From The New York Times this morning, a sobering article on our antiquated power delivery systems:
Unlike answers to many of the nation’s energy problems, improvements to the grid would require no new technology. An Energy Department plan to source 20 percent of the nation’s electricity from wind calls for a high-voltage backbone spanning the country that would be similar to 2,100 miles of lines already operated by a company called American Electric Power.
The cost would be high, $60 billion or more, but in theory could be spread across many years and tens of millions of electrical customers. However, in most states, rules used by public service commissions to evaluate transmission investments discourage multistate projects of this sort. In some states with low electric rates, elected officials fear that new lines will simply export their cheap power and drive rates up.
Without a clear way of recovering the costs and earning a profit, and with little leadership on the issue from the federal government, no company or organization has offered to fight the political battles necessary to get such a transmission backbone built.
Why am I not surprised? But more importantly, and echoing a recent comment by Minnesota Mom (and a capital idea of mine), it is okay for the government to authorize "emergency" deficit spending of $150 billion to prolong the debt-laced consumption rampage of the last several years, but it can't invest $60 billion to upgrade the power grid. OK, got it .
Why Should Anyone Trust FERC?
That the cobbled-together transmission lines forming the U.S. power grid is under strain is no surprise. One reason cited for the success of the UK power deregulation compared to US power deregulation was the better condition of the UK grid.
Not clear that it's fair to blame the states. Enron manipulated the California power markets to a massive degree. Once finally FERC got around to investigating well after the crisis was over, Enron got a slap on the wrist, if that. Until FERC is a serious agency with a willingness to enforce some rules, why should any state invest in power lines that could be used to screw its citizens?
Needs and actions
IF the Volt-type (electric, recharge) autos take off we'll need serious upgrades to the grid.
Conservation is the other angle. I'm so proud to be represented by the congresswoman who authored the Lightbulb Freedom of Choice Act -- protecting my right to waste energy. As my brilliant Congresswoman recently said, "Jesus saved the planet 2,000 years ago, so Pelosi doesn't have to." Thanks to the critical thinking skills she got at Regents University we're graced with endless amusement in my district.
But seriously, other efforts to conserve are getting serious attention in some communities. I was at an intriguing meeting last night where the nitty gritty of new technologies that would allow all homeowners to use solar and ditch their hot water heaters were discussed. If everyone did that it could save us 10% or more on the power grid.
We can do it. The government's role is to provide incentives, tax credits, whatever. And they really, really need to do it with solar, because cost is still an issue but they are getting closer with the technology. Government action could be the tipping point on it, but, as usual, nobody is paying attention. Right now my favorite Congresswoman can only rant about opening up ANWR to drilling. If we're lucky her right-wing base will figure out that she isn't doing what Jesus would do under the circumstances, and we'll be able to kick her out in November. Her opponent seriously gets it and has a real brain that functions.
infrastructure spending
If we had invested in energy projects instead of overbuilding housing, that investment would be helping our economy and still creating jobs. Tax cuts are no answer for a crumbling infrastructure, third world electric grid and collapsing bridges indeed.
We have cut taxes while starving our infrastructure. A lot of infrastructure is owned by the government and quasi collective entities. We get our electric from a rural electric coop. We get better rates than the corporate power companies give plus we get rebates for installing energy efficient equipment. They even give seminars on installing wind power. There is real difference when a group owns its own and works to benefit the collective owners compared to a for profit that is always out to gouge their customers.
Post new comment