This article "suggests" that a new Order 1000 proceeding could be coming at FERC.
Why is FERC so frustrated that its Order No. 1000 isn't working as intended? What was it intended to do, anyhow?
Why is FERC so frustrated that its Order No. 1000 isn't working as intended? What was it intended to do, anyhow?
Order 1000, issued in July 2011, was intended to expand transmission to help meet the growing demand for renewable generation. It revised rules on transmission planning, on allocating transmission costs and on competitive bidding.
Well, there we go. FERC issued an order intended to expand transmission. Except FERC has no jurisdiction over actually doing so. Transmission siting and permitting, which is the ultimate word on actually expanding transmission, is state jurisdictional. Individual state utility commissions make this decision. Even if FERC got down on its knees and begged transmission developers to build more transmission, FERC cannot control state decision making.
FERC has jurisdiction over interstate transmission rates. It has chosen to use that jurisdiction to entice transmission development with financial rewards. Except financial reward does not substitute for FERC's missing jurisdiction. Financial rewards for new transmission doesn't influence state utility commission decisions on need and siting. Perhaps they may even have a detrimental effect by overpricing the transmission project.
And here's another fact about the effect of Order No. 1000 and FERC's efforts to expand the transmission system without siting and permitting authority:
FERC has jurisdiction over interstate transmission rates. It has chosen to use that jurisdiction to entice transmission development with financial rewards. Except financial reward does not substitute for FERC's missing jurisdiction. Financial rewards for new transmission doesn't influence state utility commission decisions on need and siting. Perhaps they may even have a detrimental effect by overpricing the transmission project.
And here's another fact about the effect of Order No. 1000 and FERC's efforts to expand the transmission system without siting and permitting authority:
New transmission has come online, but 70% of the system is over 25 years old.
FERC has awarded transmission incentives exclusively to new transmission after directed by Congress to develop incentives in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. It's more profitable to build new transmission than it is to upgrade existing lines, therefore the result is new transmission connected to old lines.
This article blathers on incessantly about something completely unrelated and totally un-newsworthy. Competitive transmission. We're still talking about new transmission. That doesn't fix the old lines connected to it.
Wow, a competitive transmission builder paid for a "study" that found the conclusion they wanted... that competition to build new transmission saves money for consumers. But how much money could the consumers actually save if old lines were upgraded to do more? Re-building existing lines is cheaper and faster. Shouldn't re-builds be competing against new transmission, instead of new transmission builders competing against themselves?
The most FERC can do is monkey with Order No. 1000 to make new transmission more competitive. It still doesn't have authority to make transmission happen. Whether it's financial incentives, transmission planning, transmission competition, or other things in FERC's jurisdiction stable, it's just a lot of expensive busy work. Without authority to site and permit new transmission, FERC's gun is loaded with blanks.
It's not that FERC hasn't tried to take jurisdiction over electric transmission siting and permitting. It's that Congress has resisted all its efforts, preferring to leave this piece of the energy pie with states who are familiar with their own needs and people. And that's probably a good idea. How hard is it for affected landowners to have a voice in their own state? Imagine that removed to Washington, DC. Affected landowners and consumers wouldn't have a voice at all because it is not only geographically removed, but overly expensive to participate as well.
How bad is our existing transmission system, where 70% of the system is over 25 years old? Transmission lines are paid for over an expected useful life of 40 years. Many of these lines are young yet as far as usefulness goes. As well, utilities are expected to meet rigorous reliability standards to keep the system working. Age is not the defining factor in system reliability. These knuckleheads who like to whine about the age of the transmission system love to quote the American Society of Civil Engineers' annual report card on infrastructure. As if this means anything. Go ahead, read the latest. It's presumptive fluff with no factual basis. It's opinion. It's self-serving dreck. Well, gosh, a bunch of civil engineers whose continued livelihood depends on building new infrastructure think we should build more. Stunning. Stunningly biased, I mean.
Likewise, how influenced is FERC by the utilities who make their money building new transmission, whether we need it or not? Why is FERC so determined to expand the transmission system? We're not talking about reliability, that's handled by NERC. What possible reason is there aside from reliability? Growing demand for renewable generation? This isn't FERC's bailiwick. FERC cannot pick and choose between generation sources in order to discriminate against certain ones, in favor of others. That's a political function. FERC isn't a political creature (at least it's not supposed to be). It's a regulator. Regulators enforce laws created by legislators. Legislators are the ones who wrestle with political things when creating laws.
So, hey, maybe FERC will re-open Order No. 1000 for public comment. Won't that be fun?
This article blathers on incessantly about something completely unrelated and totally un-newsworthy. Competitive transmission. We're still talking about new transmission. That doesn't fix the old lines connected to it.
Wow, a competitive transmission builder paid for a "study" that found the conclusion they wanted... that competition to build new transmission saves money for consumers. But how much money could the consumers actually save if old lines were upgraded to do more? Re-building existing lines is cheaper and faster. Shouldn't re-builds be competing against new transmission, instead of new transmission builders competing against themselves?
The most FERC can do is monkey with Order No. 1000 to make new transmission more competitive. It still doesn't have authority to make transmission happen. Whether it's financial incentives, transmission planning, transmission competition, or other things in FERC's jurisdiction stable, it's just a lot of expensive busy work. Without authority to site and permit new transmission, FERC's gun is loaded with blanks.
It's not that FERC hasn't tried to take jurisdiction over electric transmission siting and permitting. It's that Congress has resisted all its efforts, preferring to leave this piece of the energy pie with states who are familiar with their own needs and people. And that's probably a good idea. How hard is it for affected landowners to have a voice in their own state? Imagine that removed to Washington, DC. Affected landowners and consumers wouldn't have a voice at all because it is not only geographically removed, but overly expensive to participate as well.
How bad is our existing transmission system, where 70% of the system is over 25 years old? Transmission lines are paid for over an expected useful life of 40 years. Many of these lines are young yet as far as usefulness goes. As well, utilities are expected to meet rigorous reliability standards to keep the system working. Age is not the defining factor in system reliability. These knuckleheads who like to whine about the age of the transmission system love to quote the American Society of Civil Engineers' annual report card on infrastructure. As if this means anything. Go ahead, read the latest. It's presumptive fluff with no factual basis. It's opinion. It's self-serving dreck. Well, gosh, a bunch of civil engineers whose continued livelihood depends on building new infrastructure think we should build more. Stunning. Stunningly biased, I mean.
Likewise, how influenced is FERC by the utilities who make their money building new transmission, whether we need it or not? Why is FERC so determined to expand the transmission system? We're not talking about reliability, that's handled by NERC. What possible reason is there aside from reliability? Growing demand for renewable generation? This isn't FERC's bailiwick. FERC cannot pick and choose between generation sources in order to discriminate against certain ones, in favor of others. That's a political function. FERC isn't a political creature (at least it's not supposed to be). It's a regulator. Regulators enforce laws created by legislators. Legislators are the ones who wrestle with political things when creating laws.
So, hey, maybe FERC will re-open Order No. 1000 for public comment. Won't that be fun?
RSS Feed