The Environmental News Service reported this past Thursday, the Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC) out of Warrenton, VA and the National Wildlife Federation plan on suing the U.S. Dept. of Energy (DOE) over its designation of the Mid-Atlantic National Interest Electricity Transmission Corridor (NIETC). The complaint states the DOE
"violated the National Environmental Policy Act and Endangered Species Act by failing to study the potential harmful impacts of the corridor on air quality, wildlife, habitat and other natural resources."
Dominion Virginia Power (DVP) has proposed one of the four extra high-voltage transmission lines within this new NIETC, which has now entered formal SCC proceedings, VA SCC case # PUE-2007-00031 found here. This transmission line is the 2nd segment of a longer line originating in southwestern PA, and is intended to deliver electricity to Northern Virginia by way of a coal-fired plant in the eastern West Virginia. The first portion is being proposed by Allegheny Power, and their portion in Virginia is filed under SCC case # PUE-2007-00033.
A NIETC designation gives the opportunity for a transmission utility to obtain eminent domain authority thru the DOE, should a state utility board fail to approve or delay the approval of, a transmission proposal within the 12 months of the application's submission. The NIETC originated from the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which also promotes billions of capital expenditures in new transmission and generation to improve the nation's troubled power grid.
The Mid-Atlantic NIETC is a gigantic area designating large masses of land in the states of NY, PA, OH, WV, MD, DE and VA, as potential "extra high-voltage transmission highways". The region within VA is an area just north of a lateral line from east to west just north of Richmond.
DVP stated a variety of reasons for the need for their power line, but the primary reason they presented, blackouts in Northern Virginia by summer 2011, appeared to provide them the most support from within the state. Both the Chambers of Commerce in Arlington and Fairfax Counties were convinced on the need. Even Fairfax County Supervisor Gerald Connolly, a popular Northern Virginia Democrat, threw his support behind Dominion's plan as early as December 2006. Sadly, all of the other Northern Virginian leaders who's counties & cities were the "intended" recipient for this new power, kept silent. The electricity the transmission line would deliver would come from an intermittently used coal-fired power plant at Mount Storm, WV. Once the 500kv transmission line is constructed, however, the 1851 MW power station will operate full-time, and may have certain pollution restrains lifted, undoing the achievements of previous settlements with DVP in 2000 and in 2003. Mount Storm, WV is 110 miles northwest of Northern Virginia, upwind in the most prevailing wind direction to Northern Virginia.
Led by the PEC, the opposition received strong in-state support from U.S. Representatives Wolf (R) and Davis (R) and U.S. Senators Warner (R) and Webb (D), as well as all the elected leaders in the affected counties. PEC president, Chris Miller, provides an alternative perspective about the NIETC designation and DVP's proposal.
"The Department of Energy has failed to do even the basic due diligence and analyze responsible and cost effective alternative ways of meeting the region's energy needs.""(Energy) Efficiency and conservation (EEC) should be the first order of business. Reducing both peak and base load demand through energy efficiency, conservation and expanding demand response programs should be a priority," he said. "The mid-Atlantic corridor designation puts an enormous area of the region at risk while sending our energy policy a major step backwards towards continued reliance on coal-fired generation."
Demand Response (DR) is a conservation method, which aims to manage electricity usage during periods of highest demand. This period is known as peak demand, and takes place appx. 10-15 times each summer between the hours of 2-6pm. Increases in peak demand is largely attributed from the usage of air-conditioning on the of hottest summer days. According to our regions transmission oversight authority, the PJM Interconnection, peak demand is the main driver for grid expansion. It is a widely believed managing peak demand with demand response can put off and delay grid expansion up to seven years.
Moreover, EEC is becoming widely recognized as an energy resource, which should be deployed first, prior to grid expansion especially within regions with considerable power grid problems. The state of California which suffered a considerable energy crisis earlier this decade, has made it a state law requiring its state utility providers to first consider EEC before other alternatives, either renewable or fossil fuels. To my knowledge, no other states' utility board considers a loading order as California.
Because the Northeast has little option for new power, the PJM has been seeking delivery of electricity by way of the NIETC. When the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was passed, one of its main initiatives was to study the nation's troubled transmission problem, with the directive to the DOE to generate a report to Congress. DOE's Notice of Inquiry for the study was more or less directed to the industry, leaving the public in the dark about the upcoming repercussions. When the Congestion Study was completed in August 2006, U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman delivered the report at a presentation in Washington, D.C., and the keynote speaker was none other than the CEO of the PJM.
These developments occurred because of up the i-95 corridor from DC to NYC, five aging fossil fuel generators in New Jersey, plus only two generation sources in D.C., were just recently approved for decommissioning. An 8th power plant, the Mirant 482MW coal-fired generator in the city of Alexandria's, will likely join this list and be shutdown permanently by the time Wise County is said to be constructed. Within a 12 month timeframe, Nov 2006 to Nov 2007, the PJM authorized four major transmission lines: the first was DVP's, the 2nd is a 500kv from PA to NJ, and a 3rd the massive 765kv line from WV-MD-PA-NJ. The fourth line is by Maryland's PEPCO, and will originate from the Possom Point power station in Woodbridge, Va, about 30 miles south of D.C. This line will send the equivalent amount of electricity being delivered by DVP's Meadow Brook to Loudoun line, off to south New Jersey where it will connect to the grid after traversing the Potomac River and the Chesapeake & Delaware Bays.
Consequently, these developments have seriously jeopardized the power supply in state of Virginia. No later than 2005, the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) had assessed the reliability of Virginia's grid, as one of "no concern" since 1835MW of generation capacity was just added in Northern Virginia.
With the NIETC led by the PJM, our state's sub-grids in the north and central regions will now become depleted, creating reliability constraints in the southern part of the state. Just like the Meadow Brook to Loudoun 500kv transmission line, the proposed Wise County power plant is needed to replenish the state's energy resources, which are being exported to the north. If this trend continues, Virginians can expect similar grid expansions to continue into the future. Therefore, supporters for a clean Wise County should merge their ideas with the PEC and NWF, and fight this fight today under the assumption that once the Wise County coal plant is constructed, utilities like DVP will most definitely seek to expand coal generation like in Wise County and elsewhere, as the DOE has ordered the NIETC designation for 12 years.
While no one believes EEC is the magic solution which solves our state or national energy problems, one has to ask "why not pick the lowest hanging fruit first" before passing higher utility rates to finance more expensive energy resources, which either pollute the atmosphere, increase GHG, condemns and/or devalues properties, and take longer to implement? As far as business and residential consumers are concerned, EEC is totally voluntary and should remain that way. However, the region experiencing the most trouble, the i-95 corridor from DC to NYC, is the oldest grid with the highest demand. The full potential of energy resources gained by EEC in this part of the nation, remains mostly untapped.
Before utility providers seek to obtain capacity from either in-state or out-of-state expansion, such as Wise County, it should be a requirement the utility first obtain the resources from EEC beforehand, or prove they have exhausted the same. The PJM and states utility boards should consider a load order and rank EEC as the top energy resource following the lead of the state of California.
EEC is the cheapest, the cleanest, and the most readily available energy resource to meet customer demand.EEC does not harm the climate and emits no greenhouse gases.
EEC has no footprint and does not require the condemnation of private and public land or waters.
EEC does not obstruct open space nor pollute scenic view sheds.
EEC does not degrade the value of adjacent and nearby property.
EEC permits a greater utilitization of intermittent renewable resources.
EEC is not constrained by geographic location and is possible wherever electricity is supplied.
EEC provides additional energy resources to more consumers without new investments in generation or transmission.
The attached photo is from Clean Energy. The photo is the Wise County plant site, where DVP's has already begun construction, despite the fact approval has not yet been granted by the SCC.
Regarding EEC, is the (relatively) new California law working to most people's satisfaction? We haven't heard about any California energy crisis recently - but is their law otherwise working out? A successful example can go a long way toward convincing others to try it.
While the latest proposal out of CA I believe goes too far and might even be considered harmful, it is being promoted I would assume because someone at the NYT doesn't like the sound of it either. My guess it that proponents of EEC are trying to determine the line which is "tolerable"; but I think it cross that line If some legislator in CA is trying to really give a/c control to the utilities to avoid blackout, then maybe it should be in the state executive dept's hands and not the utility.
If EEC is going to be successful, I firmly believe it remain voluntary to consumers. The only mandates for EEC should be placed on the utility industry themselves, for the creation and the promotion of EEC. Participants who then become education would come forth and volunteer. Public buildings at all levels of gov't should enact EEC initiatives, and this is becoming more widely implemented, as the feds were first to lead on this - others will soon follow as did the state of Virginia in 2007.
sorry, that was my first diary...still learning.