IBJNews

Wind energy transmission raises equity questions

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Midwest's booming wind energy industry could cost Indiana households more than $40 million a year in the coming years, but experts say it's a necessary expense as the region tries to move away from reliance on coal-fired power plants amid federal crackdowns on emissions.

Transmission lines costing about $16 billion are needed to move wind energy into the electric grid. But the cost has sparked a debate over who should pay for getting the power from where it's made to where it's consumed.

Most regions have placed that burden on rate payers. In Indiana, that could translate to utility bill increases of $2 or more a month for 1.5 million households.

But some question whether it's fair for someone in Indianapolis to subsidize electricity made by North Dakota wind turbines and used in cities like Chicago, Milwaukee or even Fort Wayne.

"We are advocating for assurance that ... Indiana consumers end up with, as close as possible, the least-cost solution to get the job done," said Indiana utility consumer counselor David Stippler.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will discuss how to allocate transmission costs next week in Washington. Presenters will include the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, a Carmel not-for-profit that monitors the electric grid in Canada and 13 states.

MISO president John Bear predicts that wind will supply 16 percent of MISO's power within 25 years.

MISO initially proposed having power generators pay 20 percent of the transmission costs and consumers in the 13 states pay the remaining 80 percent. Now it says consumers should carry the full cost.

Jamie Karnik, a spokesman for Minneapolis-based Wind on the Wires, said the trade group prefers that approach.

"It's not a matter of we don't want to pay this 20 percent. It's that we can't pay," Karnik said. "It's too expensive."

Experts say having developers pay the transmission costs could drive them to regions willing to shift the cost to consumers. The Southwest Power Pool serving Texas, Kansas and other states is placing the full cost of building the transmission lines on consumers.

"If you make the developers pay for transmission, that cost is enough to make wind energy uneconomical," said Doug Gotham, director of the State Utility Forecasting Group, a Purdue University unit that advises the General Assembly on electricity issues. "If you make the local utility in Minnesota pay, they get no benefit. Why pay for a transmission line so some wind farm can sell power to customers east of you?"

Gotham acknowledged that spreading the cost equally among 13 states raises some fairness issues. But with environmental concerns over coal and clean air regulations rising, experts say finding a successful plan for wind energy transmission is becoming more urgent.

"As long as coal was cheap, there was not a lot of value to diversification," Gotham said. "But there's a lot of uncertainty now over what the environmental rules are going to be over the next 10 to 100 years. In the Midwest, where we burn a lot of coal, we're kind of exposed when it comes to those rules."

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Great Investment!
    Where to begin... well go back to the time of Edison and Tesla. Edison is credited with most current innovation, but it was Tesla who convince the world to convert from direct current to alternating current. This means that all you are doing is bouncing electrons back and forth, not pushing them back and forth over long distances. The result is extraordinary abilities to transmit electricity over very long distances. Tesla's dreams, in fact were to beam electricity from one side of the world to the other - so when the sun is shining in the US, power could go to China (this being the case with solar, which is directly related to wind). So, what we are talking about is a grid. The real obstacle is getting everyone on board so that electrons can be bounced back and forth between states. We are already exporting electricity to Canada, which then re-sells it to America at a profit. So, keep an open mind on this. Wouldn't it be great to be able to eat home-grown Indiana fish again once we are free of the mercury emissions from power plants?
  • Blows
    All of this is just ridiculous. Power generated by wind has to be backed up 100% by conventional means. Or, if the wind doesn't blow hard enough, or at all, does everybody just goes without power? If any of this was feasible it would have been done years and years ago. Now, government money is all that is propping these ventures up. What a mess things become when politics run into reality.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT