Transmission Model for Large Scale Projects
The answer to the Obama administration’s plan to expedite transmission projects nationwide that could benefit renewable energy development and the build-out of the smart grid may be found in southwestern deserts.
The transmission plan is a model the Obama administration has tried before to coordinate state and federal reviews of sites for large-scale projects aided by various stimulus programs that are expiring this year.
An approach for expedited transmission has been used for the development of large solar projects over the past two years, which led to final permitting for hundreds of megawatts of capacity.
The results have not always been smooth, though some solar projects that had been bogged down for years are now under construction, while some tribes and environmental groups have gone to court, claiming thorough review was sacrificed in the interest of speed.
The Obama Administration said it would accelerate the permitting and construction of seven proposed electric transmission lines in the hopes of creating thousands of construction and operations jobs while transforming the nation’s electric system.
These projects will serve as pilot demonstrations of streamlined federal permitting and increased cooperation at the federal, state, and tribal levels. Project developers expect that the streamlined projects will increase grid capacity and in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Minnesota, New Mexico, Nevada, Wyoming, Utah, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Oregon, and Wisconsin.
Expedited review on federal lands was a centerpiece of its move to increase solar and wind generation the southwest. The result was a flurry of activity to move large projects, mostly solar developments in that could qualify for stimulus money under the 1603 cash grants program and load guarantees.
Various renewable energy developers, along with state and federal officials, have fast-tracked 34 projects on BLM lands - 14 solar, seven wind, six geothermal and seven for transmission - that the Administration want to complete reviews by the end of 2011.
Under the fast-track program, just about a year ago, the federal Bureau of Land management approved the first three solar projects on federal lands.
Lawsuits in California and Nevada contend federal agencies cut corners on environmental reviews, violating the National Environment Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act.
Transmission bottlenecks are one of the main impediments widespread. For its part, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) emphasized the clean energy and economic benefits the proposal promises.
“AWEA applauds the Obama administration for taking steps to move from merely talking about transmission to actually getting projects permitted and under construction. An expanded transmission grid is critical not just for renewable energy, but also for our economic and national security by improving reliability and providing access to lower cost energy for consumers,” said Tom Vinson, AWEA senior director of federal regulatory affairs.
But the plan is already drawing flak from conservationists. “The Obama Administration has failed to protect three popular national park sites in New Jersey and Pennsylvania with today’s decision to include the controversial Susquehanna-Roseland power line project on its list of fast-tracked transmission projects," said Bryan Faehner, the National Parks Conservation Association's associate director for park uses.
It remains to be seen if there becomes a unified opposition front, similar to what the solar projects in the West inspired.
Comments
Expeditious Review
I am reminded of a sign I saw posted in a "While U Wait" shoe repair shop: "It takes 10 minutes to repair your shoes - now or two weeks from now."
I'll grant nuclear plant review might take a little longer, but certainly not years.
Expedited Review
One wonders why the Administration does not use the review process developed for the Keystone XL oil pipeline. (sarc off)
That's right--just spend that taxpayer money--they don't need it
This whole thing is so incredibly stupid. We are spending taxpayer money through grants and loan guarantees for power generation that is not economically feasible and long distance transmission to bring intermittent renewables hundreds of miles from lands the government has been protecting from development in the name of preserving natural environments. Meanwhile, these same federal agencies promoting this spending have been drying up farmlands in California to protect the Delta Smelt and listing the Dune lizard in west Texas on the Endangered Species List to discourage or even stop oil and gas exploration which decrease our dependence of foreign energy sources--something renewables can never economically accomplish.
Someone please explain to me how it is that long distance transmission from intermittent generation facilities increases grid reliability. Most generating facilities near load centers are designed to handle natural disasters of considerable magnitude. The outages from natural disasters most typically result from damage to the transmission and distribution grid so power from long distance transmission will be useless. Long distance transmission by its very definition is not as reliable as load center-based generation and transmission. Think about it--here are these lines strung through forests subject to forest fires and across brushlands (also subject to wildfires) and plains subject to roaring winter storms with icing conditions while being a bit difficult to access for maintenance. Yeah, that seems really reliable.
As for the AWEA's self-serving comments, well they can hardly wait to get still more taxpayer money given to them so they can build still more wind turbines that cannot compete in a true market-based generating field.
So Much Hypocrisy
You are of course right that people’s positions are strongly influenced by their political perspective and thus many advocates can be painted as hypocrites; I think that was the point of the top comment. I would like to try to take the high ground and ask ‘how ought permitting be done regardless of the project’. I hope we could all agree that projects need: 1) a reasonable full review, 2) in a forum where all opinions and parties have their say, 3) determined by a reasonably impartial and knowledgeable party, 4) in compliance with all laws, and 5) a timely decision. The administration’s proposal is trying to do this – I suggest we ALL support the intent, and hold the administration accountable when any one of these principals is being short-circuited (as politicos will do), and hold the losers accountable when they are poor losers. Pointing out the other side’s hypocrisy feels good (I like to do it), but isn’t really helpful.
That said, I still object to putting the cost of transmission lines which help a particular developer make a profit onto the general public. I understand the argument about a societal benefit from less carbon and imports (very little oil is used / displaced in making electricity). (I think the argument about grid stability is very weak – the instability is caused by the project's intermittent power, why spend billions to solve a problem created by the project?). My bottom line – when the cost is greater than my perception of the societal benefit (and that is so for a lot of transmission trunk lines), I object.