States are now joining forces to fight back against regionally planned transmission lines that don't provide local benefits, and it's about time!
Yesterday, attorneys general from Illinois and Michigan filed an Amicus Brief at the Wisconsin PSC asking for rejection of ATC's Cardinal-Hickory Creek transmission project. The states say that they will be collectively paying for 31% of the costs of this project, while testimony at the Wisconsin PSC has shown that the line results in a net loss for ratepayers. In addition, they state that Cardinal-Hickory Creek is part of a package of transmission projects approved by MISO way back in 2011 that no longer serve consumers due to changed circumstances.
Yesterday, attorneys general from Illinois and Michigan filed an Amicus Brief at the Wisconsin PSC asking for rejection of ATC's Cardinal-Hickory Creek transmission project. The states say that they will be collectively paying for 31% of the costs of this project, while testimony at the Wisconsin PSC has shown that the line results in a net loss for ratepayers. In addition, they state that Cardinal-Hickory Creek is part of a package of transmission projects approved by MISO way back in 2011 that no longer serve consumers due to changed circumstances.
While the Mid-Continent Independent System Operator (MISO) approved this project in 2011 as part of its Multi-Value Project portfolio, in the years since 2011, circumstances have changed considerably, requiring additional analysis to avoid an expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars for a line that may not be needed.
The lack of recent peak load growth, associated with the expansion of distributed solar, wind and battery technologies, creates a very different situation from that analyzed in 2011 when the line was originally proposed. It is necessary to consider recent alternatives to determine whether the transmission line is needed.
Just like fish, transmission plans begin to stink rather quickly. And one more than 8 years old reeks to high heaven.
When regional planning authorities were new things nearly two decades ago, it may have seemed like a good thing to let some ostensibly impartial regional organization plan and operate the grid, rather than biased utilities. However, these regional planning authorities are driven by their member utilities. Organization into one grid authority simply made utility power stronger. Meanwhile, states may have kowtowed to regional authority planning, believing that it was for benefit of consumers, and no state wanted to shoulder the responsibility of saying "no," on the off chance that rejection of a regionally planned transmission project made the lights go out.
But, the times they are a-changin'.
When regional planning authorities were new things nearly two decades ago, it may have seemed like a good thing to let some ostensibly impartial regional organization plan and operate the grid, rather than biased utilities. However, these regional planning authorities are driven by their member utilities. Organization into one grid authority simply made utility power stronger. Meanwhile, states may have kowtowed to regional authority planning, believing that it was for benefit of consumers, and no state wanted to shoulder the responsibility of saying "no," on the off chance that rejection of a regionally planned transmission project made the lights go out.
But, the times they are a-changin'.
States are now feeling their power to reject top-down regional plans that don't serve their needs and clash with state policies. Ultimately, states drive transmission policy within their own borders because they possess jurisdiction to site and permit transmission. Regional planners may "order" new transmission projects, but it's a worthless authority because states have the final say. This battle has begun heating up as regional organizations and their regulators at FERC attempt to drive rough-shod over states to force their regional and national plans over individual state priorities.
While individual states are rejecting regionally planned projects within their borders with increasing regularity, what if other states in the region who will merely pay for a project located in another state band together to reject this usurpation of their authority? Are we on the cusp of regional organization rejection by states? Have RTO/ISOs jumped the shark?
With the rise of distributed generation and small-scale renewables, energy planning needs to return to its roots as a local issue.
While individual states are rejecting regionally planned projects within their borders with increasing regularity, what if other states in the region who will merely pay for a project located in another state band together to reject this usurpation of their authority? Are we on the cusp of regional organization rejection by states? Have RTO/ISOs jumped the shark?
With the rise of distributed generation and small-scale renewables, energy planning needs to return to its roots as a local issue.
RSS Feed