Transmission — it’s all connected. In looking at the Minnesota rulemaking, and the existing and proposed rules that utilize the word “regional,” I’m thinking about big picture stuff, the big proposals in the wings, and that Joint Coordinated System Plan (JCSP) map sure presents a big picture. For some reason, I’ve not been able to find the full JCSP report until recently:
Who cares about JCSP? Well, WE’D better care, because look who’s paying for the transmission build-out (p. 68 of Vol. 1):
Look at the numbers for Midwest ISO, a $-10,293, or for MAPP, a $12,292, that’s a COST, not a savings. MISO and MAPP get nominal production cost savings and massive load COSTS. This is not news, but is worth repeating as we discuss “regional.” And another take with the same take-away of big costs for MISO and MAPP customers, used by our good friends at AWEA to promote this transmission buildout in their flyer called “Green Power Transmission and Consumer Savings” (flyer below):
Read the whole thing:
What a deal, eh?
Look what AWEA has been advocating to make this happen:
Federal SitingIn addition to regional planning and cost allocation,substantial reform of the transmission siting process isrequired to meet national renewable energy goals. Themost effective model is the siting authority that was givento FERC over interstate natural gas pipelines. For greenpower superhighways, the extra-high-voltage facilitiesdefined in the regional plans would be subject to FERCapproval and permitting. Separate siting approval at thestate level would not be required. FERC would act as thelead agency for purposes of coordinating all applicablefederal authorizations and environmental reviews with otheraffected agencies.
zero comments so far »
Please leave a comment below!
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>