Can new federal laws succeed in helping the nation
build a modern grid in tune with a digital society? The
Energy Policy Act of 2005 is now being put to the test.
|
Ken Silverstein
EnergyBiz Insider
Editor-in-Chief |
Transmission planning has long been an onerous process.
Intellectually, everyone understands the need to carry
electrons from one point to another in the most physically
and economically efficient manner possible. But,
disagreements abound over where to put the poles and wires
that will facilitate that process. Problems therefore
persist, namely tightly constrained grids that may cause
transmission operators to curtail service.
The Energy Policy Act gives the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission backstop permitting authority as a
way to get important transmission built. Specifically, the
U.S. Secretary of Energy can designate national interest
electric corridors in those areas that have capacity
constraints or congestion. The states still have first
crack at the process. But, the feds will step in if state
law precludes consideration of interstate benefits and if
the state takes longer than one year to act after an
application is filed.
"It is important to note that our regulations are
intended to supplement the traditional state siting
process," says FERC Chairman Joseph Kelliher. "I would
expect that most transmission projects would continue to
be sited by states under state law. Our jurisdiction to
issue a construction permit applies only under limited
circumstances, and our proposed rules respect those
limits."
The commission does not have a blank check. A proposal
to build or expand electric transmission facilities
brought before it must be used for interstate commerce, be
consistent with the public interest, significantly reduce
transmission congestion in interstate commerce and
maximize the use of existing towers and structures. Under
all circumstances, the review process is to be extensive
and the public is to remain involved.
Power purchasers need unfettered access to the nation's
grid so that they can supply electricity when and wherever
they need it. But transmission constraints limit the
amount of energy that can be transferred to a load center.
Grid operators must then find alternative routes that
oftentimes demand more costly forms of generation.
Congestion therefore has its price.
Where to build? In August, the Energy Department
labeled the area from New York City down to Washington,
D.C. as well as all of Southern California as "critical."
That is, new lines are definitely needed. It said that New
England, the Phoenix-Tucson area, the Seattle-Portland
region and San Francisco were "areas of concern."
The New York State Public Service Commission has
weighed in, saying that FERC should adopt a "clear
economic measure of congestion" that considers national
concerns and one in which projects are paid for by the
beneficiaries. Such an "objective" view would narrow down
the list of sites that might be viewed as vital to the
national interests.
Breaking Ties
Transmission investment has declined in real terms --
adjusted for inflation -- from 1975 to 1998. While there
have been increases since 1998, FERC says that the level
is still less than what was invested in 1975. Over the
same time period, however, the demand for electricity has
doubled. That's resulted in a significant decrease in
transmission capacity, requiring new lines get built.
The Energy Department also continues to assert that
Regional Transmission Organizations -- independent
operators that schedule power deliveries -- should take a
leadership role. As such, PJM Interconnection has asked
the department to designate two electrical paths as vital
-- authority granted to it by the Energy Policy Act. They
are the Allegheny Mountain path that extends from West
Virginia and serves the Baltimore-Washington region and
the Delaware River Path that serves the areas around
Philadelphia, New Jersey and Delaware.
The corridor designations address needs that result
from continuing growth in electricity use, closing of
local generating plants, limited construction of new
generating facilities and aging transmission
infrastructure, PJM says. In 2005, lost potential revenue
due to transmission congestion on the Allegheny Mountain
path totaled $747 million. It totaled $464 million on the
Delaware River path in 2005.
"Expansion of the electric transmission grid and the
consideration of alternatives are needed in these key
areas to ensure reliability and lower electricity costs,"
says Phillip Harris, CEO of PJM, noting that "large
metropolitan areas make them the very type of national
interest concerns to which Congress was referring."
ISO New England, meanwhile, says that about $900
million is needed for upgrades to maintain reliability and
efficiency. Southwest Connecticut in particular has one of
the most severely constrained transmission systems in New
England. All told, more than 30 transmission projects have
been planned or proposed for the Northeast, although FERC
says that it still won't be enough to relieve the expected
congestion.
The energy law stipulates that FERC does have the
authority to act, although it cannot take final action and
issue a construction permit until one year has passed.
While FERC expects the states to make the vast majority of
determinations, there will be cases in which agreement
cannot be reached and it will be called upon to break the
tie -- no guarantee that the process would still not be
consumed by legal wrangling and regulatory battles.
Everyone wants the lights to turn on at the flip of a
switch. But, no one wants the transmission wires to enable
that reality to be located close to them. The permitting
process is democratic and all interested stakeholders have
the right and obligation to weigh in. The Energy Policy
Act does not want to circumvent the procedure. It does,
however, seek to create a sound and modern-day grid.
Copyright © 1996-2006 by
CyberTech,
Inc.
All rights reserved.
|