Included in the recently-signed stimulus package is roughly $11 billion in funds and loan guarantees to improve the national electric grid. Most of that money will go to building new power lines and installing smart meters. Is simply building new power lines enough to remedy our shabby energy infrastructure?

If we could hear electricity as it flowed, our current electric lines would sound like a parking lot full of blasting car alarms, each with its own distinct, shrill howl. In other words, our electric lines are a jumbled mess that is swollen and ready to burst. Already large scale blackouts, especially in the East, are nearly an annual experience.

Design vs. Deregulation

The fact is that the national electric grid was not designed to draw power from remote sources. That, some experts say, is why remote wind and solar power plants would cause major disruption without increased infrastructure. Nonetheless, wind and solar still make up a very small percentage of the national energy supply. Yet the grid is already over-stressed and has been for years.

The challenge of grid expansion is not only about new transmission lines, it is about policy and regulation as well. In 1992 electricity in this country began a decade of deregulation. Before that, utilities were regulated, vertical monopolies; one company controlled generation, transmission, and distribution within a specific area. This model, with a few exceptions, kept power generation local and helped utilities ensure a sufficient capacity to meet the needs of the local population. There was very limited use of long-distance transmission lines, which have less capacity than local lines.

After deregulation, utilities split up and electricity became more of a commodity to be sold to the highest bidder. That encouraged more transmission over the weaker, longer lines. Many engineers warned that such a system went against grid design and would lead to an over-burdened network. They seemed to have gone unheeded and by 2000 power companies were mandated to allow transmission across utility lines, even if it was intended for a third party. That started a festival of trading that stressed the grid. The effects were felt almost immediately, first in California and then on a more massive scale in the Eastern U.S. in 2003.

What we are left with now is an electric grid that is in shambles, largely untouched for decades. Those scant long-distance transmission lines are still hot and sagging and ready to break in the event of even relatively average storms. Just last year, Senator Maria Cantwell noted that it would take $900 billion to sufficiently upgrade the current electric grid so that it could handle current needs and transmission for future renewable power plants. If Cantwell is correct than what good can $11 billion really do?

Bigger vs. Better

A recent New York Times article raises the valid point that building a better grid alone is not enough to promote renewable energy because coal-based electricity producers would happily take advantage of free transmission capacity to undersell a young industry. Therefore some limit must be set on coal generation to encourage development and use of renewables. Although, re-instituting those old rules might help at least to make wind more profitable in the great plains and solar more appealing in the southwest.

Power (Companies) to the People

In that same New York Times article, industry leaders claimed that it is not just money that prevents them from updating the grid, it is people. It is homeowners, environmental groups, and local officials opposing new power lines, transformers, and other infrastructure near their homes or across wilderness and public land. As an example, Joseph Welch, president of the International Transmission Company (Michigan), told the NYTimes about a 26-mile line that could have stopped the huge Eastern blackout in 2003, had it existed then. He lamented about “burn[ing] up three years on a line that will take two months to build,” despite the fact that the Eastern blackout was nearly six years ago.

The process required to get new transmission lines in place may be long and convoluted, but it hardly seems a valid excuse for decades of infrastructural mismanagement and grid upkeep that is reactionary at best. Mr. Welch then told the Times that “We absolutely have no problem — underscore, no problem — financing our transmission grid.” Then why, in 20 or more years, has so little been done?

Still, that doesn’t change the fact that power companies often have to battle for years to get the appropriate permits and overcome litigation before any building actually begins. This is unlikely to change just by throwing money at it. Bear in mind that power companies would probably use this complaint to argue for even further deregulation and this is hardly an endorsement of such an approach. The truth is that these companies want the right to sell (and ship) wind power from the north to distant southern cities without repercussion, essentially a repeat of what started grid decay.

Instead, try changing the rules back to a level similar to that before the Energy Policy Act of 1992, ensuring that people with wind turbines in their yard are actually using that power. If a region or city must look hundreds of miles away for wind power, than perhaps wind power isn’t their best option. A company or city should explore all options locally available to them. If wind and solar are too intermittent in a region, check out geothermal power.

Popularity: 2% [?]

Posted on March 4th in Solar Politics by Dan.