crowd_cheering_med

EEEEEEEEEEE-HA!

OH HAPPY DAY!!!!

A victory for states’ rights, for state decision-making authority and jurisdiction over transmission lines.  The National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor designation has been horrifying to many of us because the talk on the street was that the rules allowed transfer to FERC where a state was “withholding” granting a permit.  That was being interpreted as broadly as a state denial — that if a state reasonably denied a permit for transmission, the applicant could then take it to FERC and get it rammed through.  So it went to court…

AND THE COURT SAID NO!

NO!

Like wow…

Piedmont v. FERC 4th Circuit Decision

It’s printing now, and I’ll find some choice snippets.  This is such a relief, but I doubt the utilities will let this go unchallenged — onward and upward!

JCSP & UMTDI in the news

February 16th, 2009

powerlines_links_atc

More transmission – again in the Wall Street Journal.

Hard to tell which of the alphabet soups this article is about, and I’d say both, it’s about the Joint Coordinated System Plan and the Upper Midwest Transmission Development InitiativeUMDTI! But we know it’s all one and the same.

The article doesn’t really specifically name either “group” and it leaves us wondering just who or what is behind it.  This is a good thing — yes, it really is as amorphous as it sounds! What disturbs me, of course, is the “It’s for wind,” because we know better!

New Grid for Renewable Energy Could Be Costly

FEBRUARY 9, 2009

By REBECCA SMITH

A substantial increase in the amount of electricity produced from renewable energy would require building a transmission system that would carry a price tag of up to $100 billion, according to a new study.

The new system would be needed because the existing eastern grid couldn’t handle the volume of power coming from the wind-producing states. In addition, the new grid would need to be able to handle the fluctuating nature of wind power, which can surge at some moments and drop sharply at others.

There is strong political and public support for increasing production of renewable energy, and Congress is considering enacting a nationwide standard that would require utilities to garner more of their power from renewable sources. However, there is only an emerging understanding of how new standards would affect the country’s existing electricity infrastructure.

The study, sponsored by some of the nation’s biggest grid-running organizations east of the Rockies, is the most comprehensive attempt by the industry to figure out what kind of infrastructure upgrades would be needed if the U.S. attempts to sharply increase the amount of power it gets from sources such as wind and solar. In 2007, according to the Energy Information Administration, about 7% of the nation’s electricity came from renewable sources, including less than 1% from wind.

If the U.S. wants to get 20% of its electricity from renewable energy by 2024, the study says, it would be necessary to build a new electricity circulatory system, including 15,000 circuit miles of extremely high voltage lines. The system, which would be laid alongside the existing electric grid infrastructure, would start in the Great Plains and Midwest — where the bulk of the nation’s wind resources are located — and terminate in big cities along the East Coast.

The transmission system would cost up to $100 billion. Building the wind turbines needed to generate the desired amount of power would cost about $720 billion, the study estimates — making the total investment about equal to the size of the current stimulus bill. The money would be spent over a 15-year period, and would be financed primarily by utilities and investors.

The purpose of the study was “to make clear that if you need large sums of energy that’s not carbon-based, these are the kinds of numbers involved” to achieve it, said Clair Moeller, head of transmission planning for the Midwest Independent System Operator.

The report was prepared by organizations responsible for electric-system reliability in roughly half the states, including the Midwest Independent System Operator, SERC Reliability Region, PJM Interconnection LLC, the Southwest Power Pool, the Mid-Continent Area Power Pool and the Tennessee Valley Authority.

The projected cost of the system is only one hurdle. Getting the high-voltage power lines build across the country would require the assent of local authorities and landowners, and might require federal intervention. “For that 15,000 miles of lines, I promise about 15,000 lawsuits,” said Mr. Moeller.

The report is generating controversy because there is no guarantee that expensive power lines, if built, would be used primarily to move renewable energy. They could just as easily carry energy from coal-fired power plants in the Midwest or Great Plains.

New York and New England grid operators provided information for the report but say there might be ways to build resources in their regions more economically than hauling power from the Great Plains. “This study doesn’t look enough at alternatives to huge transmission additions,” said Stephen Whitley, chief executive of the New York Independent System Operator.

Utilities are proposing to build some new transmission lines already, but nothing on the scale of what the report says would be needed.

At least the WSJ noticed the NYISO and ISO-NE’s objections — here it is again, it’s one of those letters I just can’t get enough of:

Feb 4 2009 NYISO & ISO-NE Letter to JCSP

The UMDTI is insidious, a cheerleading effort to push transmission through.  The way the thing is structured, is, as I said in my comments at the February 11, 2009, meeting, is ABSOLUTELY ASS-BACKWARDS.  It’s market driven backwards engineering a transmission solution to support nonexistent need.

Upper Midwest Transmission Development Initiative – HOME PAGE

UMTDI Stakeholder Letter 10-28-08

Stakeholder Responses – LINK – look who the stakeholders are – DUH!

Wind on the Wires Comments … sigh…

UMDTI Stakeholder Letter 12-31-08 (Ed Garvey – MISO)

Dec 30 Draft – Cost Allocation Work Group (Marya White – Commerce)

December 30 Draft – Transmission Planning Work Group (Randy Pilo – PSC-WI)

Wind on the Wires cites many studies:

MISO’s Regional Generation Outlet Study (RGOS)

Transmission planning initiatives by” CapX 2020, ATC, Mid-American and others”

Minnesota RES transmission study

MISO’s MTEP-08 and MTEP-09

Joint Coordinated System Planning Stuey

Eastern Wind Integration Transmission Study

None of these studies are linked — and they’re not on the UMTDI site — let’s see how long it takes to find them.

CapX 2020 – they’re HERE

See also the Certificate of Need Appendix A

ATC 10 Year Plan (2008)

MISO’s MTEP 08

Now for the more difficult ones… one moment please…

Joint Coordinated System Plan

February 12th, 2009

transmission1sunset

With all these transmission proposals from hell announced, I think we’ve got to take a step backwards, and go through JCSP, the source of an insane “plan” for transmission across the U.S.  JCSP is “Joint Coordinated System Plan,” which is MISO, PJM, SPP, TVA, and MAPP, getting together and fantacizing about transmission.   This has nothing to do with need, with whether there’s a market, with whether it’s in the public interest, it’s what they want.

The NYT “Green Blog” had a post about this a couple of days ago that got this completely wrong, as you can see from the headline:

An Ambitious Vision for Upscaling Wind Transmission

EARTH TO MARS — IT’S NOT FOR WIND.

Here’s a NYT “Green Blog” snippet with a look into the JCSP’smotivation (click for the whole thing):

The Joint Coordinated System Plan, as it is called, has been in development for months, according to the Midwest Independent System Operator, which is steering the project — and the full report will not be ready until the fall. But details of the plan were revealed on Monday in order to coincide with debate over the stimulus bill.

Yes, the stimulus bill.  There’s a lot of money in that stimulus bill for transmission, and there’s NO money in the market for building transmission, or anything for that matter — remember, CapX 2020 was hustling Lehman Bros. for money, so it’s possible CapX won’t be built anytime soon.  There they go to the government trough…

JCSP has it’s own site, just a contact form, with no contact information on it whatsoever, other than links to “the participants.”

Joint Coordinated System Plan Site

Here’s their “plan” for transmission across the US:

jcsp08-xmsndream

JCSP Report – Executive Summary

So let’s see, we’ve got CapX 2020, MISO’s MTEP, the JCSP dream/nightmare plan, the Green Power Express… and they keep trying to couch their market dreams into wind, needed for RES.  Can’t beople do a little background checking before they jump on this bandwagon?  Can’t they do their due diligence like NYISO and ISO-NE?

Feb 4 2009 NYISO & ISO-NE Letter to JCSP

DUH!  There’s no market.  This is such arrogance on the part of MISO…

transmissionpowerline_largempr

I know, that’s a lot of alphabet soup, so let’s do that first.

NYISO is the New York Independent Service Operator, the transmission operator for New York.

ISO-NE is the Independent Service Operator of New England, the transmission operator for New England.

JCSP is the Joint Coordinated system Planning Initiative, conducted by most of the transmission planning entities in the Eastern Interconnect.  Each ISO has a JCSP committee, I’m most familiar with the MISO JCSP efforts (AAAAARGH!).  I’ve just spent half an hour searching MISO and can’t find the JCSP section, more AAAAAAAARGH… here’s a small piece:

JCSP08 Executive Summary

Anyway, as you all know, the “Green Power Express” has been announced, roaring through the Midwest towards the east, a CapX 2020 on steroids.

JCSP has put out a plan, and NYISO and ISO-NE said: PPPPPPPPBBBBBBBFT, I don’t think so, we don’t want to join in publication of this report due to your lack of consideration of efforts we’re doing here, and that you’ve got a lot of coal expansion in your plan.  Well, that’s my translation.  What do you think?

Here’s their Frbruary 4, 2009 letter to JCSP:

Feb 4 2009 NYISO & ISO-NE Comment to JCSP

Here it is, do read it yourself and CHEER and SNORT!  They have nailed it (EMPHASIS ADDED):

February 4, 2009

TO: THE JOINT COORDINATED SYSTEM PLANNING INITIATIVE

ISO New England and the NYISO are pleased to participate in the Joint Coordinated System Plan (JCSP) initiative that comprises nearly all of the regional planning entities for the Eastern Interconnection. We believe this type of broad, long-term and cooperative approach to power system planning and development is important to inform federal energy policy under the new administration.

The JCSP is a highly valuable activity with respect to the collaboration it promotes among the regional planning organizations within the Eastern Interconnection and the tools it has developed. Even at this early stage of the process, the JCSP has established a framework in which to study the entire Eastern Interconnection in a single multi-regional analysis and developed a common database of information that can be used as a starting point for future studies.

The current JCSP reports on the activities undertaken in 2008, presents analyses of two wind expansion scenarios, that also assume significant baseload coal expansion, and recommends further scenarios for the group to study. ISO New England and NYISO support the JCSP recommendation to pursue additional studies and scenarios and believe these steps are required prior to reaching any broad conclusions on the need for, and scope of, development of large scale transmission. In this regard, the 2008 JCSP report cannot be viewed as a “plan” to be relied upon for decision-making purposes and we believe its publication is premature.

Our primary concern is that the report portrays its analyses to date as a basis for federal policy discussions and decisions regarding major transmission development, as it relates to the integration of renewable resources, notwithstanding the recognized need for additional work. Until additional scenarios that include the development of local resources are analyzed, we do not believe any single transmission plan can be presented as a solution to the integration of additional renewable energy resources in the United States. Conversely, there is significant value in the JCSP studies for policymakers if appropriately presented as technical scenario analysis — coupled with the incorporation of specific planning work already underway in the various regions, including New England and New York, to integrate local renewable resources.

We also have concerns about the inclusion of issues such as cost allocation and “value based planning” considerations in the JCSP report. Since the JCSP is not itself a policy making body, we do not believe these issues should be part of the current scope nor are they appropriate for future JCSP efforts. In fact, we feel that issuing the report as it stands has the potential to constrain future collaboration, and at worst, stimulate counter-productive debate amongst regional planning organizations at it relates to these two policy areas.

In order to ensure that ISO New England’s and NYISO’s specific concerns are fully understood, below is a description of some of the specific activities and initiatives going on in the region and an explanation of how we believe they impact certain JCSP study assumptions and future efforts.

The New England Governors have been working actively for the past two years, not only among the six states in the region, but also in collaboration with the five eastern Canadian provinces of Quebec, Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, to consider the integrated development of renewable and non-carbon emitting resources. Numerous proposals to develop renewables within the region (over 4800 MW in the current ISO New England Interconnection queue), including two major off shore wind projects, are being pursued by private entities. The governors and energy policymakers strongly support these developments and view them as economic development opportunities for their states — as well as for advancing air quality and energy security goals. Recently, the governors asked ISO New England for assistance in creating a “blueprint” for developing regional energy resources and overcoming transmission barriers to enhance the energy independence of the region. Furthermore, a number of initiatives in the New England states are promoting energy
efficiency and smart grid technologies. These are in addition to demand resources that are expected to
comprise over 8% of the resources procured for our Forward Capacity Market for the year 2011.

New York State has put into place an aggressive policy to incent the development of a substantial level of both renewable resources as well as energy efficiency. In his recent State-of-the-State message Governor Paterson announced a further expansion of the State’s efforts to achieve a “45×15” goal: i.e. a 30% level of renewable resources and a 15% reduction in the forecasted energy usage in the State by the year 2015. The energy efficiency program alone, if these goals are achieved, will reduce statewide electric demand by over 5000MW. New York already has nearly 1000MW of wind resources now in operation and the NYISO has another 8000MW in its interconnection queue, including off-shore projects totaling over 1200MW. The NYISO is working with regulators and stakeholders in New York to analyze the local transmission reinforcements that may be required to fully integrate such substantial local wind resources into the wholesale electric markets for the benefit of all consumers in the State.

With the shared geography and history of energy trading patterns between New York and New England with Eastern Canada, significant consideration is also being given to transmission options that would strengthen our access to new supplies of renewable energy—both hydro and wind—now being developed north of our states in Canada. Given these activities, it is reasonable to assume that these resources being developed in the Northeast may be deliverable to customers in our region sooner and more cost-effectively than Midwest wind resources. Given the renewable development, energy efficiency, and likelihood of new ties to Canada, the need to construct long transmission lines to the Midwest would likely be reduced and in turn overall transmission costs may be lower. We believe New England and New York policymakers and stakeholders should have the opportunity to compare such a scenario with the scenarios assumed in the current JCSP report and urge that they be included in future JCSP planning efforts.

We note that the report also assumes the development of new coal-fired generation in the Midwest without recognition of current and future restrictions on carbon emissions and their associated costs. While there is significant uncertainty about the details and timing of federal regulations for carbon, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (“RGGI”) is in effect today in New England, New York and other Northeast states and its impacts on generation from coal fired resources remains to be seen. In addition, we believe it is likely that the transmission and wind project capital cost estimates contained in the initial JCSP are understated and suggest that modifications to the estimates and estimating process would help to develop a better understanding of the true costs of the expansion scenarios. Future JCSP efforts should also include the ability of stakeholders in the various regions to consider and comment on the assumptions used for these estimates.

These factors, especially the lack of recognition of important New England and New York-specific circumstances require that ISO New England and NYISO withdraw from the publication of the current JCSP study. Despite our inability to participate in the JCSP 2008 report, we intend to continue to participate and work collaboratively towards the modifications suggested above. In order to advance the positive steps made by the participants and the Department of Energy toward joint planning initiatives, we hope that agreement can be reached on the charter, governance and scope of additional JCSP planning efforts and an improved regional stakeholder review process.

Sincerely,
Gordon van Welie
President & Chief Executive Officer
ISO New England Inc.

Stephen G. Whitley                                                                                                                                                                     President & Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                                                           New York Independent System Operator

WELL SAID!!!

Many thanks to the little birdie who sent this:

littlebirdie

Here we go, the Green Transmission Machine is here and is trying to leave the station, and what a crock.  ITC Holdings, transmission only company a la TRANSLink, has announced “The Green Power Express” and here’s their press release:

ITC Holdings – Green Power Express Press Release

And look at this map, here it is:

Microsoft PowerPoint - 090105 Green Power Express.ppt

Once again, they’re saying “it’s GREEN” from wind in Dakotas to Chicago… oh, but doesn’t it start in ANTELOPE VALLEY?  Isn’t that where all those coal plants are?  Isn’t that where they want to build new coal plants?  And isn’t Illinois the state where they have thousands of MW of wind in the MISO queue?  And for this we should give them $10-12 BILLION to build this?  I don’t think so…

Green Power Express – FERC Rate Filing

And while you’re at it, this is MTEP, so check this out the JCSP/MTEP plan:

JCSP08 Executive Summary

Here’s the upshot of what they’re proposing:

jcsp08-xmsndream

All of this is tied in with the “Upper Midwest Transmission Development Initiative” which is a bunch of utility transmission oriented folks who have a lot to gain from this, Governors lead by Pawlenty the utility toadie, and regulators who don’t seem to be able to think their way out of a box — they’re promoting transmission without addressing need, claiming a transmission solution for a problem that doesn’t exist:

FINAL UMTDI MEETING TOMORROW

FEBRUARY 11, 2009

1:30-3:00 p.m.

PUC Large Hearing Room

3rd Floor

121 – 7th Place East

St. Paul, Minnesota

What dries me crazy is that this so obviously isn’t necessary, because there’s SOOOOO much wind already in Illinois and here’s the MISO queue, in Excel and sortable, for your edification:

MISOqueue608

Here’s an ILL WIND for this project, sorted from above MISO Queue (note that some of that 11,281MW is already in service):

misoqueue-illwind

But this is all about the MISO Midwest Market and displacing natural gas with coal:

ICF Final Deck – PowerPoint

ICF’s Independent Assessment of Midwest ISO Operational Benefits

In Milwaukee Journal Sentinal:

$10 billion transmission lines for wind power

Here’s the STrib article about the Green-with-Nausea Power Express:

Huge power line may be coming to Minnesota

By BOB VON STERNBERG, Star Tribune

February 10, 2009

A massive high-voltage power line that would connect the wind turbine farms along Buffalo Ridge and points west to the Midwest’s biggest cities was unveiled Monday.

ITC Holdings Corp. of Novi, Mich., announced Monday that a 765,000-volt line would run 3,000 miles across seven states, including Minnesota, the Dakotas, Iowa and Wisconsin, carrying power to the Chicago region and points east.

The project, dubbed the “Green Power Express,” would cost as much as $12 billion to transmit as much as 12,000 megawatts of power from windy, sparsely-populated areas.

Company officials touted the project as being line with the goals outlined by President Obama in his national energy agenda, specifically mentioning his desire “to get wind power from North Dakota to population centers, like Chicago.”

Nonetheless, the project is likely to face host of hurdles, starting with its cost and size, given the fact that power lines throughout the Upper Midwest have consistently sparked fierce opposition by local residents.

Further stressing its “green energy” credentials, the company estimated that hooking the wind farms into the region’s electric grid could lead to a reduction of up to 34 million metric tons of carbon emissions, which is equivalent to the annual emissions of as many as nine 600-megawatt coal-fired power plants.

ITC Holdings began the process of winning approval of its plans Monday by filing an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. It is likely to also need to pass regulatory hurdles from individual states that the power line would cross.