by Keryn

The investor owned utilities and the State of Delaware are making a mockery out of the huge distributed generation potential of the Bloom Box.  In order to entice construction of a Bloom Box manufacturing facility in Delaware, state officials and Pepco Holdings subsidiary Delmarva Power have come up with a ratepayer-funded scheme to centralize clusters of Bloom Boxes and transport the power generated to end users via transmission lines.

According to the article, the Bloom Box isn't intended for this kind of deployment:

"One of the main benefits to customers is that the power is generated by units placed on their property, not delivered to them over power lines winding back to a coal- or gas- or oil-fired power plant. Bloom touts its generators as pioneer technology in the field of "distributed power."

In essence, customers get to go "off the grid," lessening exposure to rising costs for electricity tied to the volatile prices of fossil fuels, and vulnerability to grid outages."

Of course the utility conglomerates don't like that scenario because they lose control over previously captive customers, and that means they lose revenue.  One way to prevent that from happening is to pervert the technology into centralized generation:

"The Delaware plan to cluster Bloom Boxes on two sites in New Castle County turns that strategy on its head.

The two Bloom clusters adjacent to Delmarva substations would be centralized, generating 30 megawatts of power for sale onto the grid. That's enough electricity for 20,000 to 30,000 homes. By comparison, Calpine's natural-gas plant at Hay Road generates 1,130 megawatts."

This "strategy" is a really stupid plan that was most likely cooked up by Delaware's economic development and Chamber of Commerce-types, who are always in bed with big business.  Under this plan, instead of state or local economic development programs providing business-enticing incentives, a large portion of the cost of providing incentives to Bloom is going to be borne by electric ratepayers, as if electricity isn't already expensive enough. 

"The Bloom clusters actually would shut down if the grid fails, according to Delmarva testimony filed with the PSC, which is considering Delmarva's proposed tariff to pass along $4 million to $5 million annually in costs.

Delaware officials tout the Delmarva tariff, saying the incentive the Bloom cluster deal provides was necessary for an incentive package that landed the company here. The state also is providing $16 million in financial incentives from money set aside to promote economic development."

PJM Interconnection says the new generation is not needed.

"PJM Interconnection spokesman Ray Dotter said the two Delmarva substation sites near Red Lion and Brookside are not in congested areas in need of a supplemental power source, nor do they suffer from reliability problems."

Bloom supposedly had no comment, however:

"...any such business would be secondary for Bloom, a California startup that has looked to capitalize on anxiety about the nation's power system of big plants and power lines.

On its website, Bloom prominently defines its product as "a new class of distributed power generator, producing clean, reliable, affordable electricity at the customer site."

"Distributed power" can be anything, said Richard Hirsch, director of Virginia Tech's Consortium on Energy Restructuring. It can be solar panels, a wind turbine, fuel cells or even a dirty gasoline-powered generator. All forms locate a power generator on the site where current is consumed."

Delaware needs to come up with a better plan that doesn't involve Pepco's centralized generation ideology.  Their "incentives" only destroy Bloom's business model and foist the costs of economic development onto electric customers.  What a joke.


1 Comment
 
 
by Keryn

The town of Vineland is keeping electric rates low for their customers by installing their own, local generation instead of relying on PJM's much more expensive supply of electricity.

"The utility has spent years relying on PJM, a wholesale electricity distributor, to produce energy during high-demand times because it is capacity short, but that comes at a cost, Vineland Municipal Utilities Director Joseph Isabella said.

Each of the new units, however, has the potential to save the utility between $6 and $8 million a year, Isabella said. That's money the utility now collects from customers to pay PJM, he said.

Once the new unit is in next year, a rate decrease could come by fall, marking the third rate drop since Isabella took over as director in 2008.

"My goal is to have the lowest rates in New Jersey and the cleanest utility in New Jersey," he said.

Vineland Municipal Electric Utility has spent the past four years moving toward clean, efficient energy production, Isabella said. That included adding the two turbines and 16 megawatts in solar projects that are either complete or will be by the end of the year.

Isabella also plans to seek proposals for 4 to 8 more megawatts of solar powered projects in a few weeks to further close the capacity gap.

"We want to be able to take care of our needs with our own units," Isabella said."

New Jersey is making great strides toward energy self-reliance lately.  The state has been bickering with Regional Transmission Organization PJM Interconnection and FERC over installation of two new gas-fired generation plants in the state, instead of relying on PJM and coal-dependent generators in the Ohio valley to supply the state with electricity via hugely profitable (for their coal-fired generation owning builders) new transmission lines.

New Jersey is taking real action to shape their own energy future and lower electricity prices for their citizens through self-reliance.  Bravo to New Jersey and the town of Vineland!


1 Comment
 
 
by Keryn

The lights went out for 4 million people in Southern California this week.  FERC and NERC are launching an investigation into the cause.  Preliminary reports point to maintenance work being done at a substation in Yuma, AZ, that knocked a 500kV line that supplied power to San Diego off line.  This caused a cascading failure.  Just like the 2003 blackout in the Northeast, the fault seems to be human error, lack of maintenance, and the failure of systems that are supposed to kick in and prevent a cascading failure.  Here's a LA Times article that explains the situation.

The investor owned utilities and their industry front groups were quick to blame the problem on an outdated, antique grid that is "strained" or "fragile," in an effort to promote the building of new long distance transmission lines.  New long distance transmission lines aren't going to fix the problem, just compound it.  Building more transmission lines does nothing to improve the condition of existing lines.  These "outdated" lines will continue to operate, fail, and cause problems, however they will now be connected with new lines with a wider geographic reach, so when a problem occurs, the resulting blackout is larger.  The most reliable system is one where generation is produced close to load and doesn't rely on an interconnected transmission system vulnerable to faults and system failures hundreds of miles from where power is being used. 

Building new transmission lines diverts capital investment from maintenance of existing transmission lines.  Because new transmission is incentivized by national energy policies, it is a more lucrative investment for the utilities and that's where they invest their capital, while existing transmission lines deteriorate and fail.  New transmission lines also require new rights-of-way and that means that private property owners along the route will have their property taken through eminent domain.  The cost of new transmission projects, estimated to be at least three times the cost of rebuilding and modernizing existing transmission lines completely within existing rights-of-way, is paid for by electric consumers.  This increases the cost of electricity.

One solution would be to modernize existing infrastructure.  It's cheaper and requires no new land and therefore is not subject to a contentious permitting process.  Another solution is distributed generation, the siting of many smaller generating sources near load.  We do not need a new network of expensive, redundant high voltage transmission lines.

However, as I mentioned in the beginning of this article, the IOUs and their front groups were quick to use the California blackout to crank out the propaganda pushing for new transmission lines.  Perhaps the most egregious of all is this article from IEEE, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, who uses the blackout as an opportunity to push a conspiracy between FERC and industry lobbyists to usurp state authority to site transmission lines and force a bunch of new transmission projects through federal permitting and federal eminent domain powers.

There are so many things wrong in that article, I'm only going to point out a few.  I'm sure blog readers can point out even more.  Let's begin with that map of the "congestion zone" in California.  That "zone" and the National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor designated by the DOE in 2009 was vacated by the 9th Circuit Court in February of 2011.  It simply doesn't exist anymore because its designation was found to be faulty. 

"“They rely on imports, and if those imports go offline they have nothing to rely on,” says John Kyei, a former APS transmission planning engineer who is now director of Transmission for Houston-based renewable power developer BP Wind Energy."  San Diego wouldn't have to rely on imports if they began developing their own distributed generation or simply sited some generation near load.  Kyei can't see the forest through the trees.  Don't blame a transmission line when the solution is so much simpler.

"Kyei calls such delay’s business as usual, thanks to the phalanx of roadblocks – from environmental approvals to funding refusals by state-level public utility commissions with parochial interest – that regularly stretch new line planning in the U.S. to a decade or longer."  Yikes, abuse of the apostrophe, but I digress!  Of course the Arizona PUC has "parochial interests" -- they are tasked with ensuring Arizona citizens are provided with a utility system that protects their interests first, not Californians.  The contention that new lines are held up "a decade or longer" is completely bogus.  There is nothing "broken" about individual state authority to site new transmission lines.  Some transmission projects simply AREN'T NEEDED!  The state review process weeds out bad projects.

"There is, however, a chance that federal authorities will step in to force transmission improvements. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 empowers the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in Washington to override opposition from states and push through transmission upgrades within designated National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors.
 
DOE is currently considering a proposal to also delegate to FERC its power to designate national interest corridors, thus streamlining the process for federal involvement. To date use of the federal power has been blocked by state challenges to the DOE’s designation process – a situation that FERC staff would like to change, according to a policy paper posted last week. As they write: “Clearly, the backstop transmission procedure established by Congress has not yet been effective."

The EPAct only empowers FERC to override "opposition" from states when they fail to act within one year.  Denial of a project at the state level does not give FERC authority.  The backstop transmission procedure has not yet been effective because it has not yet been utilized!  There is no need for federal transmission siting authority.  The system we currently have is not broken.  FERC could not provide one example of a "broken" process.  Needed transmission is being approved and is being built.  FERC's power grab is illegal and will do nothing but complicate and delay the building of new transmission.

This kind of propaganda to push a federal transmission siting coup, dreamed up and championed by industry lobbyists in order to increase corporate profits, is shameful.
Add Comment
 
 
by Keryn

The WV PSC issued an order today denying Staff's petition to require FirstEnergy and American Electric Power to provide an assessment of the condition of their high voltage transmission facilities in the state within 30 days.

The Staff's petition was filed in accordance with a WV legislative Resolution that urged that the West Virginia Public Service Commission act to review the condition of the Pruntytown to Mt. Storm 500kV transmission line owned by Monongahela Power, a subsidiary of FirstEnergy, and order the rebuilding and reconductoring of that transmission line as soon as is practical.  It was also expanded in Staff's petition to include all AEP and FirstEnergy facilities in the state in order to seize the opportunity that currently exists to take some lines out of service for rebuilding and modernizing.  This opportunity currently exists due to decreased demand and the recent energizing of the TrAIL line, providing enough slack in the system to get the necessary work accomplished.  This opportunity isn't going to last forever.

Rebuilding of existing lines that are over 40 years old will not only provide a safer environment for the West Virginians who live in the vicinity of this decrepit infrastructure, it will also increase the capacity and improve the efficiency of these transmission lines and save energy that is currently wasted due to line loss on these antique facilities.  Improving transmission lines in West Virginia will also serve as a proactive step toward preventing future proposal of new transmission lines, such as PATH, in the state.

Both of the power companies agreed to evaluate their facilities and provide reports to the PSC, however they wanted more time -- 120 days instead of 30.

The WV PSC denied the petition and in its place reaffirmed their 2008 decision in the TrAIL case directing TrAILCo and its corporate affiliates to submit a plan for reconductoring or otherwise upgrading their respective transmission facilities within one year of the in-service date of TrAIL.  TrAIL was energized on May 19, 2011, which would make FirstEnergy's report due on May 19, 2012.  Note that the TrAILCo order only applied to TrAILCo corporate affiliates (the FirstEnergy companies) and lets AEP completely off the hook for any responsibility to evaluate the condition of their own aging transmission facilities.

The WV PSC is utterly abandoning their statutory responsibility to ensure that utilities under their jurisdiction provide safe and reliable service to the citizens of West Virginia.  If our current Commissioners don't want to do their jobs, it is incumbent upon our Governor to appoint ones who will serve the citizens of this state.

The term of Commissioner Jon McKinney expired on June 30, 2011.  It is up to Governor Tomblin  to promptly name his successor.  West Virginia utility attorney Robert Rodecker was suggested to Governor Tomblin for the available position by The Coalition for Reliable Power and endorsed by members of the legislature back in June, before the expiration of McKinney's term.  Roedecker's nomination was also enthusiastically endorsed by numerous citizens who contacted the Governor's office expressing their support.  Despite this, Tomblin has failed to act, and the PSC is now shirking their statutory responsibilities.

It's time for YOU to act!  Please call or email (or, for good measure, do BOTH) Governor Tomblin and let him know that you support the appointment of Robert Rodecker to fill the expired term of Commissioner McKinney effective immediately.  The Governor's office may be reached at 1-888-438-2731 or by submitting an email at this link.  DO IT NOW!

The WV PSC and Governor Tomblin are clearly ignoring the will of the citizens that has been expressed through their elected representatives, and changes need to be made.  Change begins with YOU!
Add Comment
 
 
by Bill

Last Friday, the Coalition filed our comments in response to FERC's Notice of Inquiry about their incentive program for transmission lines.  As readers of StopPATH WV and The Power Line will know, this federal boondoggle, created by the Cheney administration and paid for entirely by electric rate payers, is at the heart of what is wrong with US grid policy.  Needless to say, C4RP had a lot to say in its comments.

Here is a link to FERC's Notice of Inquiry, which includes specific questions to which they ask commenters to respond.  Here is a link to C4RP's comments that were filed Friday.  You will need to refer to the Notice of Inquiry to identify the questions connected with C4RP's comments.

The FERC comment process was limited to commenting on the transmission incentives themselves, but, as we pointed out in our comments, there are now much more pressing needs for our electrical grid than promoting long distance, high voltage transmission.

The highest priority right now should be small scale renewable generation into the distribution grid along with other small scale generation, including community based wind projects and community scale combined cycle natural gas plants.  The US Department of Energy has a program, Solar Energy Grid Integration Systems (SEGIS), which is specifically designed to promote this kind of integration.  You can find out more about what this kind of integration looks like at the DoE site here.
Add Comment
 
 
by BillFERC Chairman Jon Wellinghoff is in the process of staging a coup.  He wants total control of the federal transmission line programs that were split between the Department of Energy and FERC in Dick Cheney's 2005 Energy Policy Act.  Mr. Wellinghoff has circulated the following outline of his plans as shown at this link.

Here are the first two paragraphs:

"An efficient, reliable electric transmission grid is critical to the economy and security of the United States.  In the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005), Congress recognized the national interest in a strong grid, and, accordingly, gave the Department of Energy (DOE) the authority to conduct studies of electric transmission congestion, and then designate as national interest electric transmission corridors (NIETCs) areas experiencing electric energy transmission constraints or congestion that adversely affected consumers.  The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) was given authority to issue permits within NIETCs for the construction of electric transmission facilities as a backstop to state siting activities under certain circumstances.

To date, no construction permits for projects in NIETCs have been issued.  Only one applicant proposing to site a project within a NIETC began the pre-filing process at FERC, and the applicant subsequently withdrew from the process.  Clearly, the backstop transmission procedure established by Congress has not yet been effective." [emphasis mine]

Depite Mr. Wellinghoff's claim, the backstop transmission procedure has been very effective in the cases of PATH and MAPP, because it kept FERC out of the way while the state PSCs went about their job of determining that these projects were not needed.  Mr. Wellinghoff's assertion that backstop authority had anything to do with killing PATH and MAPP is crazy, because PJM Interconnection and the power companies themselves, the primary sponsors of these projects, were the parties that killed the projects.

Now, of course, what Mr. Wellinghoff really means here is that federal backstop authority was not effective in ramming through expensive transmission projects that weren't needed.  He is using the words "efficient" and "effective" only from the standpoint of the power companies that he is supposed to be regulating.  It is now clear exactly where Mr. Wellinghoff stands -- firmly with the energy conglomerates that run the US electrical system.  There is no longer any ambiguity about his position.

Mr. Wellinghoff wants mega-transmission lines strung from sea to shining sea and he wants US rate payers to foot the bill for them, and excess profits for the power companies.  He wants to streamline Cheney's Energy Policy Act allowing FERC to have sole authority over any environmental impact statement processes and to run roughshod over state regulators.  As Mr. Wellinghoff says:

"Unifying federal authority with respect to siting interstate transmission projects would allow a more efficient, directed process.  The proposal envisions a three-step process:  first, delegation by DOE to FERC authorizing FERC to conduct triennial congestion studies; second, delegation by DOE to FERC authorizing FERC to designate NIETCs; and, third, consideration by FERC of applications for both project-specific NIETC designation and permits for construction of interstate transmission projects within  project-specific NIETCs."

Mr. Wellinghoff's new permitting process would combine NEPA, NIETC and federal power line permitting processes into a combined process that would remove individuals and local communities even further from the siting process.  Citizens in communities threatened by new transmission projects would face the possibility of having to defend themselves in three or four federal and state permitting processes at the same time.

This is clearly a gambit designed by FERC and the electricity industry to handcuff local communities.  How could volunteers, many of whom have the most to lose in the process, devote the time required to be effective in such a bureaucratic labyrinth?  Wellinghoff is revving up the FERC steamroller, and it is coming for us.

Cross posted on The Power Line
Add Comment
 
 
by Keryn

The investor owned utilities, with American Electric Power leading the pack, think that you have the I.Q. of a kindergarten student.  As if NEMA's "Chutes and Ladders"-themed push for federal transmission line siting and permitting authority isn't bad enough, now the Center for Rural Affairs follows on with its "Connect the Dots" Report.

FERC's recent Order No. 1000 set interregional planning and cost allocation in motion.  The effect of Order No. 1000 will be to enable a vast, new, interstate transmission build-out and spread the estimated costs of over $200 billion to as many electric customers as possible in order to dampen its effect and draw little attention or public opposition.  This push for a "national grid" isn't anything new.  Utilities such as AEP have been lobbying for a coast-to-coast transmission backbone that utilizes their 765-kV technology for many years.  This national grid plan was modeled after Eisenhower's interstate highway plan of the 1950 and 60s.  Just five years ago, the national grid was going to transport "cheap" coal-fired electricity to population centers on the coast with projects like their I-765 plan.  Now that coal is politically gauche, the utilities have shifted the focus of the national grid to take advantage of public sentiment supporting renewables by utilizing Midwest wind as a much more palatable driver of the need for their hugely profitable endeavor.  Don't be fooled, nothing has changed except the color of the sheep costume AEP is wearing.

Transmission lines don't categorize the electrons flowing through them by source.  All that "renewable" wind power being transported to the coasts via this new transmission backbone will be liberally mixed with good, old fashioned, coal-fired generation by the time it reaches coastal states and ostensibly fulfills their public policy RPS goals.  Land-based wind is intermittent and must be supplemented with fossil fuel generation to maintain an evenly sustained supply to the grid.  It will also travel more than a thousand miles through a transmission network being constantly fed with AEP and other investor owned utilities' Ohio Valley coal-burning power generating stations.  The "national grid" won't make your electric supply any "greener."  The only thing getting "greener" here is the pile of money the investor owned utilities are going to rake in if they succeed.

However, interregional planning and cost allocation won't accomplish the investor owned utilities' goal all by itself.  In order to get the national grid built, the utilities are going to need federally-controlled siting and permitting.  This second initiative is well under way and expensive propaganda advocating for federal control that is being championed by various organizations is permeating the media and sucking away your ability to think for yourself.  The industry's extensive use of the third-party propaganda technique relies on the seven common propaganda techniques:  Name-calling; Glittering generalities; Transfer; Testimonial; Plain folks; Card stacking and Bandwagon.

Federal control of transmission siting and permitting will subvert your right to due process, help itself to your property through eminent domain and make a mockery out of environmental reviews, just for starters.  Don't play the utilities' kindergarten games and believe that federal control of transmission siting & permitting will do anything other than grease the skids for a quick and regulation-free permitting system that will fill our landscape with unneeded, monstrous transmission towers & wires that we'll all be paying for in our electric bills for the next 70 years, or more.  It will also guarantee the investor owned utilities access to a reliable supply of too-good-to-be-true profit for the next 70 years through the use of FERC-granted transmission incentives and federal cost and rate control systems that are free of oversight.

It can best be summed up by this one sentence buried deep in the Center for Rural Affairs' report on page 21.

"To this end, FERC has issued a proposed rule that would remove much of an individual state’s siting power, instead requiring transmission planning to be handled regionally."

Since they deign to insult our intelligence by using a kindergarten classroom leitmotif in their propaganda, it's only fitting that we continue the pattern in our warning to you.   This is the real game we will be playing and losing if all the pieces of the investor owned utilities' plan come together with a streamlined federal regulatory process.  You may not even notice that you're stuck tight in Molasses Swamp while the utilities are feasting at King Kandy's Castle until it's too late.

Originally posted on StopPATH WV.
Add Comment
 
 
by Bill

Last week, I posted links on The Power Line to power company responses to PSC staff attorney John Auville's call for a full report, in thirty days, of the condition of WV's high voltage transmission lines.

Today, Deputy Consumer Advocate Tony Sade filed his response with the PSC.  Here is the link.  Mr. Sade's filing is a remarkable documentation of the misrepresentations by both AEP and FirstEnergy throughout the PATH process.  Mr. Sade also describes PJM's deceitful efforts to push the PATH project down the throats of the citizens of three states.

Stakeholders were frustrated that PJM refused to their repeated requests to conduct 2010 RTEP analyses with up-to-date load data instead of data that was in some cases two years old, that PJM evaluated a PATH competitor’s constructions costs using different assumptions than PATH so that the costs were not comparable to PATH (and then used cost as a factor in rejecting the competitor), and that the additional capacity from the Mt. Storm - Doubs line was excluded from the RTEP analyses.

It was evident to participants in the RTEP process, specifically including the CAD and other state consumer advocates who had repeatedly requested such analyses, that PJM’s process was flawed: PJM’s 2010 RTEP (published in early 201 1) was based upon a 2009 load forecast and it excluded capacity auction results from May 2010. The additional capacity from the Mt. Storm to Doubs line was never included in PJM’s 2010 RTEP. When PJM ignored Advocate’s requests for updated analyses, the advocates then addressed their concerns to the PJM Board of Managers, requesting the Board to require PJM to perform additional analyses with updated information. These requests also were ignored; however the requests of the VaSCC were not ignored. The VaSCC required PATH to submit such analyses using up-to-date load forecasts from late 2010 including “the most recent economic forecasts, demand response commitments, and new generation resources in the queue,”13 The VaSCC required-analyses contributed to PJM’s determination that the need for PATH was moved “several years into the future. The significant take-away for this Commission from the above-described PJM RTEP experience is that additional analyses were performed by PJM only when the VaSCC required such analyses to be submitted.

Note the last sentence in this quote.  Mr. Sade concludes from this experience that only the East VA SCC held PJM's feet to the fire and required the cartel and its partner power companies to provide reliable, factual information that none of them were willing to provide voluntarily.

Mr. Sade draws a vital lesson from the PATH experience concerning the need to push PJM and the WV power companies to rebuild our state's "aging infrastructure," high voltage transmission lines like the Pruntytown to Mt. Storm line.

...This Commission, if it deems appropriate, may also want to inform PJM of potential West Virginia transmission reconductor/rebuild projects and request that they be included in the RTEP if it determines this is warranted based upon a review of the reports requested by Staff.”

CAD agrees with Staff that this Commission should require the Reports requested by Staff in its Petition to Reopen and satisfy itself regarding not only what transmission line upgrades are important for West Virginia, but what upgrades requiring transmission lines to be out of service could be undertaken because of the advantageous timing from increased capacity and reduced load. To the extent that West Virginia can be proactive concerning necessary transmission upgrades, costly new lines may be avoided.

This is exactly what we have been saying since last winter.  The WV PSC needs to stand up for West Virginians and push PJM to do what is best for West Virginia, not what is best for Ohio power companies like AEP and FirstEnergy.

Finally, I especially liked Mr. Sade's little dig at AEP's Transco project.  It was icing on the cake.

Finally, APCo and Wheeling [AEP's WV subsidiaries] hint that approval of its request for a Transco will “have an impact on the preparation of the report. If the creation of a Transco will impede the orderly process of conducting evaluations of West Virginia transmission facilities then CAD questions whether any Transco can be deemed not to adversely affect the public interest.

3 Comments
 
 
by Bill

Yesterday's record high temperatures in New York City caused the city's power company, Consolidated Edison, to set a record for peak load.  Here is the story from the NY Times.

Here is the reporter's somewhat garbled account of how demand management kicked in to save the day:

The utility’s customers, bracing for one of the hottest days in New York City’s history, were consuming considerably more electricity than they had on any morning before. At the rate they were plugging in and cranking up air conditioners, the previous peak of demand would not merely have been topped, it would have been torched.

That was a frightening prospect for the officials huddled in a makeshift command center at headquarters in Manhattan. They had prepared for an unprecedented draw on their network of underground cables and overhead wires, which spans the city and some suburbs to the north. But none of them knew just how far the system could be stretched without a major breakdown.

Then, at noon, the operator of New York State’s power grid rescued Con Ed by ordering many businesses and other large consumers of power to cut back. Managers of office and apartment buildings turned up their thermostats, dimmed lights and took some elevators out of service.

The New York Independent System Operator said those “demand response programs,” which provide incentives to commercial users for helping out in times of high demand, cover about 800 megawatts in New York City, on Long Island and in the Hudson Valley.

On Con Ed’s system alone, they may have saved 400 megawatts on Friday, said John Miksad, senior vice president for electric operations. He said city officials also pitched in by switching on backup generators at some facilities, including Gracie Mansion and two wastewater treatment plants. Those city properties did not go completely off the grid, but they sharply reduced the amount of power they drew from it, he said.

“We were going up at a rate of 1,000 megawatts an hour,” Mr. Miksad said, describing the spinning of the load meter projected on a floor-to-ceiling screen as “rocketing.” He said the total demand would have surpassed Con Ed’s projected peak for the day by 100 or 200 megawatts “if not for these programs.”

Instead of having to build and maintain power plant capacity just to meet the one or two days that extra power was needed, NYISO's demand management plan kicked in and dropped unnecessary power off the system shaving hundreds of megawatts off of Con Ed's load.  Did you see the paragraph about some city facilities switching their backup generators to add power to the grid?  What if there were large solar arrays on buildings or empty lots across NY City?  Summer peak load always happens on a hot SUNNY day.  If New York had significant amounts of solar generation, generators could flood the NY grid with solar-generated electricity on summer peak days.

Even in this extreme situation, there were a lot of things that grid operators did to manage load.  This is a far cry, even in this extreme situation, from the "blackouts and brownouts" that power companies used to fear monger in the PATH PR blitz.

Our regional transmission organization, PJM Interconnection, also set a peak load record yesterday.  Here is the PJM press release that states: "Yesterday’s demand for electricity was met without problems and generation supplies were adequate. Demand response was not called on to reduce load."  PJM has much more flexibility to manage load because it covers a large area and a large number of power options.  New York City has a much smaller and therefore less flexible system.  PJM operators, despite having a large amount of demand management resources available, managed the high load will all of the existing power resources.
10 Comments
 
 
by Bill

I reported on The Power Line at the end of June on WV PSC staff attorney John Auville's petition to have AEP and FE file a comprehensive report on the condition of their high voltage transmission lines with the PSC in thirty days.

FirstEnergy has filed its response here.  AEP has filed its response here.  First Energy included a lot of whining and contradictory claims in their response.  FE reiterates their past claims that PJM's "plans" (which the PATH case demonstrated are based on profit motives of the cartel's powerful members and involve clear conflicts of interest to maintain) somehow overrule WV's sovereignty and the legislative mandates and powers of the WV PSC.

Despite FE's whining, both FE and AEP admitted that they could provide the required analysis of their high voltage transmission systems in 120 days or about four months from the date of a PSC order to do so.  That means, if the PSC ordered AEP and FE to comply soon, they would have the reports by the end of 2011.

Let's do it.  Dozens of citizens filed comments in support of this reporting following Mr. Auville's original petition.  Now the power companies have agreed as well.  Why waste any more time?

Additional note --

I found it very funny that FE's long whine included claims that PJM's Regional Transmission Expansion process is focused on "reliability" at exactly the time when PJM is overhauling the RTEP process to include many other factors.  I should remind everyone here that PJM's name for this process, the Regional Transmission Expansion Plan, is focused not on rebuilding or improving existing transmission lines, but on building new ones.  Otherwise, PJM would have called its planning process the Regional Transmission Improvement Plan.  Building new power lines is thus a fundamental assumption of PJM's planning.  No wonder FE wants PJM to control WV's electrical system instead of WV law and the PSC.

4 Comments
 
Copyright 2011 The Coalition for Reliable Power