Legalectric

We’re stuck here in Minnesota for a while, parental health issues to deal with, and thankfully others have posted on the meeting this week in Delaware about the Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway proposed by Delmarva and PEPCO.

Howard – Delmar DustPan: The Millsboro’s MAPP Meeting

His post shows that it’s the same everywhere — coffee & cookies and 20 utility employees to “explain.”  TWENTY!

From his blog — does this scene look familiar:

AND knowing that 600 showed up in Maryland, that there’s lots of interest, he notes that there were only 30 chairs.  Come on, PEPCO, that is SO tacky…

This project is part of something much bigger…

Here’s my post on RTEP – Regional Transmission Expansion Plan

Here’s some info about their plan, the original proposal, and info about AC v. DC lines, focused on the submarine cable for the Chesapeake Bay:

PHI Transmission Line Proposal – May 15, 2006

June 12, 2008 MAPP Project Update

FERC has approved a Return on Investment of 12.8%:

FERC Approval of Rate Recovery November 3, 2008

The June 12 PowerPoint says it will cost $1.5 billion, and the FERC press release says $1.05 billion.  Slip of the decimal?

Take a look at their Market Efficiency Analysis — projections of cost and revenue changes:

$$$$-PossumPt-CalvertCliffs-IndianRiver-Salem-500kv

In short, here’s what this line is about:

I found a powerpoint with some of the upgrades planned:

Sept 9 2008 PJM Subregional Planning – Mid-Atlantic

Here are maps to some Delaware projects from this September powerpoint:

WOW!  “Nearly 600” show up for a meeting about transmission.  Good, Delmarva deserves that kind of response for their threat to ram the Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway transmission line through Maryland and Delaware to New Jersey.  They’re so desperate that they’re threatening “rolling blackouts:”

Delmarva Power spokesman Matt Likovich says the region could face rolling blackouts by 2011 unless the power transmission infrastructure is improved.

More transmission lies.  WDMT caught them making the same threats:

Delmarva Power Community and Communications Coordinator Matt Likovich said, “There have been projections that if we don’t do something to improve our infrastructure… we could be faced with rolling blackouts by the year 2011.”

Threatening rolling blackouts, saying that’ll happen by 2011, so we need to build this line by 2013… yeah… sure… whatever…  Get a grip, guys, we are not that stupid, we’re not buying your threats — it is SO naughty to do that.

Power lines would relieve congestion

By Andrew Ostroski
Staff Writer

MILLSBORO — Officials from Delmarva Power met with members of the public to discuss a power line project that will cut through the heart of Sussex County, as well as much of the Delmarva Peninsula.

An increase in energy usage on the Shore has prompted Delmarva Power to start the Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway project, 230 miles of interstate electric transmission line. More than 100 miles of the line are slated for Delaware, with 61 miles in Sussex County.

The lines would follow current right-of-ways, crossing the state line west of Delmar, and move northeast across the county through Gumboro and Millsboro to the Indian River Generating Station. Lines are also planned to go north through Milton and into Kent and New Castle counties before crossing the Delaware River to the Salem Nuclear Power Plant in New Jersey. Total cost for construction is estimated at $1.43 billion.

“During times of congestion, we have to call in power plants to provide energy,” said Matt Likovich, spokesman for Delmarva Power. “Those operators charge more for that energy because they know we need it. We could cut those power plants out.”

Nearly 600 people filled the auditorium at Cambridge-South Dorchester High School earlier this week to listen and comment on plans to string the high-voltage electrical transmission lines across Dorchester County from Taylor’s Island to Vienna.

Potential routes for the power lines in Dorchester were presented by Pepco Holdings Senior Vice President William Gausman.

“We have not made any decisions on this project; there is still a long way to go,” he said, presenting a map of the potential routes, including one which follows existing rights-of-way for a Choptank Electric transmission line and the railroad tracks from Bucktown to Linkwood.

He said three meetings are planned this month in Dorchester to review the proposed routes and seek public comment. The meetings are set for Feb. 19 in Taylor’s Island, Feb. 24 in Church Creek and Feb. 26 in Vienna.

“More than 80 percent will be on or along existing transmission lines,” Gausman said. The problem in Dorchester, he said, is that there are no existing high-voltage transmission lines.

Currently, Delmarva Power runs one transmission line. The company would like to build a second to provide an alternate route if one line experiences congestion or malfunction.

MAPP would be the first major high-voltage transmission project executed on the lower half of the Shore in 25 years. The 500 kilovolt line is also slated to cut some costs for consumers throughout the northeast. Vince Maione, MAPP project manager, said the reduced congestion will bring savings to users.

“We see a potential savings from congestion of about 70 or 80 cents per 1,000 kilowatt hours average per month,” he said.

Some residents have expressed concerns about building the 160-foot towers planned for current rights-of-way where power lines already exist. Doris Batdorf, a Long Neck resident, said she is afraid lines will affect her property.

“We just moved here in July, and now we have this coming,” she said. “I just don’t see the cost justifying the means.”

Maione also said the project would be funded by consumers, with an average of 40 cents added to electric bills.

“We have to plan for what the future’s going to bring,” he said. “The electric system has to be reliable. This circuit can bring enough power to serve the customers that are here today, and then plan for the future.”

Tonight is the final meeting in the group scheduled by Delmarva Power about the Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway, transmission through Delaware to New Jersey.

Wednesday, February 4 @ 6 p.m.

Millsboro Civic Center

322 Wilson Highway

Millsboro, Delaware

Sussex County:

Kent County:

New Castle County (cutout):

For more info on the underlying scheme, see my prior post:

PJM Transmission in Mid-Atlantic

Transmission lies

Against the so-called ‘need’ for new long-distance, high-voltage transmission lines

Posted by Guest author (Guest Contributor) at 10:31 AM on 03 Feb 2009

The following is a guest post from Carol A. Overland, a utility regulatory attorney and electrical consultant based in Minnesota and Delaware, representing clients in energy dockets including transmission projects, wind, gas and coal gasification generation, and nuclear waste.

—–

Transition … transmission … transition … transmission …

That old Bowie hook is on my mind as I represent individuals, community organizations, and local governments opposing high-voltage transmission lines. Today we’re at a crossroads in energy, a transition point where the decisions we make, like electricity itself, are binary. What we choose will determine how we use electricity in the future. The first step is to carefully define “need.”

Transmission doesn’t produce electricity. It is passive infrastructure that just sits there, conducting energy from one place to another. At its worst, though, it’s an enabler of dysfunctional energy planning and profit-driven projects that are against the public interest. Claims that we “need” transmission are end-stage conclusions of a many-step planning process that we as a society have not yet consciously begun.

“Need” is a term of art, and the crucial task for energy planners is to define the need. We need energy when we flick the switch, and when we do, that’s a utility’s need for service of local electrical load. We also need renewable generation, and we have an equally compelling need to reduce the CO2 emissions, pollutants, and toxic waste of electrical generation (a need not readily recognized in energy planning). Energy planners plan for peak “flick of the switch” need, those few very hot summer days or very cold winter nights. How much “flick of the switch” energy do we need? It depends.

Prior to assessing local load-serving need and making demand projections — before “need” is considered — the first and unarguably least-cost step is conservation. We can easily make up for an annual projected increase in demand of 1.5 percent through conservation, and can probably cut today’s “need” by 10 percent or more, though compound conservation gets more difficult as we cherry pick the easy stuff. The next step before analyzing need is to enact energy efficiency, demand-side management, and load-shifting to cut the peaks and level out the dips. This is also a comparatively least-cost means of meeting demand.

When that’s done, and not before, it’s time to assess our need for electricity — the supply side. Utilities, which are in the business of selling electricity and building their infrastructure — for which we pay, routinely promote sales and exaggerate growth in demand. Because of their overstatements of need in similarly recessionary times, we overbuilt in the 1970s, to the extent that many proposed plants were ultimately canceled. Still so much was built that we haven’t needed much utility infrastructure since. We’ve been through this before, and should be mindful in making investments.

Because of the recent utility industry shift to market-based dispatch, whereby generation is no longer strictly for service of local load but for wider regional or national electricity markets, market expansion has become the driver for the utility “need” for transmission. This is the key difference: how much transmission utilities need to serve their local load (the public good) vs. how much they need to participate in markets (greater profits). North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the private overseer of all things transmission, admits in Reliability Assessments that there is a lot of new electrical generation planned and that the transmission system is sufficient to meet local load-serving needs. The confounding factor: NERC notes that the transmission grid is constrained in places and is not sufficient for market purposes, for market expansion.

The short explanation of the shift to market focus is that, in theory, it makes generation available to all who want it, based on price rather than location. The cheapest is sold first, and buyers queue up in line. But the sale price is busbar price at the generator or seller, and does not take into account the costs of getting it from here to there — notably transmission construction, transmission service, and line loss. These costs are tacked on and billed to the purchasing utility, and will be added to the customer’s bill. The market “price” thus appears misleadingly low. Cheap coal-generated electricity from West Virginia looks awfully good to buyers in New Jersey when all the costs aren’t factored in to the sale price.

This is the crucial point: The divergence between traditional “local load-serving need” and the desire of utilities to beef up need claims, to build generation and transmission at ratepayer expense, in order play the market. State regulatory proceedings are couched in traditional “local load-serving need” terms, and utilities must prove up need before they are granted Certificates and proceed with construction. Investments must be “reasonable and prudent.” Opportunity to play the market is not reasonable and prudent, so it’s not a reason to build a transmission line — utility desire to increase market transactions is not recognized as “need” in a Certificate of Need or Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity proceeding. This is where transmission lines become transmission lies: Transmission projects for market trading are couched in terms recognized by regulators.

Planning for “peak load” is a transmission lie. Utilities have incentive to overstate “need” when they build for peaks. The higher the peak they build for (with peak occurring only several times annually), the deeper the off-peak valley and the more electricity they can sell on the market when generation is available but not “needed.” Conservation and peak-shaving is against their interest because it lowers peak and lessens the valley of market sales.

“We’ll have blackouts” and “we’re going to freeze in the dark” are transmission lies. A review of recent blackouts — the ones used to justify transmission projects — shows that they occurred during off-peak times where utilities were overloading the lines, pushing more electricity than the system could handle. Despite warnings that the system was at risk, operators did not cut back on loading. An industry report on one blackout during “light load condition and low cost Mid-Continent Area Power Pool (MAPP) generation,” while “there were high simultaneous exports,” concluded:

This event should not be filed away as just another close call. We need to recognize just how close we were to collapsing portions of the Eastern Interconnection and adjust operating guides and reporting practices to avoid recurrence. There are real limits to the transfer capability out of the MAPP region and those limits are interdependent. This event is an alarming representation of how the MAPP regional interconnected system is being operated at and even beyond its capabilities.1

Utility “forecasts” are a lie. Despite their propensity to overstate need, several utility CEOs recently admitted that use has decreased from 3-9 percent, and that future infrastructure projects should be reconsidered. If we’ve moved from 1.5-2 percent projected growth to 3-9 percent decrease — with no increase in sight — that 4.5-11 percent drop in forecasted demand will substantially alter projections for years to come. The longer that drop continues, the further out it will affect projections. Despite this change in use and extension of “need” out in time, utilities are holding on to outdated projections. They still want to build infrastructure based on inflated “need,” infrastructure that we will pay for — and pay them a percentage return on investment. If approved, utilities will cover costs and make a return whether it is needed or not.

“It’s for renewable generation” is a lie. The massive transmission infrastructure expansion proposed is not “for renewables” because transmission may not discriminate by generation type. Federal regulations prohibit discrimination among generators — it’s first come, first ready, first served. There are tens of thousands of megawatts of coal projects, with transmission studies complete or in progress, waiting for interconnection, and whatever generation is ready will be connected. Another side of this lie is when wind advocates support transmission, claiming “it’s for renewables,” and ignore the impacts of transmission on the communities it traverses. Rather than make this convoluted “it’s for renewables” claim, there’s a better way: if renewable energy mandates were directly linked with shut down of fossil generation, and if renewable generators were thoughtfully sited, both the electricity market and transmission infrastructure would be open and available.

“Long distance transmission” is a lie. Transmission is inherently inefficient over long distances. Transmission physics entails high levels of line loss, and the longer the line, the higher the line loss. To avoid this fact of physics, the electric industry has shifted its line loss analysis for new projects to a “system wide” loss, so the numbers look low. But consider actual numbers of megawatts of line loss, and look at “coal plant equivalents” to make up that loss — for every 500-600 MW of line loss, a coal plant or more would have to be built! Line losses are charged in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission rates, but this is not considered directly in the market transactions. Line loss is an afterthought add-on to the customer’s bill after transmission service is provided. Consider too the capital cost of transmission, starting at about $1.5 million per mile for 345kV lines and upward from there.

Utilities’ frame of “need” for “public purpose” is a lie. Most transmission regions of the country are now planning transmission expansion to make their markets workable — to be able, theoretically, to ship power across the country. For example, in the Midwest, it’s the Midwest Transmission Expansion Plan. In PJM on the east coast, it’s the Regional Transmission Expansion Plan. These plans are all market-based, but for those transmission projects in states that regulate transmission, they’ll couch “need” in terms recognized by the state to get the approvals they need.

For example, CapX 2020 in the Midwest is framed for Minnesota regulators as needed for “local load-serving,” “regional reliability,” and “generation interconnection” — despite being an obvious expansion for coal through Minnesota to points east. The Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway is framed as necessary to serve local load in the Delmarva peninsula, despite being an obvious pass-through from West Virginia coal to New Jersey, connecting major power plants for export to the Northeast. Utility framing of this market-based, profit-based purpose as public purpose “need” also serves as their basis for taking land through eminent domain, because a corporation’s private purpose is expressly prohibited as justification for a taking.

Will we fall for transmission lies? Is new transmission a public purpose, a public need, provision of an essential service for a utility’s service area? Or is it an industry grab for market opportunities and profits at the public’s expense?

In my years of practice, I’ve yet to see a transmission line actually meant for the “need” proposed. We must take a critical look at these projects’ claims, because we’re the ones who will pay, and the lines will go over our land. Odds are, it’s private-purpose infrastructure that commits us to 50 or more years of wrongheaded, inefficient, and polluting central-station generation.

Electricity is binary, as is our situation now — we’re at a point where we must choose our path.

(Special thanks to electrical engineers Art Hughes, David Blecker, and Rick Gonzalez for making me learn about losses, planning, need, and powerflows.)

—–

1 Nebraska Public Power District, Report on June 10-11, 1997 Disturbance. See also Northern MAPP/Northwestern Ontario Disturbance — June 25, 1998 — Final Report; NERC Investigation of August 14, 2003 blackout.

Delmarva Power has been hosting meetings about its proposed Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway.   The next meeting is:

Wednesday, February 4 @ 6 p.m.

Millsboro Civic Center

322 Wilson Highway

This is an electrical superhighway through Delaware, the map makes that much clear.

What’s interesting is that Rep. Tom Carper seems to be taking an enlightened and informed position on this:

Carper said the question of the power line needs to be considered in a larger context. He harkened back to the construction of Del. 1 to handle an increase in north-south travel, noting that along with the new road came a look at expanding public transit, car-pooling, and other alternatives to driving.

“Upgrading power lines on the Delmarva Peninsula may be necessary, but I hope Delawareans will take this opportunity to look not only at where a power line might go, but also at how they could help reduce the need for a new line in the first place,” Carper said.

Today, there’s a long piece in the News Journal about it, with the above quote from Carper:

Power-line plan stirs environment fears

Bluewater Wind hails pathway for clean energy

By AARON NATHANS
The News Journal

Environmentalists are divided over the merits of a Pepco Holdings plan to string a 500-kilovolt power line through the heart of Delaware to better connect southern power plants with growing demand in the mid-Atlantic region.

Pepco’s proposed Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway would be like an interstate highway of electricity, designed to make more space on the often-choked power grid for electricity to flow to growing population centers on the East Coast.

Clean-air advocates say it could help carry clean wind power to the homes and businesses that need it, even as they worry it will also import dirty coal-fired power from the South and Midwest.

Wildlife and property-rights advocates are afraid the line will be a blight on the landscape, running through fragile areas along the Delaware River and Bay.

The most controversy in Delaware about the power line, which is now being examined by the public in a series of public hearings, is likely to focus on an eight-mile stretch of land in southern New Castle County.

The utility would need to acquire an easement through an area near the Delaware River that includes many wetlands and state-designated critical natural areas.

Officials at Pepco Holdings, the parent company of Delmarva Power, said the specific path there has not yet been chosen.

The planned power line would start in Dumfries, Va., cut through Maryland and across the Chesapeake Bay, then run through southern Delaware to the Indian River Power Plant. The line then would continue up the length of the state and across the Delaware River, ending in Salem, N.J.

It’s one of several large lines planned in this region to shore up electrical reliability. Utility officials say it’s especially needed on the Delmarva Peninsula, where power lines currently run only from the north. This would add a second path from the west.

Although power demand is down because of the recession, utility representatives say that won’t last, and demand will one day overtax the existing grid.

By connecting three regional nuclear power plants, the new high-capacity line will spread power along the coast as well as bring in power from the coal-rich Midwest.

The $1.425 billion line is expected to add 40 cents to the average residential monthly electric bill. The costs would be borne by all electric users in the 13-state PJM Interconnection regional power grid.

The immediate need for the line is to move current through Delaware, but it also could be a useful outlet for the thousands of megawatts of renewable electricity that could one day be generated by wind turbines off the state’s coast, said Joseph Minott, executive director of the Clean Air Council, an area environmental group.

Bluewater Wind plans to build a small wind farm off Rehoboth Beach and sell the electricity to Delmarva Power, but the firm also hopes to expand that farm in the future to feed more power to the grid.

If the transmission grid is strong enough, Delaware could export power throughout the region, Minott said, explaining why he favors the project.

“If you’re going to create a vibrant market for wind energy, you need to be able to transmit it further than the town at the end of the beach,” said Minott, who added that he had “trepidation and concerns” about the lines being used also to expand the reach for coal-generated power.

Rob Gramlich, policy director for the American Wind Energy Association, said a better transmission system is needed for onshore wind farms to carry their output to the wider populace.

Offshore wind is different, he said. Although it’s more expensive than onshore wind, its appeal is in its proximity to population centers, he said. It doesn’t take very many miles of transmission to get the power where it’s needed, he said — a problem for generators of wind power in the nation’s more sparsely populated heartland.

Nick DiPasquale of Delaware Audubon said he would rather see small, localized, mainly renewable power sources instead of big lines that carry power from big coal-burning power plants. He’s concerned about where the Power Pathway would go.

“If it means converting protected land to developed land — even if the profile is relatively small — I would find that a very troubling precedent,” he said.

Utilities lose power when current is transmitted over long distances, said Carol Overland, a Minnesota attorney and electrical consultant who has been active on Delaware environmental issues. She said conservation and renewable-energy projects, using the existing power grid, should be sufficient.

State Sen. George Bunting, D-Bethany Beach, expressed concern that electromagnetic force, or EMF, from power lines has been investigated as a cause of childhood leukemia.

In a letter to Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., he wrote, “There is a grave concern amongst many Delawareans” about the line.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says there is no scientific consensus on the health effects of EMF.

Pepco Holdings owns the rights to much of the land it needs. It’s planning to build the larger line along a right of way that already features smaller power lines.

But within the section of the line that runs from Indian River north to Salem, there will be areas where the right of way needs to be widened, the utility has said.

And there’s a yet-to-be-specified section in southeast New Castle County where the Pathway would break from the existing power line along Del. 9 and head toward the Delaware Bay, where it would cross and connect with the Salem/Hope Creek nuclear plant.

That will require Pepco Holdings to acquire eight miles of new right of way, company officials said last week.

“Whether it’s dry land, wet land, high land, I wouldn’t want to answer that question right now,” said Vince Maione, pathway project manager for Pepco. He added that the company wants to minimize impacts on the environment and the population.

PJM is still reviewing Pepco Holdings’ application for the portion of the line running north from Indian River. Once that confirmation comes, Pepco Holdings will develop the path in greater detail, Maione said.

To cross the Delaware River, the utility wants to build a second overhead crossing, about six to eight miles south of its current line.

The company has not been in touch with Delaware landowners regarding easements, said Matt Likovich, a Delmarva spokesman.

Delaware state government has little control over the portions of the line for which Delmarva already has rights of way. Unlike in Maryland, this state’s Public Service Commission does not have the authority to approve the location of a transmission line.

One of the few categories where state government has oversight is where a planned power line would cross natural areas like bodies of water and wetlands. Pepco Holdings has not been in touch to request a permit, said Philip Cherry, a state Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control policy manager.

But Delmarva lacks leverage, at least on the state level, when it comes to expanding beyond its rights of way.

The state eminent-domain law doesn’t give the utility the right to seize land for a power project. Likovich said if the company can’t reach an agreement with a landowner, “we will have to construct the line by going around the property in question.”

But the utility may hold a trump card: the U.S. Energy Department last year designated Delaware part of a region where the federal government can order an electricity project finished if states fail to do so.

Delmarva officials say they’ll work hard to negotiate with landowners to avoid the issue of eminent domain.

“It doesn’t benefit anyone to take anyone’s land,” Maione said. Pressed about whether the utility would be OK with the government seizing land for the project, he said, “We’ll have to cross that bridge when we come to it.”

Meanwhile, in Sussex County, Pepco Holdings held a community meeting in Gumboro on Thursday night, attracting 50 members of the public. The next meeting is Wednesday night in Millsboro.

Carper said the question of the power line needs to be considered in a larger context. He harkened back to the construction of Del. 1 to handle an increase in north-south travel, noting that along with the new road came a look at expanding public transit, car-pooling, and other alternatives to driving.

“Upgrading power lines on the Delmarva Peninsula may be necessary, but I hope Delawareans will take this opportunity to look not only at where a power line might go, but also at how they could help reduce the need for a new line in the first place,” Carper said.

He said that could come by saving electricity, installing solar panels on their homes, adding insulation, purchasing Energy Star appliances, or taking other steps to save electricity.

Additional Facts
IF YOU GO

The next community meeting about the power line will be held Wednesday at the Millsboro Civic Center, 322 Wilson Highway, 6 p.m.