opposite has sometimes been true.

    For eight hours last May, for example, the price of a megawatt of power in New England leaped from about $50 to almost $1,000. The region’s electricity exchange attributes the spike to congested transmission lines, but has kept the identities of the high bidders secret.

    But critics of the current system have found ammunition in a study at Carnegie Mellon University by Sarosh N. Talukdar, who used computer models to simulate a market in which 10 utilities bought electricity and 10 producers sold it.

    In that experiment, the buyers and sellers learned to manipulate the price within 100 rounds of bidding, capturing from 50 percent to 90 percent of the prices an unregulated monopoly would have charged. Instead of falling, prices soared.

    But many utilities in about half the states, including New York, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland and Texas, must buy power every day — usually because they were encouraged or forced by regulators to sell their own generating plants and no longer produce electricity themselves.

    And every utility must buy power at some point, to meet peak demand on hot summer days.

    Unlike the stock market, where vast numbers of strangers buy and sell, the electricity markets involve a relative handful of buyers and sellers.

    Finally, the electricity market appears to be particularly balanced on a fine edge. The Chadbourne Park law firm, in a newsletter for investors in electricity generating stations, cautioned that tiny changes in generating capacity could make them rich or wipe them out. It concluded that having 2 percent more generating capacity than a market needed to meet demand would mean “very low electricity prices,” while a 2 percent shortage of electricity would cause “significant price spikes,” which means outsize profits for power plant owners.

    I’ve cut quite a bit… worth reading the whole article

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/business/21utility.html

  9. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I’d like to point out Mr. Costello has a contradiction in his response:

    “Keep in mind that the fossil-fuel crisis stems from the environmental movement, which caused natural-gas-fired power plants to be built, consuming a convenient fossil fuel, rather than nuclear power plants. While the rest of the world installs more and more nuclear power plants, less safe than ours, the environmentalists are keeping the U.S. from doing the same.””

    So don’t just tout technologies. Demonstrate which are superior from a factual cost-benefit analysis.”

    Nukes would not be around in the US period if we did not indemnify the investors. So much for the free market approach that Mr. Costello advocates.

    To wit:

    The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (commonly called the Price-Anderson Act) is an act of the Congress of the United States which covers all non-military nuclear facilities constructed in the United States before 2026. The main purpose of the Act is to indemnify the nuclear industry against liability claims arising from nuclear incidents while still ensuring compensation coverage for the general public. The Act establishes a no fault insurance-type system in which the first $10 billion is industry-funded according to a scheme described in the Act (any claims above the $10 billion would be covered by the federal government). At the time of the Act’s passing, it was considered necessary as an incentive for the private production of nuclear power. This was because investors were unwilling to accept the then-unknown risks of nuclear energy without limitations on their liability.

    How about – we take away ALL subsidies and we charge for whatever it takes to clean up the pollution from any/all of the technologies – THEN we’ll have a level playing field for energy.

  10. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “Waldo – Best of luck to you on your house and energy project.”

    ditto in spades…

    I’d like to point out that by doing this Waldo has chosen to NOT pollute our environment with Mercury or Nuke Waste while the rest of us (myself included) also have made a choice… of convenience …

    We choose TO pollute – because – .. our rationale .. is that what Waldo is doing is not cost-effective… correct?

    It’s “nice” that he does this… but not for us… we’ve got SUVs to buy.. plasma TVs to lust after… 🙂

    now .. please don’t come back and tell me about homeless folks don’t have this option.. we’re talking about folks who do….

    Here’s another guy who did: “SPOTSYLVANIA, Va. (AP) – The point, says Bob Bennett, is to show people they can have the house they want, and that it can be extremely energy efficient at the same time.

    To demonstrate that, Bennett and his wife, Sheryl, are building their new Fawn Lake home with the “greenest” technology available, some of which may be getting its first practical application in Virginia.

    Bennett offers his top three reasons for adding energy-efficient features to a new or existing home:

    1. The overall peace of mind you enjoy, knowing that you can enjoy your home and contain costs at the same time.

    2. The resale value. If over an eight-year period a standard house sees a 26 percent increase in resale value, research indicates a home with “green” features would see a 42 percent increase.

    3. It is good for the environment.

    geeze… this sorta makes sense… doesn’t it?

    http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=25&sid=923279

  11. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “The alternative to Big Grid is “distributed generation” in which small-scale power production takes place in proximity to the electric consumers, decreasing the load on the power grid. We’re talking solar and cogeneration in tandem with a reduction of electricity consumption through investments in energy efficiency. I explore those issues in my recent column, “Big Grid.”

    well… some issues here…

    how would you do this with dense, compact development?

    one presumes (perhaps incorrectly) that economies of scale would produce cheaper power at mega plants rather than distributed mini-plants…

    and .. the mini-plants.. what technology? … I presume natural gas.. turbines.. right?

    right now.. Dominion Power and other providers provide “peak power” via natural gas turbines and by purchasing out-of-state grid power from other producers.

    I’d be curious to know how much a kilowatt hour costs when generated by natural gas…

    “Here’s a little-noted fact: Scattered, low-density development requires major investment in power lines and sub-stations and is more expensive to serve with electric power than is more compact development. Unfortunately, electric rates do not distinguish between energy-efficient and energy-wasting settlement patterns: Everyone pays the same rate. In effect, people living in energy-efficient settlement patterns are subsidize those who live inefficiently.”

    oh .. contrare… given two communities .. small dense and compact and more widely dispersed – couldn’t EITHER of them have local power rather than distributed power? Wouldn’t there also be a better chance at “siting” a locale plant in and around dispersed settlement patterns?

    Wouldn’t, in fact, in a compact development.. you’d have to allocate a site .. to power generation rather than more compact development?

    but again.. a relevant question is how much more does natural-gas generated power cost than grid distributed power.

  12. Jim Bacon Avatar

    Larry, natural gas is not by itself competitive with grid power. It is competitive only when coupled with cogeneration, in which the waste steam is used to heat and cool. Cogeneration extracts 80 percent of the energy from natural gas, vs. half that amount through electric turbines alone. The reason you need compact communities to take advantage of cogeneration is, I think, that you can transport the steam only so far before it loses its BTUs. (To be honest, I don’t understand the engineering so don’t take this as gospel.)

  13. You guys are finally learning.

    Bacon is right. Co-generation is highly efficient because you capture the waste heat and use it. You can now buy even individual house units, and Waldo might want to look into it: it is probably far more efficient and maybe even less polluting than his photvoltaics.

    I was 100% with you until you spouted that location variable costs crap. This is just another of EMR’s plans to tax people out of the countryside in order to save open space.

    Cogeneration is even more efficient when it is applied at the aparment building level or other places where there is a good demand for the waste heat. Neither are turbines required: ordinary reciprocating engines work quite well in this application.

    I don’t know what the re-buy rules are in Virginia, but in some states power companies must re-buy your power at their highest marginal rate. This rule is in effect to encourage distributed generation. If waldo is really willing to invest that kind of money it might actually pay him to move to a place where it will pay back sooner.

    However distributed generation has some drawbacks. Now the pollution produced is produced in the places that need it the least. Wasting six percent to distribute both the power and the pollution might be worth it. But then there is also the wasted heat, which, as Jim points out is considerable. Finally, these things require both engineering and maintenance which most people are not capable of, as does solar.

    Larry is right about Costello’s response. If Nuclear power had to pay its own insurance, it would shut down tomorrow. If Metro riders had to pay their full costs, it would shut down tomorrow, too.

    Costello is right though, this blog promotes a lot of possibilities without very much real analysis. The reason these ideas are not used is because they don’t pay off.

    AS for Waldo,, if it was me, before I dropped big money on photovoltaics I’d have to do some hard thinking. Here are few alternatives that might work out better.

    Buy $40k in stock in BP.

    Consider cogeneration instead of photvoltaics.

    Buy $40K in storm windows and give them away to poor folks that need them. It would probably save far more energy that putting up a big array.

    Spend the $40k and buy me a tractor. I’ll pay you back in renewable firewood to heat your house. Your payback will be about the same as with solar photovoltaics.

    And remember, photovoltaics are made from glass and silicon, which are two of the biggest energy consuming industries in the nation, right up there with drywall production, cement, and power generation. This falls in the same category as trying to save energy by using diesel fuel and fertilizer made form natural gas to grow corn.

    Everything is trade offs and priorities, Waldo has his, and I have mine. Far be it for me to suggest that either oneof usis right or wrong. I hope Waldo has a lot of fun designing and building his dream. I hope his neighbors don’t object that he is doing something that may affect their economics negatively.

  14. Anonymous Avatar

    I’ve followed the energy situation in the Old Dominion for two decades. One thing that no one has mentioned is that zoning codes do not promote innovative and energy efficient designs. Tax codes might but zoning codes don’t. If we’re going to use gov’t regulation to create policy (a debate in itself), why not promote energy efficiency and environmentally responsible construction methods?

  15. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I’m curious about the co-gen by itself and cogen with respect to NG>

    I was under the impression that co-gen – as a source – is pretty skimpy.

    We have a co-gen plant in our area. What it really is – is a coal-burning plant with pipes that lead to a greenhouse operation.

    Is THIS what folks are suggesting? If so.. what KINDs of facilities would exist in .. say NoVA or near dense/compact development. The power plant in Fredericksburg is 10 miles out in the country.

    Then a question about NG… is there some kind of process that utilizes a heat source (like co-gen) to make burning NG more efficient? I’ve never heard of such a thing…

    Dominion, (and private firms with contracts from Dominion), as far as I know, have been NG turbine plants – some in the NoVa Area. These are what are called “dispatch” plants – where they only operate when there are peak power demands that exceed the ability of Dominion to supply via it’s base power plant assets.

  16. Jim Bacon Avatar

    Anonymous 12:10, Thanks for reminding me of energy-efficient design and construction. That was a huge hole in my story. I can’t believe I left it out!

  17. Jim Bacon Avatar

    Larry, I’m no expert about cogeneration, but here’s my understanding. Dominion peak-load power plants probably would not make good co-generation facilities because they run only a fraction of the time. That means they’d be generating steam only a fraction of the time. As a practical matter, it would be difficult for Dominion to find an application for that steam.

    In a brief hiatus in my journalism career, I worked for a coal company that wanted to get into the cogeneration business. A coal-fired co-gen plant would generate electricity around the clock and provide a steady supply of steam to industrial customers.

    What’s changed since then is that micro-turbines can generate electricity efficiently but in small volumes. The key is to find something that can be done with the commensurately small volumes of steam. Can they be used to heat/cool malls, for example, or office parks, or college campuses, or condominiums?

  18. Waldo Jaquith Avatar
    Waldo Jaquith

    If waldo is really willing to invest that kind of money it might actually pay him to move to a place where it will pay back sooner.

    Uh. No. This is family land. My wife’s family has lived here for generations. We’re not going anywhere.

    AS for Waldo,, if it was me, before I dropped big money on photovoltaics I’d have to do some hard thinking. Here are few alternatives that might work out better.

    You seem to believe that my motivation is solely economic. It is not. We frequently lose power, at least a cumulative week each year, often in the winter. Being able to continue to have indoor plumbing, refrigeration and a little light in that period would be enormously helpful.

    Also, my brief description of my home plans do not do justice to our intentions. We do not, for instance, intend to heat our home using electricity. We will, as we do now, use wood and passive solar. We do not intend to continue our current rate of consumption of power (9.8 BTUs / sq. ft. / degree day) but, instead, drop it down to less than 2 BTUs / sq. ft. / degree day, thus reducing our demand.

    The PV arrays are not a net energy savings, due to their manufacturing costs. We will have to make up the difference via small wind and/or microhydro, but especially through simply reducing our demand.

    Hot water on-demand with solar preheating, south-facing windows with a heat-retaining solar slab and a proper overhang, proper deciduous tree positioning and a tight envelope with proper R values: these are the things that save energy. They’re far more valuable than spending money on cogeneration. PV arrays provide energy security, which is valuable, but ultimately not helpful to in terms of total national energy consumption.

    I hope his neighbors don’t object that he is doing something that may affect their economics negatively.

    We don’t have any neighbors. Anybody who is concerned about how their neighbors “affect their economics negatively” shouldn’t live here and, in fact, doesn’t. We live on the side of a mountain in the Southwest Mountains. Our house will be up the mountain from our current house, towards the peak, with one house a quarter mile away and no others for nearly a mile.

  19. Waldo, I was pulling your leg. I’m in the same boat you are, but evidently you have a lot more land.

    “Hot water on-demand with solar preheating, south-facing windows with a heat-retaining solar slab and a proper overhang, proper deciduous tree positioning and a tight envelope with proper R values: these are the things that save energy.”

    Right you are, I concur with all those things. I’d love to have a tight envelope, but since the house has been here for generations, that is unlikely, although I keep working on it.

    Generally, when my power goes out, I just do without. If it gets to be a real pain I fire up the generator, which I can run for years compared to the price of a solar array. If the array makes you feel better, go for it.

    I have a friend with a semi- submerged south facing house. He can heat the entire house with a cord and a half of wood, all winter, in New England. He has really ingenious roll up window blankets. these let the sun in during the day and trap the heat in his thermal mass over night.

    Even so, after a few years he switched to electric.

    I don’t have any problem with any of these things, a little here and a little there really adds up. But I don’t see any of it actually solving our energy problems.

    I like the boat: go south in winter and north in summer, all under wind power. Other people have other priorities. Sincerely, I hope you have fun with your plans and construction, and I hope you are happy with the result.

    It sounds like you are doing all the right things.

  20. Larry, at present co-gen is pretty skimpy. The example you give is but one, however heating greenhouses is really expensive, so if you can do it with waste heat, so much the better.

    Obviously a plant out in the country is not a good candidate for co-gen. But they put it out there to avoid the complaints about pollution.

    When I think of co-gen I think of the typical apartment house application. Here you use NG to run an engine to make electricity to power the apartment building. Then you use the wast heat from the engine and exhaust to heat hot water which you use to heat the building. During the day when demand is low you run the engine enough to heat the building and sell the electricity to the power company.

    True Co-gen needs to be really local. In fact you can buy a unit similar to what I described at the single home size. It uses a highly efficient and well insulated isuzu engine that runs on natural gas. It is computer controlled based on the household demand for hotwater, heat, airconditioning, and electricity. It starts and stops automatically as needed.

    It uses smart meter technology and load balancing. If there is a demand for heat or air conditioning the engine runs a direct drive heat pump. I the demand is for heat, the heat pump is augmented by the waste engine and exhaust heat, otherwise the waste heat is diverted to water heating. If the demand is for electricity it spins a generator and captures the waste heat.

    When there isn’t enough load to make it efficient it goes to sleep and you use power from the grid to keep your VCR clock and reffer running. When the heat pump is not running at full load it clutches in the generator and sells power back to the utility.

    These systems are becoming popular in florida where air conditioning bills are high.

  21. I see in today’s Fauquier Democrat that the super rich in the area of Paris and Middleburg have succeded in having the proposed power line study area shifted south. The new target is along route 66.

    Apparently, soon I’ll have not only a highway but but a high voltage power line traversing the farm, in order to sevice city residents.

    I don’t know whether to just send them a bill, or to apply for a zoning change to industrial.

  22. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    In several recent circumstances, people have asked why major powerlines cannot follow major road rights-of-ways.

    I’m sure there is a downside but the logic to have two adverse-impact facilities adjacent rather than have two separate paths – each with major impacts.

    I don’t see .. adding powerlines to I-66 as making the impact twice as bad… but rather almost complementing…

    I know this rationale is used to site cell towers… VDOT actually gets money for these… why would this same approach not work for powerlines?

  23. Larry may be right about the relative appreciation of green housing as compared to regular housing, and that is a componenet of the cost benefit analysis I had not considered.

    But I notice that his examples apply only to new housing. Retrofits are a much more difficult problem.

    I saw an article in the post about a family that moved to Arlington from their green home in NC. They were unhappy that it was built in the ordinary way and didn’t have the features of their previous home.

    They thought the house would be improved with a front porch, and when they built it they did it with a green roof.

    Aside from the claimed advantages, I’m highly sceptical of green roofs. It seems to me they must be more heavily constructed, and when they develop leaks they must be hard to repair. When I look at plants destroying concrete slabs, I cant believe putting them on the roof is a good idea.

    But, it is not my roof, and if it makes him happy, then more power to him. The author noted the challenges of actually getting things to grow there, and challenges are always fun.

  24. As much as I don’t like it, 66 is the logical path to follow, unless there are a lot of other engineering tradeoffs I don’t know about.

    When VDOT bought the land, they bought it for a highway right of way, not a highway and a power line. Does that mean I should be paid more now for the additional use?

    It’s not my land anymore, it is VDOT’s. But, since I am a prior owner, should I be allowed to protest my neighbor doing something whith his land that adversely affects me?

    According to the paper, this could devalue the surrounding properties by as much as 50%. Maybe the smart thing to do is slap a conservation easement on it, quick, before the value goes down, that way I can get the maximum tax break for giving away nothing before it goes away.

    On the other hand, if the value goes down, the county may want to do something to get the value and revenue stream back, like allowing more development. If the land is mostly under land use anyway, that won’t make any difference to the county, but the landowner will still be out 50%.

    So now we see an additional unpaid use for open space. Besides cleaning the air and water, and providing viewscapes, and habitat, now we see that it provides an important buffer between cities and the power plants they need to keep those sinkholes operating.

    Yessirree Bobalouie. I think anyone who lives out here ought to be charged 10x extra for the additional locational costs of services.

  25. I live in a falling down old farmhouse sitting back from the road and down in a hole, which shelters it from wind on the north side. The house has a quaint old charm, and it is lovely with several sets of double bay windows. But it is old and not worth all that much.

    I really feel sorry for my neighbor. He just built a fine new home sitting on the crest of a hill so he could have a wonderful view, far up the Paris Valley.

    At a hundred and fifty feet those power lines will just about bisect his viewscape, but I doubt I will see them from the house here.

    I imagine that people like him will soon see the sense in arguing for compensation when the government takes action that disrupts your land values.

    Like Metro, people in the city get the benefit and people out here (who don’t use it) help pay the price.

    Isn’t this a case where the user should pay?

    Larry?

  26. “Position: Power lines affect property values
    This party claims that since there is evidence that there is a health risk, a loss in value to property owners should be recognized. The key driver of this movement has been the environmental groups.”

    “University of Missouri-Kansas School of Law A review of a case where “…that a tax assessor’s opinion that the proposed power line would not change the assessed value of the property for tax purposes was incompetent and prejudicial…”An exerpt of the correspondence: “Late last year, New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, ruled that the owner of property adjacent to a utility’s high-power electrical transmission lines could seek damages for a decrease in the market value of the property caused by the fear that the power lines might cause cancer, even if such a fear was not medically or scientifically reasonable. That decision has already begun to change the outlook on electromagnetic field (EMF) litigation for utilities.”

    http://cellphonesafety.wordpress.com/2006/10/07/power-lines-emfs-real-estate-values-and-legal-issues/

  27. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “Like Metro, people in the city get the benefit and people out here (who don’t use it) help pay the price.

    Isn’t this a case where the user should pay?

    Larry?”

    this is just like the VDOT deal in my view and both of these rest on the concept of imminent domain which is rooted in the concept of “takings” that are justified for the “public good”

    And to be clear – “taking” has two parts.. fair compensation but then also – some folks don’t want to see regardless of compensation – they wouldn’t sell for 3,4 10 times the value… they want the land and they don’t want a road or a powerline through it to start with.

    There are dialogues going on with respect to PPTA Toll roads and whether or not new ones should be sited according to “willing-seller, willing buyer” concepts (which.. by the way is the way that many govt agencies beyond VDOT operate).

    If I remember correctly, power companies did not used to have the power of imminent domain but recent legislation at the Fed/State(?) level has given them a stronger hand – a rough equivalent.

    Okay.. so to the actual question.

    I thing that strikes me about this particular issue is the fact that I-66 seems like a much more obvious path and there must be a good reason why it was not thought to be the first/best choice but my limited reading on it has not indicated a comparative analysis – which I think should have been clearly discussed in the initial proposal – because obviously… you end up with controversy, disagreement, and ultimately legal and political confrontations and challenges.

    WHY would the power company NOT want to have a less chaotic process from the get go? Why lay something down with an attitude of “my way or the road” .. that ultimately is going to get mired .. cost a lot of bucks and inevitable delays.

    You’d think they were VDOT … right?

    There ARE Federal laws with regard to land that’s been designated… as significant.. and/or set aside/protected as such. The two laws are called 4f and Section 106. 4f can be the kiss of death if a public park or environmental justice is involved. The law directly affects VDOT .. somewhat less directly for private entities that are not using Federal funds. Ironic but true… a private owner can completely destroy something that VDOT cannot touch.

    I suspect that if the powerline issue involves govt-enabled eminent domain – that it’s fertile ground for the legal beagles…

    with regard to the basic idea of taking land for public purposes – I think you MUST have that capability but I think it’s use should be as a last resort. For instance, if VDOT has 95% of their route and they obtained it by willing-seller, willing-buyer then… it would seem to have something a majority of the public and affected landowners support – to have one guy… kill the entire project.. would doom most roads and most powerlines because landowners would know that if they opposed a route – they could.

    So I suspect that you would support eminent domain also right?

    I think if the govt is going to use eminent domain – the bar should be set pretty high to demonstrate that there is no reasonable and prudent way to accommodate the need without the specific one that they want.

    So – I think that should be done with the powerline. If they want to take private land I think they need much more than a perfunctory… we”ll have blackouts if you don’t let us do it.

    I think they need to demonstrate quite comprehensively why they need that line now in that particular place and show alternatives .. and cost/benefit tradeoffs … your typical EIS….

  28. Anonymous Avatar

    Power utilities’ capacity to achieve easements, is, in my understanding, considerably stronger than that of VDOTs, because the utility represents public good, because power is more critical and time-sensitive than roads which take a long tme to build, and also because of legal precedents set over decades with former easements since electrification became widespread.

    Remember that once upon a time, a power line meant freedom.

    Now we see the monster sized grandchild in the large lines and instead of freedom, want nature.

    I don’t like them either, actually as nature is far more pleasant, but I wanted to emphasize that there is historic precendent for emininent domain for powerlines that is more legally substantial than that of roads.

    If there’s a legal beagle in the audience, they could comment with far greater authority.

    Mr. Hyde, the utility corporation (international, fyi) is a powerful entity, but they will work with landowners. Good luck in the outcomes.

  29. Yes, but in this case, they may just use 66 as the easement, in which case VDOT is the landowner, and those on either side will have little to say, I think.

  30. Nope, I was wrong. I just saw the proposed maps, and the route runs parallel to 66, right through the farm. It looks as if one of the towers will go right in the midle of my prettiest and most unspoiled part of the farm.

    So, the beach cottage, sixty acres of the farm, and now this.

    Gee I’m glad the county has prevented bme from building here, in order to keep it unspoiled. And I really appreciate paying 3x in taxes over what I owe to help keep it that way.

    Of course the power company is going to argue that it is only farmland anyway, and pay me the land use rate, and only for the part they are standing on, probably.

    And of course NOW PEC is making a big stink and talking about how peoples property rights are being violated, but you didn’t hear that argument when they wanted to prevent me from building.

    They are going to be all fired up over stopping this thing and using alternate technology and what not, but I’m pretty sure the engineering studies have been done. They know where this thing is going. And Bacon is right, all those millions of power users will take precedence over a few rural landowners.

    I’d be a lot happier if PEC spent their efforts trying to see to it that the screwees are properly compensated than I will be watching them spend their money tilting at windmills, again.

  31. Frederick A. Costello Avatar
    Frederick A. Costello

    Larry Gross is right in his reaction to my post — at the top of this discussion. We need a level playing field for judging all energy sources, uses and misuses. The Price-Anderson Act tried to level the field in the nuclear corner because the field is tilted by litigation. As an expert witness, I can assure you that the jury of peers is fiction when science and technology are being judged. The lawyers struggle to keep the issues simple enough for the jury to understand; therefore, instead of sound judgments we have we have sound-bite judgments. The playing field is further tilted against deep pockets such as large public companies, which are pre-judged to have so much unjustly obtained money that they can pay an unlimited amount as a penalty. When we have juries of unbiased scientists, engineers, and economists to judge such complex issues as energy misuses — with technically trained lawyers presenting the cases – then we will have a level playing field.

    Fred Costello

Leave a Reply