A Power Line Coming Soon to a Neighborhood Near You

The Department of Energy has moved a step closer to designating a swath of Virginia as part of a National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor in the Mid-Atlantic region, one of two in the country. (See DOE press release.) The practical import: If Dominion gets turned down by the State Corporation Commission in its bid to build a high-voltage electric power line through the northern Virginia piedmont, it could appeal to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on the grounds of national interest.

Here’s DOE’s argument: Transmission constraints are limiting electricity flows on key trunk lines in the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland Interconnection, which Virginia is tied to. As a result, major population centers in the Mid-Atlantic cannot obtain cheap electricity from the Midwest and have to rely upon high-cost generating capacity available locally. Those higher costs are passed on to consumers. By 2011, the reliability of the electric supply could be called into question in the Washington/Baltimore metro area.

Declaring much of the Mid-Atlantic to be part of a “national interest” transmission corridor will facilitate the construction of new transmission lines. In other words, the feds are riding to the rescue of states who have either (a) restricted the use of low-cost nuclear power, or (b) have been unwilling or unable to curtail the growth of electricity demand. And they will do so by running a major power line through Virginia.

Dominion is justifying the transmission line by citing increasing electric consumption in Northern Virginia. However, the Corridor designation, if accepted, would overrule any policy that Virginia might decide to adopt to deal with its challenges. The Commonwealth is close to wrapping up its first statewide energy plan, which could well include measures to encourage conservation and renewable fuel sources as tools to balance supply and demand. But if the state rejects the transmission line, Dominion can appeal to FERC on the basis of the claim that its power line is in the “national” interest.

If Dominion can’t use eminent domain to acquire land for the transmission line from the state, it soon will have the option of getting it from the feds.

Update: Attorney General Bob McDonnell responds as follows:

“I recognize the need for ensuring sufficient electric transmission infrastructure on the East Coast. However, the federal government must balance its desire for national solutions against the need for states to play the central role in siting electric transmission lines. These projects can have significant impacts on local communities, including sites that have significant historic, scenic, and cultural importance. The states are best suited to understand these impacts, and make decisions in the public interest with full participation from affected citizens.

… I continue to have serious concerns about the actions of the Department of Energy. There must be a greater role for both the states and their citizens in decisions involving electric transmission siting.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

9 responses to “A Power Line Coming Soon to a Neighborhood Near You”

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    DOMINION MUST BE STOPPED.

    Virginia continues to fall behind other states and countries that are more willing to create and innovate with renewable, distributed energy instead of relying on dirty fossil fuels and antique wire grids.

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Federal law and regulations do not exist in a vacuum. Please post the votes of Virginia’s congressional delegation on the bill that enabled DOE to enact the over-ride of state and local land use laws.

    I am also confused about your position on this issue with respect to other posts on land use.

    What is the difference between the federal government over-riding state and local land use laws and the Commonwealth telling local governments that they have to accept densities in the urban development areas of at least 4 dwelling units? Both serve a larger purpose.

  3. Jim Patrick Avatar
    Jim Patrick

    Movie ticket to watch ignorant Bushmen worship a Coke bottle $10
    Latte and biscotti while chatting about primitive cultures and cargo cults $7
    Using computer technology to criticize the energy industry — Priceless

  4. Jim Patrick Avatar
    Jim Patrick

    Anon6:55, You CAN stop Dominion Power.
    Turn of the mains.

  5. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Here’s a question.

    Is the corridor that Dominion wants to serve it’s business interests the same corridor that would be selected to serve Nation Security interests?

    Bonus Question: – Should we expect the Feds to do a study that clearly demonstrates the when/where/how/etc of the necessary corridor?

    Then… would we expect the Fed to do .. the same as they did with the Interstate Highway system… to designate the national corridors and then go acquire the right-of-way…etc?

  6. Jim Patrick Avatar
    Jim Patrick

    OK, enough of the snarky comments, no matter how well deserved. The fact remains; there’s been little (if any) scrutiny of how to supply the power needed.

    Jim –You remember the economic “box” of regional transportation, markets, and labor. Though it still exists, it’s a shadow of it’s former self; to be replaced with the New Economy.

    The fallacy —or limitation— is that these are models; simplified descriptions of complex systems. The “box” model is a model of the physical proximity of roadways, buildings, machinery, and people. There are other, equally valid descriptions.

    Another model of “the box” is energy: of transportation, to make and run machinery, extract and deliver material, and deliver a workforce.

    We must examine how a global [transportation energy] economy and digital [electric energy] technologies [production energy] transform our state, our communities and our institutions of governance.” —Jim Bacon

    In the New Economy, an energy model still applies. People must have food, shelter, and clothing; no matter where it’s produced, it must get delivered. Light, heat, communication, are just some more of the energy needs, and a service-based market needs proportionately more.

    Saying we can (and should) conserve is obvious. Getting there is the challenge; how to transition from a coarse grid —the ‘antique’ that powered the criticism— to the extremely increased density of a finer grid.

    A wrong choice can limit the electricity available to all, damaging the economy. When supplies become tight, would it be fair using smart meters to give energy delivery priority to clients that permit the delivery systems?

  7. Personally I agree that under the correct circumstance, the fed should have the authority. However, as policy current stands, not all initiatives and/or mandates have been considered which could effectively avoid or delay transmission as a solution. Because they are costly, penalizing, and mostly will use generation from coal-fired power plants, transmission lines are the alternative of last resort, not the first option.

    Before the fed goes this far and considers transmission w/i an NIETC, they should have first identify the area an NIETC would ultimately serve, and name that area as a National Interest Energy or Electricity Conservation Area.

    If power needs become so dire that it affects economy and nat’l security w/i an area which requires an NIETC designation, the fed should FIRST encourage, promote, initiate and/or even mandate certain levels of conservation, energy efficiency, distributed energy/generation, and technological improvements. Such items could effectively resolve grid worries, at least in the short-term if not for the long term. The DOE’s own studies support the same. Its all online and even FERC concurs. (Need links, like me know.) Furthermore, these sorts of things would do so w/o the heavy impact transmission will cause.

    The fed policy as it stands now, doesn’t give equal attention to alternatives as it does transmission, and therefore, it overweighs the concerns for those needing electricity, over those who have to bear the burden to have transmission lines sited within their communities and even among those who will have private property confiscated from them.

    Is it unreasonable to ask utility provider who serve customers in an NIETC to first set up programs which can reduce demand as much as 10%? With the participation of volunteering end-users, big consumers and households, no one would be forced to conserve, and only the utilities would be forced to do anything, which is to set up a program and promote it to its customers. This is called demand response (DR) and load management – collected its generally known as demand side mngmt (DSM). Btw, volunteering participants would save money.

    Is it unreasonable to tell an area which is being served transmission thru an NIETC, “hey, first change out all your incandescent bulbs to higher efficiency lighting”. Is that change and the money incurred from such as switch, an unequal request if it were mandated, as compared to confiscating land from public owners where the transmission w/i an NIETC would serve?

    Is mandating that large industrial businesses, corporate office and office park owners, as well as retail center owners, participate in an energy efficiency program, if such a program only studies how and if such businesses & owners can save money thru implementing improvements? Again, the participants wouldn’t be forced to conserve and would only be forced to participate in the program. But more than likely if substantial savings can be had, most businesses and owners would initiate the act themselves for the simple financial benefit!

    Did you know that 17.9% of all electricity generated is lost thru distribution and tranmission due to old inefficient equipment? In fact the leading industry lobby group, EEI, requested the DOE pass a mandate asap for the change out of these old equipment, and even upped the timeline for which the utility industry should make the change. This request is now 3 months old on the Secretary of the DOE’s desk.

    As it stands now, NIETC with its transmission-only federal emininent domain authority, unfairly gives transmission an upperhand, and downplays the importance of non-transmission solutions. The feds say it doesn’t do this, but it that were the case, then why not give conservation, energy efficiency, technology & DE/DG similar designation status backed with no more than encouragement, or an initiative, let alone federal eminent domain authority for these less damaging solutions or even a mandate to conserve?

    If transmission w/i an NIETC solely uses the space already available w/i an existing right-of-way (ROW), then it fine and the policy is good. But if that were the case, public outcry would not exist and there wouldn’t even be a need for NIETC’s in the first place. However, if new land must be confiscated, why not initiate conservation first? A Congressional Act, which the NIETC designation is born from, is meant to serve all portions of society, not just one part of it.

    http://www.timescommunity.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=17852176&BRD=2553&PAG=461&dept_id=576934&rfi=8

    WHAT TO DO NEXT?

    Just this past Wednesday, the House Subcommittee on Domestic Policy held a hearing questioning this policy (Section 1221 / NIETC of the EPAct 2005). The hearing doesn’t appear to have been concluded and all interested persons should write both the Chair and the Ranking Member.

    Next week, the House Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality will hold hearings regarding this matter and HR 809, 810 and 829.

    The Subcommittee is doing this to finalize a new energy efficiency bill to be brought to vote in July. To do this, the House has pushed back Climate Policy legislation until September 07. Why? Because more can be gained to help the climate and global issues thru energy efficiency and conservation, than any other initiation or source of power.

    Energy Efficiency and Conservation (EEC) is the cleanest, the cheapest and quickest source of generation available to implement than all others. And whether or not you believe something needs to happen now to address climate before technology solves that issue in 10-20 years, EEC can serve as the bridge which join the present to the future, more cheaply, more cleaner, quicker and will the least amount of impact on the environment, the climate and private property, than current solutions being recommended by high-profile environmentalists.

    Write both the Chair and Ranking Members of both subcommittees as well as the VA AG.

    The fed policy should at least be amended to first push forward non-transmission alternatives before NIETC.

    ABOUT ME:

    I am not affiliated with any environmental group, political action group, political party, or business venture. I am merely a citizen.

    Energy Efficiency and Conservation as a source of new and alternative power, should be pushed ahead of wind, wave, thermal, new hydro, solar, etc., just as in the state of California. As of June 2006, when California needs new power, they first are required by law to look for it through EEC.

  8. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I think it is pretty clear – what Dominon wants … for it’s own self interest – is not the same as what our energy policy should be with respect to the issues being raised in this thread.

    I would think.. actually.. that pushing this to the Fed level – and then following up on the issues .. bigger than Dominion might be the best outcome…

    Get Dominion out of the driver’s seat and start looking at the bigger picture…

    prediction: Dominion won’t like a process that consider’s their interests as but one of several overriding issues….

  9. Ray Hyde Avatar

    Conservation aside, sooner or later someone is going to have a power plant next door, or a power line overhead.

    The real issue is to ensure that they become a partner in the profits that depend on ruining their investment, rather that merely a stuckee.

    Cellular towers pay rent for their space, based on the value they recieve. Why should transmission tower have the right of eminent domain?

    True enough, cellular towers do not a have to achieve the same kind of continuous corridor, but the power companies get to enjoy the same kind of undue benefit that management has over labor: management is organized, but it is hard for labor, or the landowners to get organized to negotiate from strength: Dominion takes them each to court individually.

    Considering that this is supposedly done for the larger benefit of all, then it seems to me that the negotiations ought to take place on a higher level than simply sticking it to each individual based on the previous use of the property.

    Paying for what you take is one thing, paying for what you get is something else again.

Leave a Reply