Do we need more transmission capacity?

Electricity Journal

Volumn 13, Issue 9, 2000, Pages 78-89

  Hirst, Eric ^a  

^a Electric Industry Restructuring   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

TRANSMISSION CAPACITIES; TRANSMISSION-LINE; UNCERTAINTY;

EID: 0034311595     PISSN: 10406190     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1040-6190(00)00157-3     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. 1. North American Electric Reliability Council, Reliability Assessment, 1999-2008, Princeton, NJ, May 2000, at 7.
2. 2. Eric Hirst, Expanding U.S. Transmission Capacity, Edison Electric Institute, Washington, DC, July 2000.
3. 3. U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Regional Transmission Organizations, Order No. 2000, Docket No. RM99-2-000, Dec. 20, 1999.
4. 4. National Governors' Association, Moving Power: Flexibility for the Future, Washington, DC, 1987.
5. 5. Office of Technology Assessment, Electric Power Wheeling and Dealing: Technological Considerations for Increasing Competition, U.S. Congress, Washington, DC, May 1989, at 25.
6. 6. Meredith/Boli & Associates, Review of State-Level Electric Power Transmission Facility Siting Processes, Los Angeles, Apr. 10, 1990.
7. 7. The National Governors' Association, supra note 4, noted that "State agencies involved in approval of a transmission project may include any or all of the following: the public utility commission, the state energy office, an energy facility siting board, a state environmental department, and a state land use agency" (page 9). In California, the Public Utilities Commission reviews transmission projects proposed by investor-owned utilities, while the California Energy Commission reviews projects tied to generation, and municipal utilities review their own projects.
8. 8. Supra note 6, at III-2.
9. 9. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences reported that the evidence for risk of cancer and other human disease from electric and magnetic fields around power lines is "weak." National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Health Effects from Exposure to Power-Line Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields, No. 99-4493, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1999, at ii.
10. 10. http://www.powerupwisconsin.com and http://www.wakeupwisconsin.com for arguments for and against this transmission project. (Oct. 1, 2000)
11. 11. NERC, supra note 1, at 60.
12. 12. U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Regional Transmission Organizations, Order No. 2000-A, Docket No. RM99-2-001, Feb. 25, 2000.
13. 13. Julie Doetsch, Jeffrey S. Davidson, and Sujo Abbott, Asset Divestiture: Exit from Generating Business Seen as a Benefit to Credit Quality, Moody's Investors Service, New York, March 1999, at 6.
14. 14. Robert Hornick, Steve Fetter, Ellen Lopson, Paul Neuhedel, and Alan Spen, Electric Distribution Credit Criteria, Fitch-IBCA, New York, Oct. 7, 1999, at 2.
15. 15. Leonard S. Hyman, Transmission, Congestion, Pricing, and Incentives, IEEE Power Engineering Rev., Aug. 1999, at 4.
16. 16. Id., at 7.
17. 17. Edison Electric Institute, Motion for Late Intervention and Initial Comments of Edison Electric Institute, Docket No. ER97-2355-000 et al., submitted to FERC, Washington, DC, Nov. 1, 1999.
18. 18. The RTO, in accordance with FERC's Order 2000, "must not have any financial interests in any market participants." Supra note 3, at 714.
19. 19. U.S. Senate, Electric Power Market Competition and Reliability Act, S. 2098, Feb. 24, 2000.
20. 20. Electric Power Supply Association, Comments of Electric Power Supply Association, Docket No. RM99-2-000, submitted to FERC July 27, 1999, at 41.
21. 21. Id., at 42.
22. 22. National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, Comments of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, Docket No. RM99-2-000, submitted to FERC Aug. 23, 1999, at 4.
23. 23. E. Hirst, B. Kirby, and S. Hadley, Generation and Transmission Adequacy in a Restructuring U.S. Electricity Industry, Edison Electric Institute, Washington, DC, June 1999.
24. 24. The ongoing debates about zonal versus nodal pricing, and physical versus financial rights to transmission, demonstrate the difficulty of agreeing on an efficient pricing system. If congestion costs are socialized, market participants receive no useful information on where and when to build new generation or to cut demand.
25. 25. The California ISO sought peaking capacity and load-management programs as an alternative to the Tri-Valley transmission project. See Kella Fluckiger and Stephen Greenleaf, Policy Issues Regarding Long-Term Grid Planning and Lessons Learned from Tri-Valley, memorandum to ISO Governing Board, California Independent System Operator, Folsom, CA, May 15, 2000. Although the ISO received four responses to its request for proposals, it ultimately recommended the transmission project instead of the nonwire projects. This example suggests that RTO involvement in the solicitation and review of distributed resources as alternatives to transmission can be complicated and difficult.
26. 26. New England Power Company, National Grid Group, and Montaup Electric Company, Comments of New England Power Company, National Grid Group, and Montaup Electric Company, Docket No. RM99-2-000, submitted to FERC, Westborough, MA, Aug. 19, 1999, at 7.
27. 27. William W. Hogan, FERC Policy on Regional Transmission Organizations: Comments in Response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Docket No. RM99-2-000, submitted to FERC, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, Aug. 16, 1999, at 16.
28. 28. Paul L. Joskow, Comments of Professor Paul L. Joskow, Docket No. RM99-2-000, submitted to FERC, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, Aug. 16, 1999, at iv.
29. 29. Id., at 6.
30. 30. Douglas M. Logan, RDI's Outlook for Power, 17th Annual RDI User Conference, Resource Data International, Boulder, CO, May 2000, at 9.