IBJNews

  • Home

Transmission line would bring more wind power to Indiana

Chris O'Malley
August 17, 2012
Keywords
Air Quality, Alternative energy, Electric, Energy & Environment, Environment, Renewable Energy, Utilities, Wind Power
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Indiana electric utilities choking on federal environmental rules that threaten their coal and oil-powered generating stations might be able to tap wind power generated in the plains states starting in 2017.

Houston-based Clean Line Energy Partners plans to build a $2 billion, 700-mile transmission line from Kansas to an existing transmission line in Sullivan County in southwest Indiana that connects to eastern states.

The precise path of the “Grain Belt Express” transmission line hasn’t been set, but it would likely pass into southwestern Indiana from Ilinois.  Property negotiations and/or regulatory approvals are being sought in Kansas, Missouri and Illinois.

Clean Line Energy plans by year end to file with the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission to become recognized as a regulated public utility, said Diana Coggin, project development manager.

Kansas regulators already have granted the company public utility status.

Later this month, the company plans a public meeting in Sullivan County and will make a presentation to the Indiana State Chamber of Commerce’s energy management conference in downtown Indianapolis. 

Clean Line said the transmission-line project has the potential to enable $7 billion in new wind-farm investment in the plains states. Wind generated there is effectively stranded because transmission-line connections to the east are lacking,  Coggin said.

The privately funded project would not allocate construction costs to Indiana ratepayers. Clean Line would sell electricity to utilities.

Utilities may be receptive to buying plains states wind power as they struggle with how to comply with federal regulations ranging from air pollution to cooling-water-intake restrictions at coal-fired power plants.

Indianapolis Power & Light, for example, is looking at retiring some of its older units that are not cost-effective to retrofit with pollution-control technology.

Clean Line is touting the economic development potential of the project. It says more than 200 companies in Indiana are involved in wind energy and transmission-component manufacturing and services that could benefit as more wind-turbine units enabled by the project are built in states such as Kansas.

Improving economics in wind-generation technology have reduced the cost per unit of wind power, though it’s unclear to what degree that could benefit ratepayers of Indiana utilities that buy the power.

Clean Line was founded in 2009 and includes former executives involved in the Meadow Lake wind-turbine farm in northern Indiana. It has three other transmission projects underway in the upper Midwest, Southwest and southern United States.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • No Wind, NoSolar, Go MSR
    MrGadgetAugust 20, 2012 11:12 AM
    Subsidies and tax exemptions and all government support should be terminated for all non-baseload energy production. Coal plants should be converted to Liquid Floride Thorium MSR's. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • Improving economics...
    Ben B.August 17, 2012 11:17 AM
    "It’s unclear to what degree that could benefit ratepayers of Indiana utilities that buy the power." Although the ratepayers of Indiana may not see a decrease in direct, quantified-dollar costs (i.e., what they pay to the utility every month), these sorts of projects will undoubtedly decrease the indirect costs of externalities. The "cost" of power generation cannot be measured solely in dollars, because there are environmental, social, technological, and health costs associated with traditional generation technology. I don't doubt that the dollar costs of alternative energy sources will decline over time, but it is penny-wise, pound-foolish to account only for those direct costs in measuring the benefit to Indiana ratepayers.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment

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.

ADVANCED SEARCH
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. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

  2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

  3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

  4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

  5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

ADVERTISEMENT