By Request: A National Grid?
Greenzo asks:
What do you think about federalizing the electric grid? The state utility regulators are already rankling over this prospect, but it would seem necessary in full or in part to ensure long-term renewable energy growth. In the absence of a smart grid, can renewables growth continue? Can subsidies make up for the lack of infrastructure?
Total “federalization” of the electrical grid is neither necessary nor sufficient to meeting our grid needs. But that said, we do need to upgrade our grid in a variety of ways. For one thing, it simply doesn’t work very well right now and some regions are suffering from serious transmission capacity bottlenecks. For another thing, it’s not as efficient as it could be and efficiency is the greatest “green” source of power we have. But beyond that, we also need need transmission lines to bring electricity from where clean power can be generated (in particular: the windy interior) to where people live. And then there are issues about things like created a grid that’s “smart” enough so that a house with solar panels on the roof could transmit energy during surplus (i.e., sunny) hours and get credits that it can “cash in” to receive energy during deficit hours (e.g., night time). All this is a lot easier to do when the federal government can step in and make decisions about locations and standards and so forth.
Read CAP’s report on “Identifying Hurdles to Renewable Electricity Transmission” and you’ll see it’s not like we can just snap our fingers and say “federalize” and then all’s well. But doing what we need to do will require a strong federal hand.
Beyond that, there’s no compelling reason for electrical grid regulation to be a state matter rather than a federal one. The grid is, in fact, an interstate enterprise. Indeed, in places it’s an international enterprise. The state-based regulatory system is basically an anachronism—a holdover from an earlier era that remained somewhat workable long past the period in which it really made sense. But as we approach the need for a drastic overhaul in our energy policies we shouldn’t let hangups about federalism hold us back.
35 Responses to “By Request: A National Grid?”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
January 12th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Or you can read Third Way’s report “Increase Energy Efficiency by Lowering Environmental Protections”.
January 12th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission chair Joseph Kelliher has promised to step down January 20th. How many other FERC chairs are coming open and when?
We need to add and repair transmission capacity, including redundant paths, wind turbines, solar plants, battery backups (which will eventually be supplemented with plug-in hybrids with vehicle-to-grid “smart grid” interfaces), and probably upgrade the pumped-hydro storage infrastructure where it’s environmentally feasible.
January 12th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
I’m a project manager for an electrical transmission & distribution construction contractor in New York and I thought this article from the Times back in August does a good job explaining the “Balkanization” of the electrical grid.
Within New York State, a new transmission line project requires an enormous amount of effort and money in developing an Article 7 filing and Environmental Management & Construction Plan that will comply with the state’s strict requirements and be approved by the Public Service Commission. There’s nothing wrong with this on its own, and I think New York’s strict regulations do lead to good construction practices and protect public interests, but an interstate project that would require similar approvals from multiple states would be an absolute nightmare to finance and manage.
January 12th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
This post raises a lot of good points except that it is a little cavalier about federalism issues. Some of these “hangups” are founded on the very real concern that federal preemption is not the best approach, given that it will take all levels of government (local, state, and federal) to tackle our energy and environmental problems. And when it comes to dealing with climate change — state and local governments have done much more than the federal government. It would be a shame if these innovations (and the innovations that will continue to emerge) are lost because climate change legislation completely preempting these efforts is adopted. Certainly, the federal government has an important role, probably most importantly in the area of standards, but it should be in partnership with instead of preempting state and local governments. The job is just too big. And I would hate to see the need for a smart grid to be used as a way to undercut needed state and local action on climate change.
The member scholars at the Center for Progressive Reform, a think-tank of legal scholars, have written a white paper on preemption and climate change, Cooperative Federalism and Climate Change: Why Federal, State, and Local Governments Must Continue to Partner.
January 12th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
There’s no (technical) reason that the Fed can’t just build an ‘uber-grid’ of high capacity, ultra-efficient, powerlines and then turn around and work with states to connect existing and new power generators to this ‘uber-grid’. Seems pretty ’shovel-ready’ to me… Hire a buncha EE PhDs (say one each from every university between CalTech and MIT…) to design the thing and then just freakin build it.
January 12th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Simply go with the best practices. Much like California Air Quality standards are used by auto industries as the practice guidelines, use the stricter regulations, within reason that doesn’t affect interstate commerce, as the guideline for intra-state projects.
January 12th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
As for creating a grid smart enough to handle a local generation surplus in some hours and deficit in others, we already have it
We could make it smarter still, of course, so that the typically greater value of daytime generation would be recognized.
I note also that the mere fact of congestion and bottlenecks does not by itself indicate inefficiency (though no doubt some such inefficiency exists). It would be economically inefficient to build so much that congestion never occurs.
January 12th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Plus with a “smart-grid” you could prevent wide-scale catastrophes like in 1965 or 2003 when most of the North East lost power.
If you simply “federalize” the grids you risk creating a system whereby the whole country could be plunged into a cascading blackout after control systems at 1 power plant fail.
January 12th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Huh. And I wonder why Shai Agassi has been on the CTO shortlist?
January 12th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
The only other Commissioner whose term expires in the next year and a half is Sudeen Kelly, a Democrat. That’s OK, because (1) FERC is supposed to have Commissioners from both parties, and (2) the problem is not the Commissioners, it’s the statutes.
EPAct 2005’s pass at giving FERC oversight of transmission building is completely ineffective, by design. All FERC is really capable of doing is approving subsidies as a reward for companies that get state approval for their transmission lines — but that can sometimes make it harder to get state approval, because the state often perceives of this as voting for a rate increase. The rest of EPAct 2005 was a grab bag of similarly half-hearted scattershots. The states are still in control, and the states are still stuck in a prisoners’ dilemma where they fear the worst from anything that crosses state borders.
January 12th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Indeed, in places it’s an international enterprise.
It’s been international from the very beginning. The first AC power grid on earth got its power from Niagara Falls, straddling the Canadian-American border. International cooperation ongoing ever since.
January 12th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Well, yeah, but that’s because we’ve had a semi-functional imbecile in charge of the federal government the past 8 years.
January 12th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
There is already a flawed National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETC) designation. Upgrading existing lines and putting conservation measures in place are much more pleasant alternatives to constructing more ugly transmission lines.
January 13th, 2009 at 12:09 am
Electrical transmission is horribly inefficient. Energy needs to be generated close to where it is used. The failures of the “transmission grid” are failures of the NIMBYs in wealthy high density regions putting the burden of energy generation (nasty coal fired plants) on rural regions a hundred or more miles away.
We need to build smaller, greener generating capacity in close to urban centers rather than huge filthy generating plants out in rural regions. But it is politically easier to continue exploiting the hillbillies because the city folk have better lawyers.
January 13th, 2009 at 5:11 am
And remember that pylons need not be ugly. (Matt reproduced the photo approvingly on his old site but I can’t find the link now).
In addition to the amenity benefit, spending money on good design is likely to speed up approvals. And why not order and stockpile pylons while the route is being fixed? In this case, the design is French so the US would have to pay a licence, but the main cost is fabrication. Sarko would anyway probably waive the fees in exchange for a photo op and kiss from Michelle Obama. A competition could be launched for other designs.
January 13th, 2009 at 5:21 am
Oops, here’s the link to Matt’s other post, and it was on this site all the time.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:42 am
The chance that we can have a “a semi-functional imbecile in charge of the federal government the past 8 years” is precisely why cooperative federalism is a good idea. 2012 is only four years away, and there’s a Governor from Alaska who’ll be looking for a job.
Always good to have the states able to solve problems when the feds won’t — and always good for the feds to be able to set minimum standards to level the playing field so that states do their job as well.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:47 am
I work for a large, regional power company and can attest to the challenges of doing anything that spans multiple jurisdictions. To that point, a federal grid would make expansion much easier and makes a lot of sense.
To many of the other points raised previously: Energy needs to be generated close to where it is used.Yes, that would be nice, but NIMBYs will protest that just as surely as they’ll protest power lines. Even if we were able to design wind turbines that are esthetically pleasing, you couldn’t just put them on tops of buildings to meet power needs; it doesn’t work that way. Wind turbines have to be placed where the wind blows, and that’s the challenge: the wind doesn’t blow hard enough or consistently enough in the areas where the power is needed. It blows out on the plains, where there are few people — and fewer power lines.
Upgrading existing lines and putting conservation measures in place are much more pleasant alternatives to constructing more ugly transmission lines.
Sure, conservation/energy efficiency should be part of the solution, along with upgrading existing lines — but they’re not enough. In some areas where wind farms are being planned, lines simply don’t exist or they’re so small they couldn’t be upgraded economically. It would be like trying to upgrade a Smart car to pull a semi-trailer; it would be more cost-effective to simply build the tractor you need.
We need to build smaller, greener generating capacity in close to urban centers rather than huge filthy generating plants out in rural regions. Great theory; what do you suggest? Biomass is about the only “green” fuel you can put wherever you can find the land top build the plant — ansd they’re not small. Everything else (solar, wind, hydro)depends, in large or small measure, on geography/topography.
Bottom line is that we need it all: We need energy efficiency, we need the smart grid (though many people are vastly over-estimating what the smart grid will be able to do), and we need new sources of energy. Of course, clean is better. But when it comes to getting renewable energy on the grid, we need the power lines to get it from where it will be generated to where it will be used. And, like the Interstate highway system, there has to be a single overseer with a common set of rules or we’ll have the hodgepodge we have today.
January 13th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Here’s an idea: work it like the drinking age. States make the law, but if they don’t do what the federal government wants in terms of standards, they won’t get X kind of federal money.
January 14th, 2009 at 9:44 am
Steven K, I live nearby a 500kV transmission line. Allegheny Power wants to acquire adjacent land and put up another 500kV line on separate towers right next to it. With today’s technology, why can’t they just upgrade the existing line?
January 14th, 2009 at 11:26 am
SCJ:
and Brendan:
While it is true state/local efforts have been more productive so far than federal efforts, its also true that state/local efforts will always be crippled by inter-state concerns.
It’s not a matter of hangups. Federal level projects are the only viable option: state/local is inherently crippled, private investment has clearly failed.
Sure federal efforts have been miserable to date, but one needs to look at why this is so: its because some people (read: conservatives) at the federal level have been deliberately hamstringing efforts to address the problem, and progressives have not pushed hard enough. There is no inherent crippling here; the failures are all people-based. The people who’ve been roadblocking and ignoring this need to get out of the d** way.
January 16th, 2009 at 1:07 am
I am amazed with it. It is a good thing for my research. Thanks
January 22nd, 2009 at 6:10 pm
I think your blog need a new wordpress template. Downalod it from http://genericwpthemes.com . The site has nice and unique wordpress templates.
February 28th, 2009 at 6:23 am
I must say that you provide genuine, quality information. Thanks for this!
BTW, dpn’t you think your blog needs a better wordpress template?
March 1st, 2009 at 5:04 am
viagra
I want to say - thank you for this!
March 1st, 2009 at 5:45 pm
cialis
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:16 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:01 am
Great site. Good info
xanax
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:54 am
tramadol
Great site. Good info
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:23 am
viagra
Incredible site!
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:57 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:00 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 4:50 am
I bookmarked this site, Thank you for good job! viagra