And the History Book Says...

It's been a long time since I last got a google news alert for "Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline."  So long, in fact, I'd forgotten I even had those search terms set to notify.  But, just in time for Halloween, the PATH zombie reared its ugly head and I got a notice last week that some right-wing think tank had published a paper where those terms were mentioned, America’s Electricity Grid: Outdated or Underrated?

And what did the author have to say about PATH, more than three years after its death?  How has history treated this stunningly costly failure of "independent" planning?

Despite identification of areas in which transmission capacity is limited, a “not in my backyard” (or anyone else’s, in some cases) attitude toward new transmission line siting has resulted in cancellation or delay of some new transmission lines.

For example, in 2011, PJM cancelled the proposed Potomac Appalachian Transmission Highline (PATH) project, a 275-mile transmission line that would have run through West Virginia, Virginia, and Maryland to deliver electricity into Northern Virginia. Although the line was designed to improve reliability in eastern PJM, changing forecasts of electricity demand growth and intense opposition to siting the line led to the project’s cancellation.

It's the opposition that will be remembered, not individual analyses and the fine line that supposedly determined this white elephant was needed.

Hey, remember this?  PATH's talking heads insisted that opposition had nothing to do with PATH's cancellation.

But, history says it did.

While the article's conclusions are pretty screwed up, it does a nice job explaining the bulk power system and federal regulation thereof.  It's a good "backgrounder" for folks new to the transmission world.  Think about how much more reliable our system would be though, if we brought back the "islands" of the past and operated them as smaller parts of the bigger system (aka "microgrids").

Beginning in the late 1920s, electric utilities began to integrate their operations to improve reliability and reduce costs. Previously, utilities had operated as “islands,” meeting the demand for electricity solely from their own generating plants. To ensure reliable service, this meant building extra generating capacity to keep in reserve, in case unexpected problems caused their plants to shut down.[2] By integrating their operations, utilities could provide more reliable service without building as much backup generating capacity. In essence, if a generating plant at Utility A suffered a forced outage, one of Utility B’s generators would be available to ensure the lights stayed on. The concept is similar to diversifying a financial portfolio. Instead of investing everything into just one company’s stock, buying multiple stocks, bonds, and other investments reduces the risk of a sudden financial loss.

Microgrids that can be islanded from the larger system at times when the larger system fails (remember Superstorm Sandy?) can continue to provide power for necessary services.  And if microgrid "A" suffers a forced outage, it can borrow from microgrid "B", or "C," or "D," or any other nearby microgrid.  Relying on just a handful of generators and long-distance transmission lines creates parasitic load pockets with no native generation.  Those folks have nowhere to turn in case of emergency.

Building more transmission lines isn't the answer.  The answer is a more democratic electric grid system that benefits consumers and local communities, not gigantic, investor-owned utility holding companies.