Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

The Transmission Line Saga Continues

—

by

James A. Bacon
in ,

Virginia’s State Corporation Commission may have bought Dominion’s logic for building a high-voltage transmission line across the northern Virginia piedmont, through Maryland and Pennsylvania, but regulators in Pennsylvania have not. Regulatory judges have recommended that the Public Utilities Commission in the Keystone State deny the application of Dominion and Allegheny Power to build the interstate line, report the Northern Virginia Daily and Winchester Star.

Dominion contends that the power line is needed to avoid power blackouts in Northern Virginia that could begin as early as 2011. Foes, including the Piedmont Environmental Council, have argued (a) that Northern Virginia’s energy needs can be met through demand management, and (b) that the true purpose of the transmission line is to wheel cheap electricity from the Midwest to markets in the Northeastern U.S.

According to Garren Shipley’s account in the NVDaily, the Pennsylvania judges agreed with the latter point.

The utility firms “settled on a global transmission solution because … the true impetus for the [line] is to transport cheaper coal-fired generation from western [grid areas] to eastern [grid areas] and to encourage the siting of new generation in western [grid areas],” they wrote.

“We question the modeling that was done to support the alleged need for the [Frederick to Loudoun] segment,” they added.

Of course, Pennsvylania doesn’t have the same skin in the game that Virginia does. It doesn’t harm Pennsylvania if Northern Virginia suffers electricity blackouts.

A decision by the Pensylvania utility commission to adopt the judges’ recommendations would deal a significant blow to the transmission line, which needs approval from all three states, but would not end the controversy. Dominion and Allegheny could take their case to the Department of Energy, which has the power to override state decisions in “National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors,” a designation that includes the area that transmission line would run through.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

65 responses to “The Transmission Line Saga Continues”

  1. floodguy Avatar
    floodguy

    My .02 cents. I think the PA PUC is just satisfying their citizens concerned – just going thru the process. I guess there is something to gain for the state of PA if the FERC gets involved. If not, their questioning doesn’t make sense in the DVP-AP line, if in two years later, the same models are calling for increased transmission by 2016 to supply eastern PJM, including the greater Philadelphia area. This is the case and reason for the AEP-AP 765kv proposal spanning from southern WV thru MD, and into eastern PA and another from Possum Point in Woodbridge, VA to south New Jersey.

    Last week the Governor of MD issued an order to their state utility board, to seek alternative generation sources in order to backup reliability standards in case the Loudoun line is not installed by the 2011-2012. Now we know why. Meanwhile, nothing of the sort has been undertaken in either DC and Virginia.

    It is exactly these types of hurdles, which force the utilities to operate less used, older, more polluting power plants to meet demand. The city of Alexandria can expect the Mirant Potomac River plant to operate 24/7 as well as DVP’s more polluting diesel fueled units in Possum Point. DC residents should expect a DOE issued emergency order to keep the Buzzard Pt and Benning Street power plants from decommision. The city of Manassas and PW county, should expect to see LP Power submit an application to the VA SCC for a 800MW gas plant at the county-owned land in Wellington area

    And lets not forget the newly approved increased reliability standards are something which shouldn’t be taken so lightly. Penalties as high as $1 million dollars per day per violation are mandated. Such costs would be simply passed down to customers since the utilities affected are prevented from resolving those problems.

    It was just last week, that we passed the 5-year anniversary of the Blackout of 2003. The time for alternatives has come and gone, and now the standards have been raised.

    And, if local, regional and state economies expect a return to vibrant activity, sufficient electricity which is affordable goes hand and hand with that assumption. Higher electricity rates from congestion combined with increased cost for fossil resources will be an impediment on consumers for sure.

    Transmission policy is set by the regional quasi-gov’t authority called a regional transmission organization. In order to avoid this types of transmission expansion, states need to give some of their authority on generation policymaking, to develop a more even-handed generation policy, through the creation of a regional generation authority, just like they do with transmission. Otherwise, states like NY, DE and NJ, who force the shutdown of their older local power capacity because of tough clean air laws, could avoid importing generation from western PJM to eastern demand centers.

    What a shame, more delays mean more costs to be paid by customers. The current administration policy to rely on extra high-voltage interstation transmission as the focal point to current and near term power needs, can be avoided if the states of NY, NJ, DE, DC, and MD, aided the constructed of their own in-state generation sources and/or modified existing older power plants. Unfortunately for VA, WV and PA, their environmental laws are what they are and ours are not. The i-95 corridor is too important not to have reliable power. PA will succumb eventually, but now you know the whole story.

  2. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    It is easy to get bogged down in the details of this big grid foolishness.

    Lets get back to the need for a Distributed Grid about which Jim Bacons has talked in the past.

    Any, that is ANY, big grid is a long term disaster.

    EMR

  3. floodguy Avatar
    floodguy

    We are always going to need some expansion to the big macrogrid, but certainly the microgrid is far more beneficial, as it stands to be less inefficient which makes the grid more reliable, and is more secure as it would aid to widen our consumption portfolio and decreases the over-dependency on certain resources. And what is often ignore or not realized, is that it would also distributes the burden more evenly.

  4. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Just curious – when comparing “local” power with grid power.

    seems like I read somewhere that there are huge losses in longer transmission of power… I’m thinking 50% or more.

    I can see the need for the grid a lot of ways but at what point does “local” power become viable?

    Isn’t the power from Mirant a lot more efficient in terms of transmission loss than grid power?

    What if Mirant was a natural gas turbine?

    Why not have multiple natural gas turbines sited throughout NoVa for power needs rather than bringing in coal electricity from far away?

  5. floodguy Avatar
    floodguy

    From Platt’s:

    Allegheny will ‘vigorously pursue’ approval for Pennsylvania line

    Birmingham, Alabama–22Aug2008

    Allegheny Energy said Thursday night that it will “vigorously pursue” approval for the Pennsylvania portion of the proposed 500-kV Trans-Allegheny
    Interstate Line after two administrative law judges recommended that the state Public Utilities Commission deny it.

    The 240-mile line would begin in Pennsylvania, cross West Virginia and end in Loudoun County, Virginia, about 45 miles northwest of Washington. Dominion Virginia would own and operate a portion of the Virginia segment.

    The Pennsylvania portion of the line is the smallest, and broken into two segments. Only a 1.2-mile segment is critical to the operation of the entire multi- state line, the two judges said.

    “We intend to vigorously pursue construction of this line with the [Public Utility] Commission, particularly the one-mile section that is essential to regional reliability,” said Paul Evanson, chairman, president and CEO of Allegheny Energy.

    The remaining Pennsylvania segment, which includes 36-miles of 500-kV line, two 500-kV substations and three 138-kV lines, is necessary to provide
    reliable electric service to southwest Pennsylvania, Allegheny said.

    An administrative law judge in Virginia in late July recommended that regulators there approve the project. West Virginia regulators approved the project earlier this month, although this contingent on the project’s approval in all three states.

  6. floodguy Avatar
    floodguy

    Here’s a better quote from AP’s CEO

    “We are extremely disappointed in this administrative recommendation, which runs counter to the evidence presented.PJM Interconnection, the independent regional organization responsible for transmission planning, determined that this line was necessary for the reliable supply of electricity to homes and businesses throughout the Mid-Atlantic region, and mandated its construction,” said Paul J. Evanson, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Allegheny Energy. “We intend to vigorously pursue construction of this line with the Commission, particularly the one-mile section that is essential to regional reliability.”

    Allegheny has both a legal and public service obligation to provide customers with adequate infrastructure to maintain a reliable electric system. TrAIL is crucial to this mission.

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    If Mirant was a natural gas turbine, it would cost more to run and would compete with the many other uses for natural gas, like making fertilizer.

    The same people would still fight it on pollution grouds.

    Customers will pay more.

    More local power plants means more fights over where to put them, more delays and higher costs, even after you factor in fewer line losses.

    RG

    RH

  8. floodguy Avatar
    floodguy

    Larry said

    Just curious – when comparing “local” power with grid power.

    seems like I read somewhere that there are huge losses in longer transmission of power… I’m thinking 50% or more.

    That all depends on the distance b/n generation sources and substations. The new DVP segment is longer and delivers less electricity, but it is not something I could actually determine.

    Some or much of this protest has to do with the creation of a new transmission right-of-way (ROW). In DVP Loudoun line, appx 80% of the new segment route is w/i an existing ROW, whereas the original segment proposal would had required nearly 80% of it in new ROW acquisitions.

    I can see the need for the grid a lot of ways but at what point does “local” power become viable?

    When the need is there, when the price is right. If this transmission is delayed, something like LS Power’s announcement earlier this year for a 800MW gas plant near Manassas, becomes more likely. The cost for power in the DC area will likely rise w/o the Loudoun line because of congestion issues and the cost that comes with it. If existing supply becomes more expensives, this opens the door for alternatives which could become more financially competitive, if not already preferred by the state.

    Isn’t the power from Mirant a lot more efficient in terms of transmission loss than grid power?

    Mirant is approaching 60 years old and the average coal plant of that age is about 35% efficent. Retrofitting existing coal plants or improving existing retrofits on old coal plants with cleanier mechanisms, has a parasitic affect on total output. At some point in time the improvements are no longer cost-effective, and the plant operator would rather shut it down if such improvements are forced. Retro-fits already exist on the Mirant’s plant. This is where natural gas comes into the equation, and why something like Picken’s Plan is utter nonsense.

    What if Mirant was a natural gas turbine?

    My guess the same elements which are fighting just as hard now, would do the same if a new proposal was natural gas, because eventually, it all boils down to NIMBYism. NIMBY-folks will use everything under the Sun to fight. Highland County used bats to fight against a wind farm. Citizens in PA are using some mental side affects due from spinning blames to fight a wind farm there. The PEC is using land rights and EEC. Arizona is using state’s right to block a line from it to SoCal. If the SCC takes a position that NOVA cannot be relieved of its own burden, and force it into the mountains or into the rural parts of the state, then maybe it happen. But again, something like LS Power’s proposal would enter and in that case Prince William county resident would carry the burden for the city of Alexandria, DC and Arlington.

    Why not have multiple natural gas turbines sited throughout NoVa for power needs rather than bringing in coal electricity from far away?

    Good question. Since the early 90’s where the local economy expanded from western Fairfax County out into Loudoun, not one single generation has been constructed. Twice in the mid-90’s Loudoun County BOS stopped natural gas power plants proposals. In western Fairfax Co. there is simply no room and land was never set aside for that purpose, keeping in mind that Dulles airport requires a certain amount of space and that includes blinking lights visible on power plant smoke stacks.

    Another solution, perhaps a far-fetched one, would be to have the state/SCC make or ask DVP as part of its conservation initiative, to funnel all its resources it has set aside for implementating a smartgrid in the state ($600M thru 2014), and put it into the subgrid around the city of Alexandria. The resources gained through it would have several benefits, including lessening the dependency on Mirant’s plant and as well as ease a reliability issue from transmission congestion and the economic cost which comes with it.

    Like Xcel Energy is doing for Boulder, Co., DVP could make Alexandria the first smartgrid city in the east. Imagine the exposure for the microgrid concept would get in very large highly affluent area right underneath the nose of politicans in DC, and the educational gains for EEC (that comes with it), which are already desperately needed.

    The populations of the two cities are the similar, the afflucency of the residents are the same, both are politcally left and very green. It would also help bridge the chasm of difference b/n energy/utility and the public. This bridge is important to help people to understand the type of energy revolution required to resolve of problems the nation faces regarding energy: climate (if that’s you), security, independence (or resiliency whichever you prefer) and economic sustainability.

  9. floodguy Avatar
    floodguy

    Here's something else to consider. This problem has 3 issues invovled.

    1. Congestion.

    Of course we know transmission is used to deliver capacity from A to B. Generation capacity, however, is only part or most of the equation. In this case, part or most of the reason for the line is that there isn't enough transmission. The generation capacity currently exists in western PJM, while existing generation is being shutdown in eastern PJM. Regional T&D equipment is becoming fully loaded and utilities are being forced to import capacity to ease congestion and meet future demand.

    Congestion builds in electric transmission just as it does roadways as more and more people are located far from urban employers and drive. Congestion causes T&D equipment to overload and very hot, approach or exceed its thermal rating, decreasing its lifespan. It is similar in roadways with heavy usage, as one sees an increase in minor accidents, disabled vehicles and road maintainance – all of these causes traffic delays. This decreases commuters productivity, deliveris take longer, and ultimately things cost us more because of the time spent. These problems we know in driving, parallel in transmission.

    In extreme cases, transmission overloading cause T&D equipment to overheat, fail or explode. This is what caused the Blackout of 2003. This is similar to a disasterous 4-car pile up, a fatal accident, or an overturned tractor trailor on the interstate HWY during rush-hour.

    B. Demand.

    It just so happens that NOVA will also need more generation capacity around the same timeframe. This is because NOVA is economically vibrant due to its proximity to the federal gov't and the reliability of the grid both in terms to deliver electricity and in affordability.

    C. Retirement.

    Previously mentioned how northern states are forcing some of their older existing generators into retirement. They now require more electricity, and because we are connected, policy allows new transmission to export our excess capacity to where it is needed.

  10. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Floodguy:

    You have a professional grasp of the issues and provide useful citations, observations and comments.

    You said:

    “We are always going to need some expansion to the big macrogrid, but certainly the microgrid is far more beneficial, as it stands to be less inefficient which makes the grid more reliable, and is more secure as it would aid to widen our consumption portfolio and decreases the over-dependency on certain resources. And what is often ignore or not realized, is that it would also distributes the burden more evenly.”

    That is a very good statement but I have a problem with one word:

    “We are always going to need some EXPANSION to the big macrogrid, but certainly the microgrid is far more beneficial,..”

    With distributed generation and redundant microgrids for security and reiability could we not do very well with the current Macrogrid (aka, InterRegional Grid)?

    I will buy applying new technology and rerouting and other effeciency imporvements but “Exapnsion?”

    My problem with “expansion” is that it can be used as follows:

    We will need “expansion” in the future so we will expand now and then bring in the innovation in the future…”

    EMR

  11. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Floodguy:

    One other note re your 2:29 Post.

    Regardless of all else citizens in this and every Region in the First World must find way to use less energy, not more.

    Use of more and more energy per capita — especially where there is population growth — is a physical imposibiity if we are to maintain a democracy with a market economy.

    Capacity and resources are finite, not infinite.

    EMR

  12. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    What about the peaking plant in Fauquier? Or are you considering only Fairfax and Loudoun?

    RH

  13. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Floodguy’s analysis is good. He left out property rights.

    Physical impossibility or not, I can virtually guarantee there will be no diminution in energy use per capita – in fact, we will wind up using a lot more power, even after we absorb the amount freed up through rational conservation efforts.

    RH

  14. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    FLood Guy seems so knowledgeable that I’m gonna throw another one his way.

    Would this current industry quest for the grid be the same if Virginia and other states in this region decoupled electricity?

    My question goes to the heart of whether we are doing what is good for industry without regard to what is good for customers.

    I know the theory is to let industry do the marketplace – unfettered – and they’ll come up with the most efficient implementation but the problem is that the industry paradigm is based on higher and higher consumption and not demand management.

    no?

    fill us in FloodGuy.

  15. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “I can virtually guarantee there will be no diminution in energy use per capita “

    Please explain California and New York per capita use AND TREND compared to Virginia.

    what you are saying in effect is that what happened in California – is not possible.

    so you’d be wrong RH.

    Are there places in this country and in other parts of the industrialized world – where per capita consumption is not increasing at the rate it is in Virginia and region?

  16. floodguy Avatar
    floodguy

    @ EMR

    The concept of the microgrid cannot replace the macrogrid. The concept of a micro enhances the macro. One should think instead, when it comes to expansion and improvements, utilities ought to commit more investment resources towards the development of the microgrid concept. This is beginning to happen. And high end-users like Walmart will always want to have grid backup.

    Regarding the use of less energy, I agree but no forecast suggests that this is possible. So RH’s point is more the reality – average consumption will only increase. Our changing lifestyles due to technology innovation, will undoubtedly require more electricity. This makes education in EEC that much more important, but doesn’t suggest we can replace demand. Eventually, expansion would be required to meet new demand.

  17. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Larry:

    I question the use of California as an example. That state is in deep and serious trouble. I imagine that Virginia could follow its lead with regard to energy consumption as long as Virginia would also follow its lead in economic deterioration.

    Additionally, I think the energy consumption question has to be broken down into its components. First, industrial, commercial and residential consumption. Then, gas, coal, nuke and alternative. If electric cars are the wave of the future for ecological reasons then we are trading one kind of energy consumption for another.

    EMR’s questions about human settlement patterns are certainly appropriate. However, I wonder how feasible this change really is (over a reasonable period of time). The Tyson’s Land Use Task Force seems to be trying to accomplish much of what EMR suggests. Yet TMT has a litany of good reasons why this can’t be done and basically suggests abandoning Tyson’s Corner as a growing economic center. Meanwhile, DPV has to plan for future needs on a physical location basis. I rarely give DPV much of a break but I’ll give them one here. While Fairfax County (Tyson’s Land Use Task Force) and the state of Virginia (VDOT road planners) and the Feds (they ultimately decided the near term fate of Rail To Dulles) debate the future – what’s Dominion to do?

    And, back to the original point, as Virginia confronts a slowing economy and reduced tax receipts – I think we’d better think twice before copying the Califonia model. They say that a shipwreck is a lighthouse to the sea. If so, then Califonia is the shipwreck that proves how easily success can be squandered by bad policy and Virginia better see the lighthouse of that experience.

  18. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I dunno.

    Are you saying that decoupling electricity is what led to California’s economic deterioration?

    this is what RH will no doubt claim.

    I don’t think it has much to do with it but I certainly am willing to read any/all words from reputable sources (no jack-leg economic blogs please).

    The problem is that Conservation initiatives will not benefit companies like Dominion if in the end – it results in less profits.

    No matter what they say about conservation – if in the end – it is not good for their business model – they will find ways to evade effective strategies to manage demand.

    IMHO.

  19. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    At 6:24 AM, floodguy said…
    @ EMR

    “The concept of the microgrid cannot replace the macrogrid.”

    We did not say “replace” we said there is alread a huge macro grid in place. Do as you suggest invest in microgrids and up grade the Macrogrid with better (less line loss from nanotube wires etc.) but do not “EXPAND” it. That is all. I think on this we are on the same page — I hope.

    “The concept of a micro enhances the macro. One should think instead, when it comes to expansion and improvements, utilities ought to commit more investment resources towards the development of the microgrid concept. This is beginning to happen. And high end-users like Walmart will always want to have grid backup.”

    Agreed

    “Regarding the use of less energy, I agree but no forecast suggests that this is possible.”

    That is because all the forcasts are made by those who make more money by generating or more promotions by regulating more and more energy.

    I have no doubt that if you ask someone if they want to use more energy they will say yes but can they pay for more energy?

    In a finite world with finite resources and every new technology costing more than the Natural Capital we have been burning up we see not way for everyone, or even most to use more. If everyone in the world used as much as the US of A does per capita the world would look like Beging (sp?).

    The issue is you cannot maintain a democracy with a market economy if only the rich can afford enough energy to maintain the collective expectation.

    “Our changing lifestyles due to technology innovation, will undoubtedly require more electricity.”

    See above re whoes lifestyle we are talking about — the top of the Ziggurat or the majority of the citizens.

    I am not saying there will not be a need for a lot of energy but it needs to come from micro generation and distribution (half of what we generate in remote locations is lost in ineffecient generation, transmission and distribution according to FERC)

    With functional settlement patterns the current Household energy use could be cut by way over half. That is the same lifestyle with 25% of the total energy consumed. In that context some expansion of use for new activities would be possible.

    Just charge the real location variible cost for electricity for Darrell Chesapeake and watch him fall in love with attached dwellings.

    “This makes education in EEC that much more important, but doesn’t suggest we can replace demand. Eventually, expansion would be required to meet new demand.”

    Only if humans do not get smart enough to reduce population and learn to become more effecient, not less so.

    EMR

  20. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Earlier Groveton said:

    “EMR’s questions about human settlement patterns are certainly appropriate. However, I wonder how feasible this change really is (over a reasonable period of time).”

    This is the old new settlement patterns take for ever myth. We deal with it in our upcoming book and I will not bore you with the details but consider the Core of the Toronto New Urban Region.

    It was booming in the early 80s.

    Then overbuild of offices in the Core.

    Because of the amenity that was there within less than five years empty office buildings were converted to condos, new residents energized a complete turnaround in the Core Community. They had a lot of things going for them — a great urban Market, the Undergorund, the Subway, the Street Cars, the Revitalized Waterfront …

    Human settlement patterns depend on what humans are doing not the type or location of the building or what it was originally intended to be used for. Think lofts, think NE mills the goal is Balance. Speed of achieving Balance depends on a lot of things but IT DOES NOT TAKE FOR EVER.

    Also NEVER, NEVER use what has been done in the past or with the present Task Force as a measure of what could be done.

    “The Tyson’s Land Use Task Force seems to be trying to accomplish much of what EMR suggests.”

    Sorry, not so.

    “Yet TMT has a litany of good reasons why this can’t be done and basically suggests abandoning Tyson’s Corner as a growing economic center.”

    TMT and I agree on how badly they are doing but not on what the potential is.

    “Meanwhile, DPV has to plan for future needs on a physical location basis.”

    See our note to Floodguy on why DPV projects a need for more power.”

    “I rarely give DPV much of a break but I’ll give them one here. While Fairfax County (Tyson’s Land Use Task Force) and the state of Virginia (VDOT road planners) and the Feds (they ultimately decided the near term fate of Rail To Dulles) debate the future – what’s Dominion to do?”

    DVP could support Grovetons strategy for Fundamental Change in governace structure.

    OOPs Games on…

    EMR

  21. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    If the choice is between leaving Tysons Corner as is or permitting as much as 220 M sq. ft. to be developed there without adequate public facilities and without a real development, I’ll pick leave it as it is.

    An alternative, which has not been tried, would be to take the existing situation, the existing plan, the infrastructure needs, and try to figure out what types of improvements, including both development and associated infrastructure make sense.

    For starters, Tysons is hemmed in by two large highways — the Beltway and the DTR, which are largely at or beyond capacity today. HOT lanes on the Beltway will provide some relief, but only a finite amount. Dulles Rail will provide some relief, but only a finite amount. Building additional housing could provide some relief, but only a finite amount. Both Routes 7 and 123 are also at or above capacity.

    Any plan to increase density at Tysons Corner must address these limitations. IMHO, nothing from the Task Force has done this. The incomplete plan to be presented to the Board of Supervisors on September 22 will not address these limitations, but will only conclude that massive increases in density are necessary.

    If any Fairfax County High School student were to submit this as a paper, he/she would not get a passing grade as the paper merely states conclusions without analysis or support. What is the difference? Campaign contributions!

    TMT

  22. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “Our changing lifestyles due to technology innovation, will undoubtedly require more electricity.”

    what would we see in lifestyle changes that would result in higher consumption?

    I can see if we start using electricity for transportation – plug in electrics.

    but most appliances are becoming more efficient… and folks on a per capita basis can only buy so many more electronics ….

    bigger houses seems to be more problematic these days…

    so where would the increases come from?

    re: “With functional settlement patterns the current Household energy use could be cut by way over half. That is the same lifestyle with 25% of the total energy consumed. In that context some expansion of use for new activities would be possible.”

    oh you need to explain this EMR.

    If you are saying that because folks will live in smaller homes with less square feet to heat/cool/power…. isn’t it just as conceivable that smaller homes ANYWHERE – even detached single family dwellings out in the hinterlands – will use less electricity that other houses in the hinterlands that are twice/three times as big?

    if most all of us currently get our power from power plants far from where we live – whether we live in NoVa or rural Westmoreland County – how would one or the other be fairly characterized as benefited from a locational “subsidy”?

    and for that matter – right next to Westmoreland county is rural King George county .. with quite a few commuters to jobs external to King George with one important caveat – located in King George is Birchwood Power, a 240 MW coal plant.

    http://www.energy.vt.edu/vept/electric/table_capacity.asp

    the fact that this plant is located in a rural county with sparse (some would say sprawling) settlement patters with few if any “balanced” communities using that power – could you still say that those settlement patterns truly benefited from a location subsidy with respect to electricity?

    and there is an interesting story relevant to this discussion as to why that plant is there rather than in NoVa….and that is that that plant would not have been allowed in the NoVa airshed without much stricter pollution controls which would have, in the opinion of the owners, made it not able to produce competitively priced power.

    So.. they originally wanted to build a LOCAL power plant for NoVa to cut down on the need for more powerlines bringing power from afar but because of the density and air quality of NoVa – they could not so .. it was not possible to provide local power that reduced/eliminated the location subsidy -that NoVa currently requires.

    Here’s the bigger point –

    You were talking in another thread about the Government getting involved in mortgage lending to address the availability of mortgage money for inefficient settlement patterns.

    That same approach could REQUIRE NoVa to only use locally-generated power… and prohibit expanded power lines to bring in electricity generated by polluting plants far away…. those same plants transplanted to NoVa to produce “local power” … but even then… you’d have to rail/truck coal from afar – which would still make it a location subsidy….

    no?

    thoughts?

  23. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “is not increasing at the rate it is in Virginia and region?”

    Not increasing at the same rate is a lot different from decreasing.

    I believe the per capita usage will increase because 1)We keep inventing new uses, 2) conservation and increased efficiency inevitably increases overall use: the Jevons paradox and 3)people who do not now have power, eventually will.

    Consider aircraft. They now fly much farther ona gallon of fuel than ever, and a fully loaded plane is about as efficient as a 2 passenger car. More efficient engines, cheaper prices, more passengers, more jets in the air, more fuel consumed.

    Floodguy says
    “Eventually, expansion would be required to meet new demand.” which is the sole point I was trying to make in our revious long winded dispute.

    We are going to make use and deliver more electricity. The only question is how, and how fairly.

    RH

  24. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “The issue is you cannot maintain a democracy with a market economy if only the rich can afford enough energy to maintain the collective expectation.”

    What this boils down to is that people wind up getting killed. The result of that will be higher energy use – per remaining capita.

    “Regardless of all else citizens in this and every Region in the First World must find way to use less energy, not more.”

    To some extent we can do the same amount of work with less power, and less natural capital. But we might also be more efficient using more power to accomplish still more work, and that is a more likely scenario.

    What EMR would really like to see is less consumption – eventually leasing to doing with less. No doubt, we could learn to be just as happy with a lot less stuff, but what that leads so is straight back to the first quote, which is that you cannot maintain a market economy that way, and therefore you cannot maintain a democracy – someone is going to tell you what you can have and cannot have.

    RH

  25. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Suppose we could be just as well off, just as happy, and consume a lot less.

    What would we do with all the money left over?

    We’d have to invest/speculate/gamble with it somehow. Presumabley that would be toward something that generates some kind of return: meaning someone would have to go buy something. Whatever that is, is going to involve energy, and probably more consumption.

    EMR thinks we will all be better off when we consume less, but what does “better off” mean if there is no place to invest the difference that doesn’t promote more consumption?

    What do you wind up with then? You can only invest in things that are “politically correct” and involve no “short term profits”?

    RH

  26. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    remember – the question was how would use increase on a “per capita” basis in a mature industrialized economy like ours.

    I can certainly see where electricity usage goes up in 3rd world and developing countries but in Virginia –

    for the most part – what is it that folks do not currently have in their homes that uses electricity that has yet to be bought?

    and of all the current stuff in folks homes.. virtually all of it, the new versions will use less power.. whether it be refrigerators, LCD TVs or even devices that “use” power when they are off – are being revamped to use less and less power.

    Can you show, for instance, in Virginia that the per capita use of electricity is trending UP?

  27. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “I can certainly see where electricity usage goes up in 3rd world and developing countries but in Virginia -“

    There are still people in Virginia that have no indoor plumbing and no air conditioning. We still have homeless people on the streets.

    “Modern” electronics account for 5% of our electricity use through Phantom usage, even though the TV set itself may use less energy to operate.

    We will invent new stuff we haven’t even dreamed of yet, and we still haven’t considered electric cars.

    Besides, once all those solar panels and wind turbines are paid for, electricity will be virtually free, right?

    Plus, we are going to save all that energy with smart grid, and then sell it to other users.

    Sounds like more energy use to me.

    RH

  28. floodguy Avatar
    floodguy

    energy use will increase due to expansion and innovations which require more electricity. Its that fact which is the reason why industry is pushing for greater efficiency in products made and conservation by users. Why? Because supply is indeed limited or excess capacity for greater supply is hindered by a slew of problems. This is the case more so with peak supply which is the point I have repeatedly made to RH. These problems require increased time before they can be resolved, which is why EEC is so vital, in that it can provide the resources quickly, resolving the issue of peak demand in the near and mid-term. Sorry RH, everyone knows EEC can’t replace demand but that was never my point. EEC is the bridge b/n point A and B. This means not only is B inevitable, its assumed.

    Larry, look back in time at the home your parents had and compare it to yours today. For me we had no dishwasher for example. When my folks finally did, it was the non-LED type with manually operated switches and knobs. Today, most everyone has an “always on” LED controlled dishwasher, stove, washer, dryer, microwave, etc.

    How about the stereo systems in always on mode, telephone systems always on in charge mode, computers, faxes, printers, and cameras, phones, and electronic game chargers. These create what RH mentions as phantom loads, however, the 5% consumption he mentions is allot more I believe. I have read many articles and reports about phantom loads, and the % of the typical household’s electricity consumption is b/n 10-70%.

    How about the increases in plug-in electric vehicles, second refrigerators in the garage, a stand alone freezers, sizes of dwellings doubling since the 1970’s, increased internet and broadband usage, and increases in telecommuting as a form of work.

    I cannot imagine what living in the year 2050 is going to look like, but if any politican is going to suggest we will have a robust economy by then, we’ll have to have affordable electricity. If that’s the case, Americans’ will be using more electricity, period.

    If we are using less, and have less gadgets and less plug-in’s etc. as a nation on a whole, I would assume the nation is suffering from the expensive electricity, which will mean we will have a considerably slowed economic expansion. I do not believe economic prosperity and runaway energy prices go hand-and-hand. They are going to increase no doubt, but the prices have to do rise slowly and moderately.

    If anyone thinks renewable are affordable, today, I beg the differ. The only reason why they will grow in market penetration in the future on a whole, is because of long-term inflation in the price of natural resources used to power traditional energy supplies. 100% fossil free by 2018 as Al Gore sings, is complete and utter nonesense. Personally, I don’t believe he even thinks it possible and is just making that suggestion, to try to get the state RPS % higher.

  29. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “energy use will increase due to expansion and innovations which require more electricity.”

    then should we not see a trend increase in per capita use that could also be used as a projection for future use?

    I know there are more appliances but I also know that many older – appliances in use for generations have become much more efficient and until shown otherwise, I would suspect that they offset other increases.

    Certainly, California, New York and industrialized countries in Europe have shown a DECREASE in per capita.

    we know the folks in California also buy dishwashers with LED or other “always on” appliances so why is their use lower and not trending higher?

    and if RH thinks that cheaper energy means more energy use then what is the reverse not true – which is what has happened in places where use has gone down?

  30. floodguy Avatar
    floodguy

    I love this article from the Wall Street Journal:

    “In other words, the liberal push for alternatives has the look of a huge bait-and-switch. Washington responds to the climate change panic with multibillion-dollar taxpayer subsidies for supposedly clean tech. But then when those incentives start to have an effect in the real world, the same greens who favor the subsidies say build the turbines or towers somewhere else. The only energy sources they seem to like are the ones we don’t have.”

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121901822110148233.html

    Hence from this type of attitude born is the falsehood and promotion of EEC as the end all to our energy needs. For the record, I have never suggested that; but more like, EEC should be the top ranked resource in load order, when utilities request more capacity.

    Sorry Larry, per capita, I don’t know, but in terms of overall demand, its all up, up and away, especially since our nation just had an incredible period of expansion built off of the cheap cost of energy. IMHO, we’re hooked and we’ll always be.

  31. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Europe have shown a DECREASE in per capita.”

    Have they really? Go check it out. They use less than we do, but I’ll wager their use is increasing, not decreasing.

    Floodguy’s last paragraph about renewables and market penetration is in line with the way I see things. Also what he says about NIMBY’s. I believe the solution for NIMBY’s is to create a property right for the ability to just say no, and then put a price on it.

    For example:

    Every location is fair game for the halfway house, dump, jail, affordable housing, etc. Then you have an auction and bid for the right NOT to have your location chosen. The loser gets the jail, and all the money from all the other jurisdictions. But, you do not get to say no for free, and now you have to consider the huge windfall you might get for capitulation.

    ———————-

    Just as we have seen with gasoline, conservation will lead to lower prices. More efficiency means you can get higher profits, even if the price of fuel goes up. The result is higher demand – in spite of – higher prices.

    In places where use has gone down, they are probably getting less work done. If most of the efficiency has already been squeezed out, then higher prices mean less work gets done and the marginal work gets cut first: the pizza parlor will deliver withing five miles, not ten. As a result, they use less energy, but they sell less pizza.

    California is selling a lot less pizza these days. Europe uses less energy, but they also have less GDP per person. Expensive electricity will mean we will have a considerably slowed economic expansion. It is pure physics, and pure energy economics.

    RH

  32. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “There are countries in Europe that would love to have their unemployment rate fall to the 5.7% unemployment rate to which ours has risen. Yet those who seem to want us to imitate European economic and social policies never seem to want to consider the actual consequences of those policies.”

    ~Thomas Sowell

    RH

  33. floodguy Avatar
    floodguy

    I don’t necessarily disagree with your overall conclusion, but IMO, in regards to this: “More efficiency means you can get higher profits, even if the price of fuel goes up.” it may be more of a secondary affect and less of a primary affect, at least not nearly 100% of the time.

    If we agree increased demand is a foregone conclusion, then the price for energy will increase as excess capacity is tightened. Efficiency aims to allow the end-user to accomplish 100% of previous consumption but at an affordable cost.

    25 MPG efficiency with 20 gallon consumption @ $4/g = $80 with 500 miles travelled.

    30 MPG efficiency under the same scenario = $66.67 with 500 miles travelled.

    This is the case where the end-user is limited by time to drive X amount of miles for a given task, so efficiency wouldn’t necessarily equate to increased consumption os it won’t drive price.

    But with challenges to grow excess capacity due to increases in overall demand due from expansion, the price of fuel could continue to rise another $1. Then the end-user is stuck with something like this:

    30 mpg efficiency @ 20 gallons consumpted at $5/g = $83.33 with 500 miles travelled.

    Whereas w/o an investment in efficiency the end-user is left with: 25 mpg @ 20 gallons consumption @ $5/g = $100 with 500 miles travelled.

    Efficiency isn’t driving consumption nor price. In my opinion efficiency is the reaction to price in order to maintain consumption or economic sustainability. Conservation on the otherhand, would certainly under times of increased pressure, drive consumption lower and eventually price. In electric utility sector, gains we see from EEC is more related to load mamagement and load shedding from peak to off-peak. A/c load management, for example, doesn’t decrease a/c usage, it merely optimizes its variable usage into a tighter usage period, increasing excess capacity for other customers. Demand response contractors don’t necessarily eliminate tasks when called upon, they decrease their usage during peak if they can put off those tasks for other periods, if the price they receive the utility is worthwhile.

    Making consumption more efficient and conserving energy during peak period is the point I’m driving. If this just increase baseline demand this is more manageable then runaway peak. Increased demand for baseline needs is more long-term with options, and therefore utilities have the “luxury” of additional lead time to plan. This isn’t necessarily the case with expanding for peak needs.

  34. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “it may be more of a secondary affect and less of a primary affect, at least not nearly 100% of the time. “

    You are correct of course. the operative word is CAN, not WILL get more profit. If the efficiency increase is less than the price increase, then you are screwed.

    On the other hand, if efficiencies are widespread, then demand and price may go down, resulting in more new uses.

    “In my opinion efficiency is the reaction to price in order to maintain consumption or economic sustainability. ” Two sides of the same coin, I think. Anyway, people still look for more efficiency, even when the price doesn’t change.

    I’ll agree with what you say about peak shaving when I see the difference on my bill. A/C load management won’t save me a thing, but it will allow the power company to cram more users into the same time period without risking an overload. Great for them, nothing for me.

    RH

  35. floodguy Avatar
    floodguy

    @ RH

    “On the other hand, if efficiencies are widespread, then demand and price may go down, resulting in more new uses.”

    But demand and price will increase nonetheless, from the expansion in the 3rd world and population growth in this nation, not just from a per capita basis due from technological innovations. This is a given. The move towards efficiency equates to existing and new users attempt to cope with the increases in price due to constraints in expanding capacities.

    “Two sides of the same coin, I think. Anyway, people still look for more efficiency, even when the price doesn’t change.”

    Well I guess there is some truth to your point no matter what, but the greater truth is, the vast part of the push which will lead to the vast part of the gains (in efficiency), is due to increases in price. This brings us exactly to where we are today. If not, where were the free-market energy efficiency advocates during the 1990’s when oil and electricity were at their historic lows? The answer is, there wasn’t much of any, because the economics didn’t make financial sense. The free-market incentive for higher efficiency is due from increases in price.

    Without investments in efficiency, price would still continue to rise as demand grows, while existing users continued to cope with meeting similar consumption habits. Before one knows it, forced or self-imposed conservation would result as destructive inflationary forces negatively affect economies. Investments by the end-user in EE, attempts to overcome this, although not every can afford to do so.

    “Great for them, nothing for me.
    “

    Nothing for you? Well perhaps the utility will not have to run new transmission to meet peak demand it would otherwise have, if it weren’t for a/c load mgmt? Maybe the gas peaking unit at the plant in Fauquier will not have constructed. W/o those investments by the utilities, the cost will not be added to your utility bill. That’s what you get, and you get your a/c just as you had before!

  36. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Two sides of the same coin”

    I think we are substantially in agreement. People will seek more efficiency, regardless of price, as long as it ain’t free. If enough people succeed, price will go down, then new uses appear that are only economical at a lower price. Then usage goes back up, prices go up, and some users get squeezed out. Some of what gets squeezed out is conservation, and some of it is loss of production. Some of it is just hardship.

    I think your description and mine are the same, it just depends on what step you start from.

    ————————-

    “Nothing for you? Well perhaps the utility will not have to run new transmission to meet peak demand it would otherwise have, if it weren’t for a/c load mgmt? “

    Isn’t that exactly an example of what I just said? Great for them, nothing for me.

    What I hear you are telling me is that I’m going to help the power company make their investments one way or another, but I’m better off with this investment than the other because my bill won’t go up as much. It is future cost avoidance, not real savings.

    Until later, when they have to invest in more generating capacity anyway. Then I get to pay for both investments.

    Load management gives Dominion an immediate benefit they can put in their pocket, today. What do I get? Same as before, except now I get to pay for load management, too.

    Sorry, it’s the old contribute to the greater good argument. If there is a greater good, then it can pay for itself, and pay me something, too. Otherwise it is a charlatans swan song.

    Sorry, not interested. I’ll be dead long before I ever see the cost avoidance “benefit”. Shoot, I’ll probably be dead before I get around to having A/C installed. You are selling ice cubes to an eskimo.

    RH

  37. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Maybe the gas peaking unit at the plant in Fauquier will not have constructed.”

    Like I said, peak shaving leads to more base load, and more use of coal.

    EMR makes the point that we are running out of resources to fix the problems. One sign of that is the run-up in all commodity prices. The longer we wait to build more capacity, the more it will cost to build.

    We should be spending like crazy on new capacity, of all types, befor the cost of capacity goes up some more.

    The time to start planning for peak shaving is when you can at least see the top of the mountain. You would hate to cut ten feet off the bottom of the mountain, just to avoid climbing that last ten feet.

    RH

  38. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    As much as I hate to agree with ER on anything, his comments here are correct.

    Our national use of electricity is a scandal from an environmental and utilitarian standpoint. Until we regroup nationally, I don’t see things getting better.

    The options are not great: wind energy creates ugly turbines with need for more lines; nuclear makes the most sense but there is always the human we-will-at-some-point-goof factor; gas peaking isn’t feasible as they are only stop gaps in the current structure and gas is itself part of the problem with emissions, etc. Guess we all have to go back to coal and wood fired structures which eliminate our forests and create more strip mining. So chose the poison best suited for long term support of our energy habits? What will it be?

    My vote is nuclear. Much gained and what needs to be addressed can be. Solar is wonderful but not efficient enough and not likely to be in the near future.

  39. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    As anonymous seems to point out, it all boils down to accurately assessing the costs of damages. That means you have to figure out costs to whom, and that means you have to figure out what they own now.

    It all comes down to property rights.

    RH

  40. floodguy Avatar
    floodguy

    You we can go round-n-round on this topic…again.

    I’ll leave another article for you instead and a few final comments until the next time. This is from the NY Times today regarding troubles for wind generators due to transmission congestion and utilities inability to get them sited.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/business/27grid.html?_r=2&pagewanted=2&ref=business&oref=slogin

    This article addresses the problem which exists in transmission, but only as though it solely pertains to wind. This problem exists with the today's grid w/o new generation, because "greener" states are retiring their oldest existing generators, requiring existing transmission to supplement the retiring capacity. Meeting this need alone, presents a problem and costs billions in congestion fees if the problem doesn't get resolved with new transmission.

    Then you have increased mandated reliability standards just passed last month calling for more transmission so that 2003 doesn't occur again.

    Then you have growth ontop of that, and Dominion's mid-Atlantic region is one of the nation's highest regions of forecasted growth. Generation w/i the load center as EMR suggest or w/i existing utility footprint in ROVA as land nimbies like RH obviously prefer?

    And we have are people concerned with is new power plants and new alternative energy sources. Neither will make dent w/o first addressing the primary reason(s) I mentioned before which relate directly to the article Jim has posted.

    The only thing which comes to mind is EEC, and that's merely a bridge to get utilities from today's problems to a point in the future, provided that that point is far enough away to allow utlities to resolve these issues. The left wants green. The right wants affordability. Everyone wants power and NIMBIES are at every point along the way. But no one seems to want to understand the transmission equation.

    And as for EMR's point, we are not running out of resources to resolve our problems. We have technology to clean coal and make nuclear safe, its just too expensive right now, just like renewables. What is happening is that we are running out of time under the existing model, and that is driving up electric power costs substantially. By 2015-2025 timeframe and beyond, electricity generated by renewables and coal w/ ccs won't appear so expensive as they do today. CCS coal and nuclear would moreorless be sited w/i the same grid we now have, so that's what we'll see in our neck of the woods, and perhaps a very expensive offshore power field of wind, tidal, wave & geothermal turbines, if a couple guys like Obama get elected more often. Suit yourself.

    And as for the merits to expand the macrogrid, a higher voltage grid w/i the existing framework, has to happen. Whether its in a new ROW or w/i an existing ROW or expanding existing ROW, 765kv transmission is necessary. AEP's vision, will be an ongoing expansion over the course of many decades.

  41. floodguy Avatar
    floodguy

    The holy grail for the grid is energy storage. Compressed air storage has been talked about before. Here's something a bit more closer to home.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/nyregion/26wind.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

    Nice idea, but let's see a grid-linked demonstration before we get excited.

  42. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    floodguy – a hypothetical question.

    what if energy was provided locally?

    say.. a new kind of nuke – ideal for distributed siting….

    so perhaps in a place like NoVa – you might have 5 or 10 of these sprinkled around the region.

    how would that affect the current grid based strategy?

    basically my question is not intended to presume that we do not need the grid but more along he lines of how big and monolithic in needs to be.

    flash forward 50 years – to where technology breakthroughs make solar and vertical wind turbines extremely effective and reliable.

    would we still need the scope and scale of grid now being contemplated?

  43. floodguy Avatar
    floodguy

    Larry, I understand the concept and point you are driving. Small safe nukes would be a tremendous benefit, as would any small or localized power source(s).

    W/i the timeframe such concept is a reality, if ever or to what extent possible, we still have to patch the grid due to reliablity issues, then expand the grid to meet mandated RPS, because most renewables would not be sited near existing transmission. No one is certain what technological advances will yield in terms of higher efficiency for solar, energy storage for wind, small safe nukes, ccs for coal, etc., and at a price which is marketable. With DG and microgrid concepts, one should not expect either could supplant the macrogrid requirements and supplant traditional resources as a way to meet new demand, no differently EEC can put off new generation forever.

    Mandate states’ RPS = more transmission

    Plan like Boone Pickens or Al Gore = tremendous amt of new transmission

    Increased reliability standards = more transmission

    Increased retirements of eastern generation = more transmission

    Increased demand for new electricity = more transmission

    All excellent reasons for AEP’s plan new 765kv transmission buildout. We need it all, fossil, renewable, macro, micro, EEC, new generation. There’s no escaping any part of it.

  44. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    well.. I just got around to reading the NYT article and my view is that the power companies have created a grid that is configured ONLY to their power plant plans and not other power sources – thus .. while they “cannot handle wind turbines” because of ‘surges” of wind.. they CAN handle gas turbine “peaker” plants.

    I’m starting to get a bad feeling about the level and extent of control that the incumbent owners/operators of the grid have and it’s clear to me that decisions about “the grid” do not take into account renewable energy – either by accident or design but in any case – they are not be proactive about the future in terms of shifting from fossil fuels to renewables.

    This makes me feel even more strongly that the current owners/operators are much more focused on investor wants and desires than what is best of the longer term interests of the nation.

    I simply do not buy the concept that the industry knows what is best… when I see obvious unanswered issues like this sitting on the floor like a dead skunk…

  45. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “as land nimbies like RH obviously prefer?”

    I’m not a land nimby. Just the opposite, much to the chagrin of my neighbors. As far as I’m concerned the power company can have the place as long as they pay a fair price.

    Which is more that what my neighbors and fellow taxpayers are doing, having essentially claimed the place for their own purposes, and giving me NOTHING.

    The problem of course is that the power company won’t pay a fair price: they will pay a one time fee based on the current use: field or forest. That use in turn has been restricted by my neighbors and fellow taxpayers. If the power line had no undeveloped land to cross, they would have to pay a much higher price, and they might consider other alternatives.

    Even if I had undeveleoped land with unused development rights attached, that would raise the cost to the power company.

    And it is an easement, not a purchase: I still own the property under the power lines, and pay tax on it.

    That is PART of the reason I think PEC is barking up entirely the wrong tree. In the end, they are going to spend millions that helps no one. THEY are the NIMBY’s.

    RH

    RH

  46. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “the current owners/operators are much more focused on investor wants and desires than what is best of the longer term interests of the nation.”

    Larry and I agree for a change. Frankly, I think (some of) the arguments presented by floodguy have been successfully planted on behalf of the investors: they are brainwashing and propaganda designed to appease a certain clientele, while promoting the investors interests.

    The best thing an electricity user can do to lower his energy costs may be to go buy Dominion stock.

    RH

  47. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “But no one seems to want to understand the transmission equation. “

    I understand the transmission equation.

    They want to run a billion dollars worth of power through my land, every year, and pay me 20 grand.

    Why do I not think that’s a deal?

    RH

  48. floodguy Avatar
    floodguy

    Larry, I'm sorry you feel that way. I've tried my best to bring light to a confusing and difficult problem. Once again, think of transmission in terms of roadways, generation in terms of populations of commuters in certain locations, load centers (aka areas of high demand) are points where all the commuters must travel towards to work.

    Imagine, one day an RPS was mandated, requiring 10,000 new workers now commute from Winchester to Dulles area. The result would be significant congestion on the 2-lane section of SR-7 and additional congestion in the 4-lane section starting around Leesburg towards Dulles.

    Now consider 200,000 workers in the state of NJ and Delaware are set to retire on Jan 1, 2011. The derth of labor in NJ and DE would require a major shift of labor in the form of new commuters in MD & eastern PA to fill the void. The void they leave behind would have to be replaced with 200,000 laborers commuting from western PA, WV and VA to the DC-Balt-Philly corridor. The result, massive congestion on already congested roadways of i-70 to Baltimore, i-270 to DC, i-76 to Philly, i-78 to north NJ and i-66 to DC, and i-95 from DC to DE & NJ.

    The affect of increased commuters will cause traffic delays, reduce productivity, increase costs due to more gasoline, more accidents, more disabled vehicles, more highway deaths, more road rage, more law enforcement patrol, more maintainence costs which would then cause more traffic.

    In the electricity utility sector, not only does both of these challenges exist, the reliablity standard were just increased. NERC & FERC now believe there is too must congestion on these "highways", so they are requiring utilities to build more highways to decrease the # of cars travelling on existing ones.

    Can we relocate the tens of thousands of workers to DC and Balt and Philly? Possibly, but wouldn't that create a ton of problems? Now parallel those challenges to the electric utility sector. Some will relocate, but most won't because its too expensive. Traffic congestion will grow, delays will increase due to construction, and by the time a new roadway is built or expanded, the # of new vehicles will have already filled up the new or expanded roadway due to economic growth and expansion.

    We need it all and then some, because renewables are not near existing transmission ROWs. And its not the fault of the utilities nor the regulators. It is all us, you and I and everyone else, who wants the power and who refuse new power plants and new transmission near us.

    PS – The transmission can't handle the increase in power from wind because it wasn't planned for when the existing transmission was planned. The same problem would exist if more gas peaker plants were sited instead of the wind farm. The bottomline once again is, insufficient transmission. The solution is: 1.) upgrade to higher capacity transmission or 2.) increase transmission. Larry, you can't get renewables to load centers w/o transmission, and if you decommission the oldest, dirtiest and most inefficient coal plants in urban areas, you're reliances on transmission to import new generation capacity grows.

  49. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I don’t think your commuter analogy holds water.

    First of all 40% of traffic in the morning and 60% of traffic in the evenint is not commuter traffic. It is “other” traffic and it is part of the “baseline load”.

    Second, commuters going to work are converging on one site or locale, and this causes congestion.
    Electricity is primarily generated in one location, and then it is a matter of distribution, into smaller and smaller units and finally to a single unit, so that the possibility of congestion is reduced at each step.

    Your argument only makes sense if you look at Macro distribution: consider only the superhighways, by analogy.

    New England has been successful at exporting their power plants, pollution, and transmission needs, and Virginia and other states let the New England NIMBY’s get away with it.

    This is a property rights issue, not a transmission issue.

    RH

  50. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “….if you decommission the oldest, dirtiest and most inefficient coal plants in urban areas, you’re reliances on transmission to import new generation capacity grows.”

    your reliance on transmission to import new generation capacity AND EXPORT POLLUTION grows. Then New England complains that their forests are destroyed by acid rain coming from “someplace else”.

    And, having decomissioned plants we now argue that we need EEC and variable rate pricing in order to prevent needing new capacity.

    BARF.

    Let New England freeze in the dark for a week and see how fast they install their own capacity.

    RH

  51. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The transmission can’t handle the increase in power from wind because most of the power from wind is not in the south and east. It is in the Southwest, Plains, and Northwest.

    It isn’t a ral problem yet because there isn’t that much power from wind.

    RH

  52. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “It is all us, you and I and everyone else, who wants the power and who refuse new power plants and new transmission near us.”

    Like I said, it comes down to property rights. If the power companies paid full price instead of skating by on eminent domain at a fraction of cost, then there would be a lot more sellers and a lot fewer NIMBY’s.

    The power companies will at least pay something. It is the NIMBY’s who really want something for nothing.

    RH

  53. floodguy Avatar
    floodguy

    Geez RH, its tough to keep conversing if you just enter in the middle of the discussion without first reading what initiates a reply.

    * the analogy works only with concerns to the macrogrid – yes, because that’s where the problem is. The congestion (for us) is w/i the interface b/n western generation and eastern loads. I didn’t say congestion in distribution grid – its transmission congestion.

    * EEC and price incentives as a bridge but not as a permanent replacement, and because utilities have a very difficult time to get replacement generation capacity via transmission!

    * Transmission for wind “because there isn’t much wind in the east”, wasn’t what the article was about, nor the discussion. A particular wind farm in NY already constructed, can’t get its power sent because of existing transmission congestion and the lack of new transmission.

    * The states utility board sets the price of compensation, not utilities.

    Here’s yet another example of a real solution trying to find its way into the market, but because of transmission issues (among others), it will have a longer time before it becomes a wider reality.

    Coal-fired generators to switch to gas at about $7/Mcf: bank

    Washington (Platts)–25Aug2008Electric utilities will switch from using coal to natural gas as fuel for their power plants when gas prices hit $7/Mcf, Raymond James’ top coal and natural gas analysts said Monday, adding that a huge number of variables actually create a $5 to $9/Mcf band where fuel switching is attractive.

    Oil and gas analyst Marshall Adkins and coal analyst James Rollyson also cautioned that they have no historical precedents to a wholesale switch out of coal to gas — it has never happened in the US.

    Using Central Appalachian coal prices of $125/ton, or, factoring in transportation and pollution allowances, an all-in price of $6.94/MMBtu as their benchmark, Adkins and Rollyson said rising coal prices will, in the near term, provide a floor for softening gas prices.

    But a wholesale switch is difficult to model, the analysts said, because of the differing heat rate efficiencies of coal and gas plants that have excess capacity.

    Other complications in fuel switching assessments include difficulties with the transmission grid which might not link a gas plant to the market needing power and lower incentives for utilities that operate on a cost-plus basis to switch. Further, at certain times of the year, namely summer, there won’t be much excess gas-fired capacity to sell, they said.(the lack of gas-generated peak in the market!)

    “Many envision a switching process where someone just flips a switch or valve and electric generation plants seamlessly switch from coal to natural
    gas,” the analysts said.

    “In the real world, coal-fired generation plants are completely different plants in separate locations from gas-fired plants. In actuality, the coal
    plants and gas plants may not even be owned by the same regional utilities. Furthermore, the electric transmission grid may not have sufficient interconnectivity to allow switching,” they added.

    “In other words, there are numerous impediments that can affect switching to natural gas from coal, even after reaching a favorable economic threshold,” Adkins and Rollyson said.

  54. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Here’s what concerns me.

    We hear that the grid need to be expanded/upgraded to serve demand and shore up/maintain reliability but what I heard was that the current grid does not lend itself to wind/solar NOR are there any plans in the upgrade to handle them either.

    and yet… there are current and future plans to site new plants including peaker plants…

    so I hear the “we need to do renewables” lip service but I don’t see the things that need to be part of the grid upgrade – to accommodate renewables.

    I’m not shocked – after all – the power companies are investor-owned and their first duty is their own self interests – but then that leaves us with the quandry of what we need to do as a country – which may not be in the best interests of power company investors and how do we do that – if the power companies are not on board to integrate their grid in such a way as to ensure that the future grid will be powered as much as we can – by renewables?

    whose responsibility is this?

  55. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    It appears that WVA has become an Urban Support Region for VA and VA is well on it's way to becoming an Urban Support Region for New England.

    but in the matter of a vision of the grid and how it should be operated – call me a skeptic that the Investor Companies that operate it – are aligned with the longer term interests of society – no more or less than the oil and rail barons of bygone days were.

    At some point – we need to recognize that the grid belongs as much to taxpayers as investors.

    and to be clear – that grid needs to be evolved on a specific and deliberate basis to support wind & solar and if the Investor Utilities are not on this track – then intervention is needed.

  56. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "At some point – we need to recognize that the grid belongs as much to taxpayers as investors."

    Huh? Howzat?

    It belongs to who?

    My whole point is that it is a property rights issue. The grid may belong to the power company, but they never, ever, paid fair value to get it in the first place.

    If some of the grid belongs to taxpayers, it is because much of the value was stolen from them to begin with.

    As for investors, they are the same people as the taxpayers. We complain about oil company profits, but more than 70% of oil company stock is held in mutual fund accounts and retirement plans, and much of that is in pretty small accounts owned by the same ordinary people who are complaining about oil profits.

    ———————–

    "that grid needs to be evolved on a specific and deliberate basis to support wind & solar "

    How do you know that the grid needs to be evolved this way? What if you do the analyisis and it is as complicated as floodguy says. Surprise, surprise, the answer comes back that you should do nothing or very little for the next 20 or thirty years – because the payback just isn't there yet.

    You will have a better investment and a quicker payback if you wait 20 years – and you can use the money for something else in the meantime.

    I'm not saying that is the answer, I'm asking, what if you do the analysis and that is what comes back?

    Do you intervene anyway, because that's what we want?

    RH

  57. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: "The grid may belong to the power company, but they never, ever, paid fair value to get it in the first place."

    in YOUR opinion RH.

    The "grid" ..just like roads .. requires ED and ED is granted as a "public necessity".

    The same is true of all rights-of-way if you think about it.

    That would include phone lines, cable, water/sewer, gas and oil pipelines, etc.

    Your idea that any right-of-way on your property entitles you to what YOUR IDEA of proper compensation is .. a "cut of the profits" is a legitimate opinion – not upheld in law and the courts – at least so far.

    But by virtue of the fact that the power company is granted easements because of "public necessity" means that the public has ownership also.

    here's a relevant excerpt from the NYT article:

    "The power grid is balkanized, with about 200,000 miles of power lines divided among 500 owners. Big transmission upgrades often involve multiple companies, many state governments and numerous permits. Every addition to the grid provokes fights with property owners.

    These barriers mean that electrical generation is growing four times faster than transmission, according to federal figures."

    …."however understandable the local concerns, they are getting in the way. “Modernizing the electric infrastructure is an urgent national problem"

    now the argument about fair compensation can and will be worked out through law and the courts and if it is settled in a way you don't agree with then so be it… but it will go forward.

    but the grid – in terms of where it should go or not go and how big it should be should be according to what the national and state priorities are with respect to how power is to be generated.

    If it is deemed in the national interests to reduce pollutants from coal-produced power by shifting to wind & solar – then the grid needs to support that transition.

    The power companies operate on a permit – a certificate of need for public necessity – and it is WITHIN that context that they operate.

    If the public interest decides that we no longer will accept pollution from burning coal – then the higher polluting plants will be shut down – their permits to operate – not renewed.

    If power companies ..will..essentially refuse to include the ability to accommodate solar/wind in grid upgrades – that require Govt support with respect to rights-of-way – then the Govt should say, in effect, "no new rights-of-way until you start to also incorporate into the upgraded grid – the ability to deal with wind & solar.

    I can assure you that the concept of property owners receiving compensation for those new rights-of-way will re-visited but also..likely not resolved to your satisfaction – but that's a different issue – right?

  58. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “I can assure you that the concept of property owners receiving compensation for those new rights-of-way will re-visited but also..likely not resolved to your satisfaction “

    I’ll be partially stisfied with ANY improvement. What we have now is a travesty. My wife’s family has already been through two ED takings – at a tremendous loss.

    As it stands now, the same judges that permit an ED situation are the same ones that sit on ED disputes. There is no concept of peers reviewing the costs or values. Even if you are able to sue, and even if you win, your costs come out of your additional award, not from the condemnor. The way fair compensation is currently worked out through the courts is anything but fair.

    If you have a business that must be moved, there are even dollar maximums on the amount you can be paid for moving inventory and equipment. Those dollar values have not been revised for decades and may be far too little in any case.

    I’m glad you can assure me that thes issues will be revisited, but I’ll be a lot more assured when I actually see something official happen. So far, I see nothing in the news or legal reviews.

    ———————

    “Your idea that any right-of-way on your property entitles you to what YOUR IDEA of proper compensation is .. a “cut of the profits” is a legitimate opinion – not upheld in law and the courts – at least so far.”

    OK, so I’m a forward thinker.

    Let’s say my property was zoned such that a truck stop was feasible. If I was selling the land I’d be negotiationa a vavlue based on its future use, not its historical use.

    Under ED the condemnor gets an autmatic zoning change increasing the value of his use, but the fair value is based only on the historical use.

    If someone wanted to drill for gas on my property, would I charge them for using a hay field? I don’t think so.

    It seems obvious to me that future use is the correct valuatyion, not historical use. Especially when the historical use has been artificallly restricted: I have been downzoned five separate times, and soon to be six.

    Each downzoning was deemed a public necessity, but I got paid nothing.

    ——————————

    “the power company is granted easements because of “public necessity” means that the public has ownership also.”

    WHAT????

    Listen to yourself. A declaration of Public necessity means the public already has ownership????

    I don’t think so. Public necessity just means they get to use ED. They are still required to pay full and fair compensation, uner the constitution. That requirement is mostly met in the breach, as many ED victims will explain. Nowhere does it say that just because the public needs my land that they already have some rights of ownership.

    ———————-

    “Every addition to the grid provokes fights with property owners.”

    Gee, I wonder why.

    The essence of a deal is that both parties walk aay thinking they came out ahead. Under ED a “deal” is imposed by the same people who claim the deal is necessary, and approve the taking.

    Why is it so hard to see that is wrong?

    RH

  59. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "If it is deemed in the national interests to reduce pollutants from coal-produced power by shifting to wind & solar – then the grid needs to support that transition."

    The problem is how we go about "deeming".

    "deem – keep in mind or convey as a conviction or view; "take for granted"; "view as important"; "hold these truths to be self-evident"; "

    That is insufficient. The GPO points out that government policy must generate a net social benefit. we cannot just "deem" that.

    And even if we decide it is a net social benefit, those that benefit (the public that gets a public necessity) should be willing to pay full and fair compensation to those that lose on account.

    That does not mean niggling compensation based on a position of power.

    RH

  60. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “we cannot just “deem” that.”

    we don’t.

    We have a process – a legal process – that has been upheld by the courts and elections.

    When it comes to ED for r/w – the problem is that you can have 99% of the landowners AGREE that sufficient compensation is being offered and one guy who does not – and he can essentially stop the whole project.

    That guy could be essentially crazy in terms of rationality believing that is land was worth 10 times more than anyone else would agree with.

    ..but I will agree with you about peers being involved – but on a wider basis that you’d probably want – because “peers” would have to include equal representation from both landowners who would stand to gain from higher compensation as well as those who would have to pay the increased compensation.

    In the end – if you cannot get the two parties – the buyer and the seller to agree on a quid pro quo transaction – then what?

    no deal?

    this is why they bring in the “public necessity” and again – you can have disagreements about what is a public necessity …aka KELO.

    I’m actually more in agreement with you on ED than development/infrastructure and the “right” to pollute.

    FLOODGUY says that the grid need to be updated… and a new law gives the Feds the right to grant ED instead of states.

    The issue is.. if we are going to grant ED – then doesn’t the public have a right to require that the updated grid – be configured to not only support the needs of the investor utilities but the needs of rate payers – who are agreeing to the use of ED?

    this is a separate issue from whether or not individual property owners get equitable compensation for their properties being acquired through ED.

    I don’t think we should be granting new r/w to investor-owned utilities unless their plans for an updated grid INCLUDE configuring the grid to deal with wind/solar.

    in a larger sense that is a quid quo pro transaction – also.

  61. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I do not think it is required that every landowner agree with the deal. If that was required you would not have eminent domain. But it is required that a reasonable number of disinterested parties can agree that some poor slob isn’t getting screwed. He might still not agree, but at least his neighbors are deciding what he gets, not the power company.

    ——————

    But you are simply wrong about the 99% agreeing: the facts under law are so stacked against them, that most will never go to court.

    The process is heavily stacked against the landowners. You should not have the same courts and the same judges making compensation as the ones that approve the ED condemnation in the first place.

    ———————

    Kelo redefined what the constitution calls “public use” to mean “how can we get more tax money”.

    That part of the argument had nothing to do with whether the owners ultimately got paid fairly.

    —————————–

    The rate payers are represented by the SCC. The SCC has the obligation to see that the utility is not wasting money in ways that will cost the ratepayers.

    It is not a waste of money to comply with the constitution, which says that property owners have a right to just compensation.

    Consider the recent power line controversy. The best and cheapest option for the power line would have been a straight line (or nearly so) between the two points. less easement to purchase, and less electricty loss due to distance.

    That choice was made politically impossible, largely by the PEC and it’s members who own land in that area. Dominion will use a longer route and condemn more land under the current plan.

    Efectively, what we have done is put a price on conservation land that is higher than the price of other land. The price of conserving that land under the first option is equal to the difference in costs between the two options.

    We don’t know what the cost of the first option was, because we never got a chance to submit it to a jury of disinterested persons. If we had, then we would know what the pemium for conservation land is, and that would be a checkpoint for future issues.

    Instead, we simply “deemed” that the cost was too high. We put a political price on that property to make it artificially higher than the other option(s). Through political pressure, we gave those landowners more rights than the ones who get stuck with a longer route. We gave those landowners more rights than the ratepayers who will pay for those additional property rights with a longer route, more visual distress, more property value lost, and more electricity loss.

    My argument would be that an easement is a rental, and its value ought to have something to do with the value of the transmission. Cell towers pay rent for their easements, not a one time fee.

    Once the power line has an easement, they can sell access to their easemnt to other utilities, and the landowner gets nothing additional.

    The transmssion line will transmit the same amount of power no matter where it goes. The fewer properties it has to cross, the bigger the payment for each owner, and the more incentive to use the shortest route. The longer the route, the less money avalaible from the electricity for each owner. Eventually thee isn’t enough money to pay each owner an adequate amount and the rates would have to go up to meet the constitutional requirement for just compensation.

    As an owner, if you think electricity use is going up, you might get more money in the future, instead of getting a one time payment locked forever into the past.

    You have to live with that thing every day. For you it isn’t a one time deal. Your future options are forever curtailed, even if those options turn out to be worth a lot, someday.

    All I’m suggesting is a plan with a different dynamic: one that makes it more worth while to cooperate than not, and one that is more willing to pay full and fair compensation than not.

    Between the two, the ratepayers should come out ahead.

    I don’t see the point abut ratepayers “agreeing” to the use of ED. ED exists, they don’t have to agree to its use. ED requires just compensation. If we agree to ED and we agree to just compensation, then there isn’t a problem.

    Historically we have been chintzy, and cynical about what that is. Your cmment about (reluctntly) “agreeing” to the use of ED seems to imply that we know we are going to chintz.

    RH

  62. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “I do not think it is required that every landowner agree with the deal. If that was required you would not have eminent domain. But it is required that a reasonable number of disinterested parties can agree that some poor slob isn’t getting screwed. He might still not agree, but at least his neighbors are deciding what he gets, not the power company.”

    it boils down to who decides and whether or not they have a conflict of interest.

    most landowners want MORE for their property than what it is appraised at – and that they have been paying taxing on.

    No surprise there.. right?

    ——————

    “But you are simply wrong about the 99% agreeing: the facts under law are so stacked against them, that most will never go to court.

    The process is heavily stacked against the landowners. You should not have the same courts and the same judges making compensation as the ones that approve the ED condemnation in the first place.”

    oh I agree.. and how about public roads… new r/w… do you think the same? Should one landowner who is opposed be able to stop the road?

    Could NIMBYs/envriowackos buy “strategic” parcels of land and then refuse to sell them unless they get their price?

    ———————

    “Kelo redefined what the constitution calls “public use” to mean “how can we get more tax money”.

    That part of the argument had nothing to do with whether the owners ultimately got paid fairly.”

    this is ironic RH – because your argument is that your “share” of such a proposal should be a share of the “profits” instead of the appraised value of the land.

    that’s your exact argument for the power line r/w.

    —————————–

    “The rate payers are represented by the SCC. The SCC has the obligation to see that the utility is not wasting money in ways that will cost the ratepayers.

    It is not a waste of money to comply with the constitution, which says that property owners have a right to just compensation.”

    in whose mind? doesn’t the state have the right in the Constitution to determine what is ‘fair’ – by definition?

    “Consider the recent power line controversy. The best and cheapest option for the power line would have been a straight line (or nearly so) between the two points. less easement to purchase, and less electricty loss due to distance.

    That choice was made politically impossible, largely by the PEC and it’s members who own land in that area. Dominion will use a longer route and condemn more land under the current plan.”

    but they really are only doing what you say – that they should get to decide what the land is worth.. and not have to sell it unless their price is met…

    isn’t that your argument?

    “Efectively, what we have done is put a price on conservation land that is higher than the price of other land. The price of conserving that land under the first option is equal to the difference in costs between the two options.”

    again.. who decides the “value” of the land to the owner?

    “We don’t know what the cost of the first option was, because we never got a chance to submit it to a jury of disinterested persons. If we had, then we would know what the pemium for conservation land is, and that would be a checkpoint for future issues.”

    tell me what landowner is “disinterested” RH…

    “Instead, we simply “deemed” that the cost was too high. We put a political price on that property to make it artificially higher than the other option(s).”

    see.. thats YOUR opinion .. not the opinion of those who value the land differently than you.

    “Through political pressure, we gave those landowners more rights than the ones who get stuck with a longer route. We gave those landowners more rights than the ratepayers who will pay for those additional property rights with a longer route, more visual distress, more property value lost, and more electricity loss.”

    who decides this RH?

    You can’t have it both ways.

    do you want to decide when you disagree with others.. does your opinion count more than others?

    “My argument would be that an easement is a rental, and its value ought to have something to do with the value of the transmission. Cell towers pay rent for their easements, not a one time fee.”

    and can you not negotiate on this basis?

    “Once the power line has an easement, they can sell access to their easemnt to other utilities, and the landowner gets nothing additional.”

    yeah.. isn’t that like saying that a subsequent owner of property that you sold .. was able to get a rezone that you were unable to?

    or more to the specific point… if the easement is for “use” how do you prove that additional uses are unfair to you?

    “The transmssion line will transmit the same amount of power no matter where it goes. The fewer properties it has to cross, the bigger the payment for each owner, and the more incentive to use the shortest route. The longer the route, the less money avalaible from the electricity for each owner. Eventually thee isn’t enough money to pay each owner an adequate amount and the rates would have to go up to meet the constitutional requirement for just compensation.”

    so.. power is subsidized?

    “As an owner, if you think electricity use is going up, you might get more money in the future, instead of getting a one time payment locked forever into the past.”

    isn’t this like saying that if you sell a piece of property …and the value goes up later on – that the buyer then owes you “your share”?

    “You have to live with that thing every day. For you it isn’t a one time deal. Your future options are forever curtailed, even if those options turn out to be worth a lot, someday.

    All I’m suggesting is a plan with a different dynamic: one that makes it more worth while to cooperate than not, and one that is more willing to pay full and fair compensation than not.”

    I think you DO have a point… of rental/lease verses purchase and the fact that ED forces you to sell rather than rent/lease.

    Is that true?

    We know that cell towers and wind turbines pay lease/rents… what is the difference?

    “Between the two, the ratepayers should come out ahead.

    I don’t see the point abut ratepayers “agreeing” to the use of ED. ED exists, they don’t have to agree to its use. ED requires just compensation. If we agree to ED and we agree to just compensation, then there isn’t a problem.

    Historically we have been chintzy, and cynical about what that is. Your cmment about (reluctntly) “agreeing” to the use of ED seems to imply that we know we are going to chintz.”

    how about we rent r/w to VDOT – and the more traffic on the road.. the higher the rental payment?

    where would VDOT get the increased rental money from?

  63. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “isn’t this like saying that if you sell a piece of property …and the value goes up later on – that the buyer then owes you “your share”?”

    You don’t sell dominion the property, they just get an easement.

    Otherwise there is an element of truth to your statement. If I sell my business, the buyer will usually pay some multiple of the gross sales for it. If he increases the sales later, I’m not gettin gmore money.

    This situation is different. Dominion does not buy the property, and they change forever the use. Jump forward 20 years and I might find that the property five miles away has trippled in value, but mine has not, because of the power line.

    The power company makes a one time payment – based on the PREVIOUS use, with zero credit for what the future value might be without the power line. You are entirely shut off from the future value – which is partly created by the power line. My position is that you ought still be able to benefit from future growth that you enable.

    I have a friend who wanted to develop his small farm in Oakton, but he couldn’t because there was no water and sewer. The county bought his land – at the going rate – and put a sewage treatment plant there. Then his neighbors sold out for megabucks and the result is the Oakton of today.

    He enabled growth at historical prices, and he got squat out of the deal, compared to those who were not affected by ED.

    RH

  64. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Dominion just gets an easement, and YOU still pay taxes on the land under the power lines.

    Pretty good deal, huh.

    Oh yeah, once they put the easement through, then the county setback requirements kick in. The actual amount of land yu can no loner use is close to triple the amount used for the easement.

    RH

  65. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Dominion says we can’t grow our business without using your land. now you are effectively a partner in their business because you are going to have to live with it every day. Particularly since you would probably now have to give the place away in order to sell it.

    If you are going to be a parner in their business, you should get paid like one, but that isn’t what happens. Not only that, but if some other utility wants to use the easement, dominion can charge them for the privlege, not you.

    When that happens, guess how the fisrt utility gets paid?

    You guessed it, they want a piece of the action from the second utility, not a one time payment like they gave you.

    RH

Leave a Reply

Read More