Climate Science Links
U.S. Government
International
Academic, Non-Governmental
Wind Industry Fights Midwest Transmission Proposal to Stay Alive
The burgeoning wind industry in America's Upper Midwest could be at risk of shutting down if a new transmission policy by a local grid operator goes through, according to a pair of wind advocacy groups.
Even worse — the plan could put the nation's renewable energy goals in jeopardy.
The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) and Wind on the Wires (WOW) have filed a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to stop a proposal by the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator (MISO) — one that would dramatically change the way costs are distributed for new transmission lines.
Specifically, the plan would force energy generators to bear a 90 percent share of new transmission costs in the region, wind farm developers included.
Currently, generators and utilities split the price paid, 50-50.
For the wind industry, that would be seen as a shame. Current plans for regional wind are grand. Developers want to build a wave of utility-scale wind farms, and get the ones that have already sprouted plugged in. In fact, a decent chunk of the power waiting to be added to the grid in the Midwest is wind.
But if FERC approves the proposal by MISO, which covers 13 states, those megawatts may have to keep on waiting. Here's why:
"The proposed change would nearly double the cost for a wind plant to connect to the power system in the Upper Midwest, potentially forcing many wind plant developers to pull the plug on tens of billions of dollars of investment they have planned for the region," said AWEA in a statement.
Simply put, wind would no longer be economical under the MISO scheme, and some projects that are waiting in the wings would be killed.
Without the planned turbines, states in the Upper Midwest, which include Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, and the Dakotas, may struggle to meet their renewable energy goals and mandates, the AWEA says. America as a whole would be hard-pressed to reach the White House ambition of doubling the nation's supply of renewable energy in the next three years sans the Upper Midwest, known as the "Saudi Arabia of wind."
As AWEA and WOW see it, the MISO policy is "unworkable" for the wind sector because of this fact. It assigns nearly all of the costs of upgrading the grid to the next wind plant waiting in line to connect to it. It's akin to
"requiring the next car entering a congested highway to pay the full cost of adding a new lane," said WOW Director Beth Soholt.
The Upper Midwest isn't alone on this issue. Transmission has become the major tripwire to America's green-powered future.
One of the biggest hang-ups is over a cross-country transmission superhighway that would zap electricity from America's midsection to the urban areas that need it. The plan carries a massive, multi-billion dollar price tag. Those in favor say it would move the nation toward a clean renewable energy future. Those against see it as a total waste of cash, a covert attempt to serve some of the dirtiest coal plants, giving them access to new markets through transmission.
And then there's the big issue of cost: Who would pay for it?
The MISO proposal is a local version of that long-simmering cost dispute.
What's clear is that loading up the costs on generators could price many wind farm plans out of existence. There's also the issue of costs to electricity consumers. The price hike to generators that a shift to MISO's cost sharing would bring would be passed onto certain Midwestern consumers. They'll end up paying more for the transmission of wind, and may not even benefit, if it gets sent to neighboring states. That could stymie public support for new wind energy.
- 1
- 2
- next page »
|
© InsideClimate News |
Wind, Coal and Cost - honestly
Looking to the bigger picture and perhaps other studies that point toward the "Bigger Rip Off"? Of course folks protest when the "buck gets passed". The question of "coal" electricity also needs to be applied to these discussions and an overview of the industry as a whole. In the Midwest alleged "windy" transmission projects like Xcel’s CAPX2020 & ITC Holdings "Green Power Express" are, in the minds of many, complete boondoggle "green wash" projects. Public financial soakings to follow. All while we see a large player like Xcel, for example, experience dramatic drops in electric demand (SEC K-10 numbers show decline last three years running!).
Forgotten here are words like "coal" usage and "Wall Street P&L's". In truth, great rate increases will soon be born by broke ratepayers everywhere as massive new UN-NEEDED transmission projects are built with the idea of shuttling not just "some" wind power toward the eastern seaboard, but also transporting an ever growing amount of coal power. Expensive transmission projects that will be redundant before completion--extinct by 2024.
Chicago alone, for example, has also identified almost 10,000 megawatts of wind power close by. Terrific! But it's not all “clean energy" packages from Midwestern “wind zones”! For those who research and see the big national picture: it's mostly about Central states becoming a very costly conduit. Ratepayers & growing taxes will be the bank for such high voltage inefficient transport to "high profit" eastern states. Folks in the east will pay throught the nose. And wind investors look disturbed at cost distribution. Ha! Wind - Welcome to the coal party.
The real question: Who pays for these build outs - And who profits? Most of these projects are about greed - not need! Serious health concerns, eminent domain, increased threat of terrorism to the grid and highly questionable need are just a few of the topics & issues which demand further discussion. Here see the letter from 10 Governors also concerned: http://www.pecva.org/anx/index.cfm/1,516,2263,-1,html.
To suggest all that is needed is the mining of “resource areas”, endless build outs of “old fashioned” 1950’s style transmission to bigger cities and we’d all sleep better—problem solved--would be almost correct except for one serious problem: LINE LOSS. The existing grid is still horribly inefficient. Shipping wind power, or any power long distance, is mindless. Could it be it's coal under the cloak of wind?
To NOT rethink how power is made and distributed today would be like saying we should have kept to horses instead of moving to “horseless carriages” years ago. Experts more and more agree, if we are to truly steward America’s resources each region of the country will need to identify what THEY each can produce locally—then use regionally. Solar, wind, biofuel, gas, etc. The concept currently used of “Central Station” (having one massive energy plant; i.e. nuclear, wind farm or coal burner) then maximize production, to only try to ship that power to far off distant usage points is backwards. Soon, in contrast, we’ll see communities everywhere “powering up” - manufacturing their own power and distributing it locally and regionally. Distributed Generation. Think thousands of smaller “stations” everywhere. Jobs would flourish and it would be very positive for LOCAL, state & national economies. That does not require huge transmission build outs however.
No, this argument is not about wind – it’s about market share. Those who are wise enough to see it quickly realize that the “profit barons” are simply rushing to hold our future generations captive to endless profit and control. It’s time for “smart grids” using the existing transmission. Much smaller build outs are required than what's being suggested here by outfits like MISO, NERL or others. Wind and solar in future should be considered in a far more responsible manner. In years to come hopefully we will see legislation at federal level calling for much more responsible energy production. It's time.
Today the energy paradigm is shifting. In reality we should partner with the actual “smart” consumer -- allow the ratepayers to in fact participate with the investment. Now there's an idea! But they don't want us to have that discussion....do they? Let's go for wind and solar - but this time let's do it correctly. And as for Ms. Overland's comment above: she is correct about the deal with the devils. Perhaps it's time that some of the "windy" organizations re-think the way they should be going to market. Honestly,
Additional research here: http://www.ilsr.org/capx/resources.html
I don't get it -- this was in the CapX 2020 record
The cost allocation planned was in the CapX 2020 record, it was in the Discovery (www.puc.state.mn.us, to "Search dockets" and search for 06-1115), so this isn't anything new. If utilities can't cost shift their transmission construction bill to someone else, economic dispatch won't look quite so attractive. This is what happens when you do a deal with the devil and agree to promote transmission.
http://legalectric.org/f/2007/07/settlement-agreement-02-2152-me3-walton...
Post new comment