Yesterday, the Washington Post reported that Dominion Power has decided to re-route it's new high voltage line so that it runs along an existing line, and today the Post reports that no one is happy with the new proposal.
We have to say, the Post's reporting on the issue is a bit too negative, giving way too much play to opponents of the line. The new proposal is more expensive--$60 million more--because instead of running in a straight line between two substations, the line will curve in a giant arc that is much longer.
Still, we think it's a reasonable compromise, although we are sympathetic to the notion that Dominion gave in to Middleburg millionaires only to stick it to residents of more modest means in other parts of the state. But since the new route follows that of an existing high voltage line, we think it makes the most sense by reaching the best balance between providing for the future while minimizing the disruption to NoVa's landscape.
To be sure, we're with those who think there are alternatives. Fairly simple conservation measures alone could forestall this new line (check out how we reduced out power bill by 30 percent here), whereas aggressive investment in distributed renewable energy (wind and solar) could eliminate the need.
BUT, we don't see any sign of the willpower in the legislature that would be needed. Indeed, quite a few GOP lawmakers have complained about the line when it impacts THEIR constituents, but other than proposals that simply dump the problem on someone else, we haven't seen any of them pushing for a REALISTIC alternative, such as REQUIRING Dominion to INVEST significant sums in conservation and distributed energy. (It would take tens of thousands of businesses and residences to adopt conservation measures for it to work. That ain't gonna happen without serious legislation). All these legislators are really doing is sounding off--a lot of bark, but no bite. And you can bet that those same legislators will give Dominion what it wants when it comes to the bill Dominion is pushing to "regulate" itself.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Yes the legislators will now give in to Dominion's re-regulation when they vote on it on President's Day.
While the Post wants us to believe Dominion's change was due from pressure, the facts are, as Dominion provides us, the public (aka the opponents of the line) had nothing to do with it.
Due to new data from the PJM, more demand is actually forecasted b/n DC and say NJ than what was earlier expected - although there is no PJM press release at this time. Instead of one line, the PJM is authorizing 2 lines. To boot, Dominion wanted to use the existing ROW in the first place it claims.
Middleburg may have gotten Dominion to moved off of route A to route B, but no one but the PJM, it appears, has forced the preferred route from B to C.
I just want to emphasize that my organization, Virginians for Sensible Energy Policies, is still fighting Dominion on this issue. Dominion has yet to present to the public data that proves there is a need for these lines.
Dominion should seek energy alternatives and the Commonwealth needs to adopt policies that encourage energy efficiency. We believe that Virginia can meet all of its energy needs through a comprehensive state energy plan that promotes the use of modern technology and energy efficiency.
Thanks!
Matt
Matt, I hear you, but VSEP and PEC should now consider this. The PJM is claiming even more "need" for the regional gird, insomuch that they now need TWO 500kv lines. So assuming a shortfall of generation capacity of that magnitude, is quite an argument. Furthermore it presumes that PJM is going to battle with the possiblity of not having substantiating evidence demonstrating that now TWO lines are required.
I beginning to think that some power plant is going to be retired in our area or b/n DC to NJ. Perhaps the DOE is finally going to let the Mirant Potomac River plant shut down? This may be where the extra capacity is coming from, justifying the 2nd line to the north?
My argument has always been, first implement all non-transmission solutions first and foremost - make the existing gird efficient; then determine the terminal boths most feasible to connect if tranmission is still required.
The DOE should first designate an special energy conservation area which a NIETC would serve immediately. Within such a conservation area, they can implement all available non-tranmission solution and either negate transmission, or effectively demonstrate the need.
This opinion was in the print edition on 2.8.2007 but was just posted on their website on 2.14.2007. http://www.timescommunity.com/site/tab6.cfm?newsid=17852176&BRD=2553&PAG=461&dept_id=506108&rfi=6
***didn't proof original post, sorry ***
Matt, I hear you, but VSEP and PEC should now consider this. The PJM is claiming even more "need" for the regional grid, insomuch that they now need TWO 500kv lines. So assuming a shortfall of generation capacity of that magnitude, is quite an argument to make. Furthermore it presumes the PJM is going to battle with the possiblity of not having substantiating evidence demonstrating TWO lines are now required.
I'm beginning to think that some power plant is going to be retired in our area or b/n DC to NJ. Perhaps the DOE is finally going to let the Mirant Potomac River plant shut down? Maybe its the Benning Road peaking plant? This may be where the extra capacity is coming from, justifying the 2nd line to the north?
My argument has always been, first implement all non-transmission solutions first and foremost - make the existing grid efficient; then determine the terminal points most feasible to connect if tranmission is still required.
The DOE should first designate an special energy conservation area which a NIETC would serve immediately. Within such a conservation area, they can implement all available non-tranmission solution and either negate transmission, or effectively demonstrate the need.
This opinion was in the print edition on 2.8.2007 but was just posted on their website on 2.14.2007. http://www.timescommunity.com/site/tab6.cfm?newsid=17852176&BRD=2553&PAG=461&dept_id=506108&rfi=6
and with this its also alot harder to refute the "need".
See the DOE/OE 1.29.2007 order issued by Sec. Bodman regarding the Mirant Potomac River power plant. That's 482MW of good ole coal-fired C02 emmissions w/i the Capital Beltway.
http://www.oe.energy.gov/DocumentsandMedia/EO-05-01.pdf
Post a Comment