By now you may have caught wind of a current proposal by ITC Holdings of Novi, Mich., to construct a 3,000 mile 765-kilovolt power line stretching from the Dakotas, through Minn. and Wisc. to Chicago. This power line, dubbed “The Green Power Express,” is a 10-12 billion dollar project heralded by advocates as necessary if wind development is to continue unimpeded on the upper Great Plains. A local spotlight is focused on the project because the power line is expected to cross the Mississippi between La Crescent and Winona.
The proposal suggests this power line will carry wind power generated in the Dakotas toward large population centers. It is reported the power line will be big enough energy carried by it will be strictly for export, leaving local populations unable to tap into its benefits as producers or users.
The ITC project has been met with mixed reactions. What may be surprising to the casual observer, however, is that many of the opponents are actually wind energy supporters. What could drive wind energy supporters to denounce the proposal for further transmission capacity that could enable growth in the industry? Here are a few of the answers.
Unlike coal and oil found in distinct locations, sources of renewable energies (wind, solar, biomass, geothermal) can by found in abundant quantities distributed across the country. The Institute for Local Self Reliance estimated that at least half of the 50 states could meet their own energy demands from resources within their borders. The notion that we need to move electricity from areas of high concentration to areas of high demand is becoming outdated, a habit developed over decades of distributing coal, natural gas and oil resources from power plants to cities. With renewables we have the ability to produce energy on a localized scale, in back yards essentially, which does not require large transmission lines.
Alternative energy supporters and President Obama have referred to the need for a “smart” energy grid. In fact, part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act recently passed allocates money toward this goal. A smart energy grid describes an upgrade of the existing network of transmission lines to make it more efficient. Ideally, a smart energy grid would also create an interactive network where households can easily be both consumers and producers of electricity, creating a two-way exchange and thereby promoting decentralized energy creation by individual households and communities.
If energy security is a concern, a decentralized energy system is certainly more safe and appealing than a centralized system characterized by a few power plants, or as related to this argument, a few big transmission lines that could easily be targeted.
Opponents also argue the added capacity and enormous expense of the project is not necessary given the unused transmission capacity in the current grid. A recent study on existing grid capacity in Minn. revealed the state is able to meet its renewable electricity mandate of 25% by 2025 without any added capacity. Many energy supporters and state officials agree that added transmission is necessary in some locations, but do not see the proposed mega transmission lines as the only option. Instead, they are increasingly interested in upgrades of the current system, or in other words, following the ideas proposed by the smart grid system.
Advocates of the transmission lines argue it is more efficient to gather wind energy in the locations where the wind blows the hardest, such as the Dakotas. Opponents counter that argument citing the cost of building transmission lines and line loss of 2-3% over the distance transported negate any benefit in production efficiency. That doesn’t even consider the cost and headache of acquiring right-of-way easements for the power lines. In other words, a wind turbine in the less windy state of Ohio is likely more economical than energy wired to Cleveland from blustery N.D.
Opponents argue we need a level playing field in the energy sector where the cost of transmission, which is likely to be huge for the ITC proposed project, is incorporated into the cost of the energy. This form of cost integration would level the playing field and allow the market a chance to develop localized energy production, as analysts predict would be cheaper under natural economic forces.
By allowing big transmission projects, such as the one proposed by ITC, we are sacrificing our chances to create a decentralized, localized energy system that could support local economies and create a safe and efficient energy supply. Construction of the ITC power line, and other large transmission projects, will give big utilities more control of our energy system.
A move to create a national network of large transmission lines is a move in the wrong direction. With Minnesota still only producing 7% of its energy from renewables, let’s use Midwestern wind energy for domestic purposes before exporting it to Chicago and other Eastern cities so they can continue to consume energy in a business-as-usual method while our landscape lay burdened with the modes of production, big turbines and giant power lines dividing our bluff land forests leaving us to buy and burn coal from Wyoming.
If the proposal were to install more line capacity regionally to wire wind energy from Mower and Freeborn Counties to less windy Houston and Winona Counties, the proposal would be worth consideration. Sending power across the Midwest is not.
We need to push this stimulus money toward a smart gird, not a national network of giant transmission lines. The landscape of our future is being decided now.
Contact our representatives if you are interesting in making your voice heard. Sen. Amy Klobachar reported to the Associated Press she hasn’t completely made up her mind yet on the project. Her website is http://klobuchar.senate.gov/. Representative Tim Waltz can be reached from his site http://walz.house.gov/.
