This article is from the Summer 2009 Piedmont View.

Coal in Green Clothing

PEC continues to be a major voice in an inceasingly visible national debate over transmission line policy. Partly in response to PEC's recent victory in federal court that clarified the limits of federal power over transmission line siting under existing law, there is now serious momentum in Washington to pass new laws that would expand that power. Proponents of a new, nationally controlled energy system say the federal government needs the authority to push through thousands of miles of new transmission lines -- a "new national grid" -- so we can link to potential renewable energy sources, like giant wind farms in the Midwest. Expanding on the National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors authorized in the 2005 Energy Policy Act, pending legislation would extend federal power to plan and site new, high voltage transmission.

But, wait. What would keep these supposedly "green" transmission lines from carrying coal power? Under most of the pending legislation, nothing. In fact, the new lines would often be mandated to carry coal power, because of a policy called "economic dispatch," which requires that the cheapest power get to markets first. In an interview on the nationally broadcast NPR series Power Hungry: Reinventing the US Electricity Grid, PEC President Chris Miller said, "There is a real potential that what you are expanding is the capacity to move coal-fired electrons, and that the cheapest power supplies, which are the dirtiest plants [that have been able to avoid investing in pollution control], will have access to markets they didn't use to." The Union of Concerned Scientists released a report in December 2008 that confirmed the potential of additional coal-fired electricity entering the Northeast, wiping out reductions in carbon emissions from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.

There are other problems with the proposed expansion of the national transmission grid. Recently, the governors of ten East Coast states, including Virginia, signed a letter arguing that further federal subsidies for long-distance transmission from the Midwest would bias markets against energy that we can generate from renewable resources close to home. They wrote, "It is well accepted that local generation is more responsive and effective in solving reliability issues than long distance energy inputs."

Rather than a transmission heavy approach that could actually expand markets for coal, PEC supports more reliable and environmentally-friendly ways to meet our electricity needs: energy efficiency, demand management, smart grid technology, and generation close to demand (preferably renewable).

Even as we're struggling to steer federal policies in the right direction, we are facing more transmission line proposals here at home. The proposed 500-kV PATH line, which is unnecessary for many of the same reasons as the TrAIL line, would cut through Loudoun, Clarke and Frederick Counties in Virginia. And Dominion continues to roll-out plans for new and expanded transmission. In April, Dominion announced plans to increase the size of the transmission line running from Loudoun Station in Lenah across the Bull Run Mountains in Prince William and Fauquier, to the Middleburg substation on Parsons Road. What are now 60 foot towers would be increased to 110 feet. PEC is collaborating with other environmental and citizens' groups to respond to these proposals.

Mr. Miller says, "One reason we invested so much in the fight against the TrAIL line is that we knew there were more transmission line proposals coming our way. We hope that the Virginia Supreme Court will agree with our position that the Virginia State Corporation Commission must explore other alternatives like energy efficiency, energy conservation, demand response, and distributed generation before approving new and expanded transmission that unnecessarily infringes on Virginia communities."

View the entire Summer 2009 Piedmont View.