We need to build a supergrid like the national highway system we built in the 1930’s. But a new study finds that this might be almost impossible to do in this country. A historical legacy of Balkanized ownership of multiple tiny grids and ineffective regulatory structure has hindered upgrades to and expansion of the U.S. transmission network.

In these political times of political hysteria against any kind of national common good, it will be hard to overcome a legacy that grew out of our rugged individualism.

By contrast, China and Europe have easily added more renewable power, by socializing the grid.

Read more of this story »

Editor’s Note: This is a guest contribution by Elaina Medina of Portland General Electric.

This week Portland General Electric welcomed news it was named a strategic participant and Oregon was named one of five test markets for the largest rollout of EVs and an associated charging station network in U.S. history.

Read more of this story »

Wales has launched one of the world’s most ambitious sustainability strategies, and aims to be “self-sustaining in renewable energy” by 2025, and waste-free by 2050.

The standard-setting targets are laid out in a new strategy called One Wales: One Planet - and immediately place the nation at the forefront of global green efforts, making it one of only three countries worldwide with a legal obligation to develop sustainably.

Commenting on the report Jonathan Porritt, Founding Director of Forum for the Future and Chair of the Sustainable Development Commission said, “Wales will set an example for the rest of the world to follow.”

Read more of this story »

Microsoft has announced plans to make both their headquarters and  their products more environmentally sound.

With energy-conservation, use of renewable energy, improved data center design, and reduction in air travel, the company plans to reduce their carbon emissions by 30 percent compared to 2007 levels by 2012.

Read more of this story »

Richmond, Va. based coal company Massey Energy has announced plans to commence blasting at the site tomorrow (10th September), in an operation that will reduce the height of the mountain by 500 feet and free up ten square miles for coal mining activities.

Read more of this story »

Pacific Gas and Electric in California announced last week it will buy 800 megawatts of solar-generated electricity from two companies, enough to light 239,000 homes. Within three years, PG&E will buy its solar energy from OptiSolar and SunPower, which plan to build the world’s two largest solar farms in California as part of the deal.

It would nearly double the USA’s entire solar-panel capacity. Driving the trend are solar’s falling costs and state alternative-energy mandates.

Solar power has grown but still makes up well under 1% of U.S. power generation. More than 90% of solar panels have been installed on rooftops by maverick consumers and businesses. Utilities’ embrace of solar energy will help push it to about 10% of power generation by 2025, predicts Ron Pernick, principal of research firm Clean Edge.

“Just a handful of utilities doing something big changes the scale of the entire market,” says Julia Hamm of the Solar Electric Power Association.

Solar energy refers to the utilization of the radiant energy from the Sun. Solar power is used interchangeably with solar energy, but refers more specifically to the conversion of sunlight into electricity, either by photovoltaics and concentrating solar thermal devices, or by one of several experimental technologies such as thermoelectric converters, solar chimneys or solar ponds.

Our history hampers a national grid

Hundreds of tiny local entities own small portions of our grid. None of them have enough income to seriously expand it. The cost and risk causes investors to require a high rate of return; which adds to the cost of transmission services, which arouses public opposition to new transmission proposals, which in turn add to the risk of investment. This has become a vicious cycle.

Balkanization of ownership hinders economies of scale and discourages investment. Complex and fragmented regulatory jurisdictions increase transaction costs, slow the permitting process, and add to the risk and uncertainty of transmission investments. Currently each state has its own transmission siting process and uses different parameters and terminology in evaluating transmission projects.

Each state has separate regulations for electric utilities in the state, making it difficult now to cross state lines as we must to build a national super grid. Half the country is served by regulated public utilities, and half is private. And there is a huge number of private, investor‐owned utilities. With the majority of transmission assets are privately owned, horizontal integration is extremely difficult.

Because of these barriers, there has been a sustained underinvestment in transmission for decades, even aside from the need for a major grid upgrade to add renewable energy.

This has created another problem:

Antiquated infrastructure

Due to years of underinvestment, most of the technology is between 25 and 60 years old. Antiquated transmission infrastructure is not only limiting the utilization of renewable energy resources, but it is also hindering means of mitigating their intermittency.

Our grid was designed to deliver local power from small coal-fired utilities to the consumers near by. Even without adding stranded renewable power, transmission bottlenecks impact daily power delivery.

Like herding cats

All these convoluted sociopolitical and institutional obstacles have historically prevented the modernization of transmission infrastructure. Not just NIMBYism, but balkanized ownership, fragmented regulatory authorities, and institutional disincentives are in the way.

Unlike most other countries, the United States cannot easily restructure its electricity sector by divesting state‐owned generation assets and consolidating transmission assets into a national monopoly. FERC can only attempt to cajole this multitude of owners and interests to a common cause.

Two thirds of the population (in the Northeast, Mid‐Atlantic, and much of the Midwest, Texas, and California) have competitive power markets operated under an ISO or a RTO; the rest of the country has traditional vertically integrated utilities.

Currently all the counties, townships, and communities along the transmission line can require local approval. And if the line crosses any federal lands or waterways, it will require additional approvals from relevant federal agencies.

A major risk to a transmission project is the possible failure in obtaining site approval from multiple jurisdictions. There have been cases where transmission projects were canceled due to continued local opposition even after site approval. Many states now have renewable energy contracts stuck in this limbo.

Our generation well outpaces transmission abilities - hindering renewable adoption

Easier for other nations to “socialize” grid

Other countries have consolidated multiple antique little grids into one single entity with ease, to easily integrate new renewable power. A unique historical legacy left the United States with an outdated transmission infrastructure and an ineffective institutional structure.

The UK completed their restructuring into one national grid in one year, by 1990. China completed theirs in three months. They had had a similarly fragmented vertically integrated utility sector as we still do; till 2002. They switched from 12 local grids to just 2 in just three months.

Only our old regulatory structure hinders us from upgrading the electricity grid. Yet our oil and gas pipelines easily traverse the nation.

Images from HistoryWiz and Flikr users and  Zephyra of the SW and CSullivan and frogdog*
Graphs and study:  Policy Barriers to Electrical Transmission

For more, see today’s post: 2018: The Year of Petroleum Independence?

Or get involved with wecansolveit.org.

Our history hampers a national grid

Hundreds of tiny local entities own small portions of our grid. None of them have enough income to seriously expand it. The cost and risk causes investors to require a high rate of return; which adds to the cost of transmission services, which arouses public opposition to new transmission proposals, which in turn add to the risk of investment. This has become a vicious cycle.

Balkanization of ownership hinders economies of scale and discourages investment. Complex and fragmented regulatory jurisdictions increase transaction costs, slow the permitting process, and add to the risk and uncertainty of transmission investments. Currently each state has its own transmission siting process and uses different parameters and terminology in evaluating transmission projects.

Each state has separate regulations for electric utilities in the state, making it difficult now to cross state lines as we must to build a national super grid. Half the country is served by regulated public utilities, and half is private. And there is a huge number of private, investor‐owned utilities. With the majority of transmission assets are privately owned, horizontal integration is extremely difficult.

Because of these barriers, there has been a sustained underinvestment in transmission for decades, even aside from the need for a major grid upgrade to add renewable energy.

This has created another problem:

Antiquated infrastructure

Due to years of underinvestment, most of the technology is between 25 and 60 years old. Antiquated transmission infrastructure is not only limiting the utilization of renewable energy resources, but it is also hindering means of mitigating their intermittency.

Our grid was designed to deliver local power from small coal-fired utilities to the consumers near by. Even without adding stranded renewable power, transmission bottlenecks impact daily power delivery.

Like herding cats

All these convoluted sociopolitical and institutional obstacles have historically prevented the modernization of transmission infrastructure. Not just NIMBYism, but balkanized ownership, fragmented regulatory authorities, and institutional disincentives are in the way.

Unlike most other countries, the United States cannot easily restructure its electricity sector by divesting state‐owned generation assets and consolidating transmission assets into a national monopoly. FERC can only attempt to cajole this multitude of owners and interests to a common cause.

Two thirds of the population (in the Northeast, Mid‐Atlantic, and much of the Midwest, Texas, and California) have competitive power markets operated under an ISO or a RTO; the rest of the country has traditional vertically integrated utilities.

Currently all the counties, townships, and communities along the transmission line can require local approval. And if the line crosses any federal lands or waterways, it will require additional approvals from relevant federal agencies.

A major risk to a transmission project is the possible failure in obtaining site approval from multiple jurisdictions. There have been cases where transmission projects were canceled due to continued local opposition even after site approval. Many states now have renewable energy contracts stuck in this limbo.

Our generation well outpaces transmission abilities - hindering renewable adoption

Easier for other nations to “socialize” grid

Other countries have consolidated multiple antique little grids into one single entity with ease, to easily integrate new renewable power. A unique historical legacy left the United States with an outdated transmission infrastructure and an ineffective institutional structure.

The UK completed their restructuring into one national grid in one year, by 1990. China completed theirs in three months. They had had a similarly fragmented vertically integrated utility sector as we still do; till 2002. They switched from 12 local grids to just 2 in just three months.

Only our old regulatory structure hinders us from upgrading the electricity grid. Yet our oil and gas pipelines easily traverse the nation.

Images from HistoryWiz and Flikr users and  Zephyra of the SW and CSullivan and frogdog*
Graphs and study:  Policy Barriers to Electrical Transmission

This story contains additional media. Click here to view the media.

See also: Top 5 Micro Wind Turbines

Our history hampers a national grid

Hundreds of tiny local entities own small portions of our grid. None of them have enough income to seriously expand it. The cost and risk causes investors to require a high rate of return; which adds to the cost of transmission services, which arouses public opposition to new transmission proposals, which in turn add to the risk of investment. This has become a vicious cycle.

Balkanization of ownership hinders economies of scale and discourages investment. Complex and fragmented regulatory jurisdictions increase transaction costs, slow the permitting process, and add to the risk and uncertainty of transmission investments. Currently each state has its own transmission siting process and uses different parameters and terminology in evaluating transmission projects.

Each state has separate regulations for electric utilities in the state, making it difficult now to cross state lines as we must to build a national super grid. Half the country is served by regulated public utilities, and half is private. And there is a huge number of private, investor‐owned utilities. With the majority of transmission assets are privately owned, horizontal integration is extremely difficult.

Because of these barriers, there has been a sustained underinvestment in transmission for decades, even aside from the need for a major grid upgrade to add renewable energy.

This has created another problem:

Antiquated infrastructure

Due to years of underinvestment, most of the technology is between 25 and 60 years old. Antiquated transmission infrastructure is not only limiting the utilization of renewable energy resources, but it is also hindering means of mitigating their intermittency.

Our grid was designed to deliver local power from small coal-fired utilities to the consumers near by. Even without adding stranded renewable power, transmission bottlenecks impact daily power delivery.

Like herding cats

All these convoluted sociopolitical and institutional obstacles have historically prevented the modernization of transmission infrastructure. Not just NIMBYism, but balkanized ownership, fragmented regulatory authorities, and institutional disincentives are in the way.

Unlike most other countries, the United States cannot easily restructure its electricity sector by divesting state‐owned generation assets and consolidating transmission assets into a national monopoly. FERC can only attempt to cajole this multitude of owners and interests to a common cause.

Two thirds of the population (in the Northeast, Mid‐Atlantic, and much of the Midwest, Texas, and California) have competitive power markets operated under an ISO or a RTO; the rest of the country has traditional vertically integrated utilities.

Currently all the counties, townships, and communities along the transmission line can require local approval. And if the line crosses any federal lands or waterways, it will require additional approvals from relevant federal agencies.

A major risk to a transmission project is the possible failure in obtaining site approval from multiple jurisdictions. There have been cases where transmission projects were canceled due to continued local opposition even after site approval. Many states now have renewable energy contracts stuck in this limbo.

Our generation well outpaces transmission abilities - hindering renewable adoption

Easier for other nations to “socialize” grid

Other countries have consolidated multiple antique little grids into one single entity with ease, to easily integrate new renewable power. A unique historical legacy left the United States with an outdated transmission infrastructure and an ineffective institutional structure.

The UK completed their restructuring into one national grid in one year, by 1990. China completed theirs in three months. They had had a similarly fragmented vertically integrated utility sector as we still do; till 2002. They switched from 12 local grids to just 2 in just three months.

Only our old regulatory structure hinders us from upgrading the electricity grid. Yet our oil and gas pipelines easily traverse the nation.

Images from HistoryWiz and Flikr users and  Zephyra of the SW and CSullivan and frogdog*
Graphs and study:  Policy Barriers to Electrical Transmission

It all started with the PlayPump, the water system that is a children’s merry-go-round attached to a water pump and storage tank that featured on Ecoworldly a while ago.

A see-saw that generates electricity when played on by children? Now there is this simple looking see-saw which when played on by children in Africa, generates electricity to help power up their school. It has no name yet but if this trend continues, it looks like Africa will be one very big playground for green play, literally.

You wanna play, somebody?

Read more of this story »

While virtually everyone is familiar with the use of biodiesel as a substitute for diesel fuel, there are a few novel uses that may not have crossed your radar. Biodiesel can produce hydrogen, clean up oil spills, degrease your tools, heat your home, and more.

Here’s My Top 15 Unexpected Uses for Biodiesel:

1. Producing Hydrogen for Fuel-Cell Vehicles

This was the big story of the month: Researchers at InnovaTek have developed hand-sized microreactors that can turn biodiesel (or any other liquid fuel) into a hydrogen stream for use in an adjoining fuel-cell. Chevron has already invested $500,000 to develop hydrogen refueling stations for fuel-cell powered cars. InnovaTek hopes to eventually install the microreactors in vehicles, which would allow cars to fill up on biodiesel but be powered by a much more efficient and even cleaner-burning electric drivetrain. See the full story here.

Read more of this story »

In January, Scientific American writers unleashed an ambitious plan to halt global warming, eliminate our dependence on petroleum and the substantial trade deficit, boost the economy and create 3 million jobs, and brighten the dismal forecasts for the mid twenty-first century.

The plan is conceptually simple but would be substantial to implement:

• Construct a 30,000 square mile array of solar panels in the Southwest,
• along with concentrated solar power arrays and,
• a massive direct-current power transmission backbone to distribute electricity throughout the country.
• Excess power produced by the photovoltaic arrays would be distributed and stored as compressed air in below-ground caverns.

Development of such a system could provide almost three-quarters of the nation’s electricity by 2050.

Read more of this story »

]]> http://gas2.org/2008/03/25/how-solar-panels-could-power-90-of-us-transportation/feed/ http://ecoworldly.com/2008/02/24/korea-to-decrease-co2-emissions-with-the-act-on-climate-change/ http://ecoworldly.com/2008/02/24/korea-to-decrease-co2-emissions-with-the-act-on-climate-change/#comments Sun, 24 Feb 2008 08:12:24 +0000 Gavin Hudson http://ecoworldly.com/2008/02/24/korea-to-decrease-co2-emissions-with-the-act-on-climate-change/ Korea’s rapid industrialization can be felt everywhere, from the coastal landscapes, which are dotted with factories, to the large cities–Seoul, Busan, and Daegu–which often have air quality so poor that skylines are swallowed in smog.

Now, the outgoing government of Korea has passed new legislation to combat this pollution and join in the international battle against climate change.

The aptly named “Act on Climate Change” will establish an emissions trading market, raise the bar for renewable energy, assist in reducing industrial, home, and vehicle emissions, and increase carbon capture.

Read more of this story »

]]> http://ecoworldly.com/2008/02/24/korea-to-decrease-co2-emissions-with-the-act-on-climate-change/feed/ http://mikegarofalo.greenoptions.com/2007/11/21/power-to-the-people-ch-ch-ch-changes/ http://mikegarofalo.greenoptions.com/2007/11/21/power-to-the-people-ch-ch-ch-changes/#comments Wed, 21 Nov 2007 13:36:47 +0000 Mike Garofalo http://mikegarofalo.greenoptions.com/2007/11/21/power-to-the-people-ch-ch-ch-changes/  

Ch-ch-ch-ch-Changes….

Senator Barack Obama is the junior US Senator representing the state of Illinois in the US Senate. He was elected to the Senate in 2004 and is serving in his first term. Previously, Obama had served as a 3-term Illinois state senator. Barack is married to his wife, Michelle, and they have two young daughters.

Obama, even as a freshman US Senator, is in the ‘top tier’ of Democratic candidates for President. He has visited New Hampshire more than 20 times, spending more than a month’s worth of time traveling across the Granite State. He has been virtually in every corner of this state bringing his messages of hope to Democratic and Independent voters here.

Obama’s reputation for delivering passionate speeches full of hope and promise is legendary. He is often compared to Senator Robert F. Kennedy for his ability to inspire and motivate those who hear him. But for all his inspirations and hope, Obama appears to be a man of great contradictions, at least as far as renewable energy issues are concerned.

I caught up with Senator Obama in mid May traveling through NH’s seacoast area. At a town hall meeting, I asked him, as I have asked all of the candidates, about his views on promoting clean energy. Obama’s response, “I have been leading the bipartisan effort to raise CAFÉ standards and to promote the development and use of hybrid cars.”  Well, raising CAFÉ standards is a good idea and hybrid cars are great but I really wanted some depth (and inspiration) from this man.

I followed up with my usual follow-up question about how can we make America more energy independent and he replied, “I am also working on a bipartisan effort to produce more clean coal.”  Not quite what I had hoped he would say. His candidacy and his campaign positions offer some opposing views.

Last month, Senator Obama unveiled details of an ambitious energy policy, right here in New Hampshire. Unlike in most of the presidential debates, clean energy is a real concern of the voters here, so announcing his plan in NH made sense.  Senator Obama supports:

* A Cap-and-Trade system that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050. This seems to be the standard against which all ‘green’ candidates are being measured. Obama wants the emission permits to be auctioned rather than allocated, which would a lot of money that he wants dedicated to clean energy research and development.

* He supports a national renewable portfolio standard that would require 25% of US electricity to be generated from renewable sources by the year 2025.

* He supports huge and continued subsidies for corn-derived ethanol production, which would certainly help farmers in Illinois, but do little to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But, he does support expanded use and development of cellulosic biofuel production. 

* There is another issue that Obama has supported that has not won him many friends in the environmental and renewable energy communities. He strongly supports expanding and developing more ‘clean coal’ technologies. He also wants to invest in lower emission coal plants. Again, this would help southern Illinois coal producers, but at the expense of exacerbating greenhouse gas emissions.

* Obama has stated that, ”The U.S. is recognized as the global leader in understanding better geologic coal-sequestration technologies. If we abandon that leadership, we risk leaving the rest of the planet wide open to investing billions in polluting infrastructure.”

* He would support signing the Kyoto protocols to demonstrate American leadership in battling global warming. Obama would prefer a new international global warming partnership.

* As recently as the last Democratic debate (in Las Vegas) Obama reiterated his support, albeit lukewarm, for nuclear power. He reminds us that nuclear currently provides over 70 percent of our non-carbon generated electricity. But he does understand that there are significant safety and waste issues that are cause for real concern. Nonetheless, his support is undeterred because of our dependence on foreign fossil fuels.

* Obama wishes to invest $150 Billion over the next ten years to develop renewable energy technologies in the United States.

* Another courageous stand, that many candidates are not advocating, is conservation. Obama would like to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 35% by 2030.

* He is also promoting energy efficiency by making federal government buildings more energy efficient. His energy efficiency plans also call for the phasing out of traditional incandescent lightbulbs by 2014.

* Obama also wants the federal government to lead America in the use of clean energy. He wants 30 percent of the government’s electricity use to come from clean energy by 2020.

* Obama has authored or co-authored over 100 eco-friendly bills in the US Senate and promises this set of issues will have a prominent place in the Obama Administration. 

Senator Barack Obama is a man full of hope, promise, and complicated positions and beliefs. He is a compelling candidate, with some really strong environmental beliefs. But in his short political career, his positions on a variety of issues have changed, and so has he.

As David Bowie might sing, “Time may change me, But I can’t trace time…..”

Next week: Former NY City Mayor Rudy Giuliani

SmartPower - The national, non-profit marketing organization that is leading the creation of a voluntary market for clean energy and energy efficiency.

Barack Obama’s Presidential Website

Image Credit: Flickr - Obama at UNH, Durham, NH - February 2007

Mike Garofalo’s Previous ‘Power to the People’ Columns

Our history hampers a national grid

Hundreds of tiny local entities own small portions of our grid. None of them have enough income to seriously expand it. The cost and risk causes investors to require a high rate of return; which adds to the cost of transmission services, which arouses public opposition to new transmission proposals, which in turn add to the risk of investment. This has become a vicious cycle.

Balkanization of ownership hinders economies of scale and discourages investment. Complex and fragmented regulatory jurisdictions increase transaction costs, slow the permitting process, and add to the risk and uncertainty of transmission investments. Currently each state has its own transmission siting process and uses different parameters and terminology in evaluating transmission projects.

Each state has separate regulations for electric utilities in the state, making it difficult now to cross state lines as we must to build a national super grid. Half the country is served by regulated public utilities, and half is private. And there is a huge number of private, investor‐owned utilities. With the majority of transmission assets are privately owned, horizontal integration is extremely difficult.

Because of these barriers, there has been a sustained underinvestment in transmission for decades, even aside from the need for a major grid upgrade to add renewable energy.

This has created another problem:

Antiquated infrastructure

Due to years of underinvestment, most of the technology is between 25 and 60 years old. Antiquated transmission infrastructure is not only limiting the utilization of renewable energy resources, but it is also hindering means of mitigating their intermittency.

Our grid was designed to deliver local power from small coal-fired utilities to the consumers near by. Even without adding stranded renewable power, transmission bottlenecks impact daily power delivery.

Like herding cats

All these convoluted sociopolitical and institutional obstacles have historically prevented the modernization of transmission infrastructure. Not just NIMBYism, but balkanized ownership, fragmented regulatory authorities, and institutional disincentives are in the way.

Unlike most other countries, the United States cannot easily restructure its electricity sector by divesting state‐owned generation assets and consolidating transmission assets into a national monopoly. FERC can only attempt to cajole this multitude of owners and interests to a common cause.

Two thirds of the population (in the Northeast, Mid‐Atlantic, and much of the Midwest, Texas, and California) have competitive power markets operated under an ISO or a RTO; the rest of the country has traditional vertically integrated utilities.

Currently all the counties, townships, and communities along the transmission line can require local approval. And if the line crosses any federal lands or waterways, it will require additional approvals from relevant federal agencies.

A major risk to a transmission project is the possible failure in obtaining site approval from multiple jurisdictions. There have been cases where transmission projects were canceled due to continued local opposition even after site approval. Many states now have renewable energy contracts stuck in this limbo.

Our generation well outpaces transmission abilities - hindering renewable adoption

Easier for other nations to “socialize” grid

Other countries have consolidated multiple antique little grids into one single entity with ease, to easily integrate new renewable power. A unique historical legacy left the United States with an outdated transmission infrastructure and an ineffective institutional structure.

The UK completed their restructuring into one national grid in one year, by 1990. China completed theirs in three months. They had had a similarly fragmented vertically integrated utility sector as we still do; till 2002. They switched from 12 local grids to just 2 in just three months.

Only our old regulatory structure hinders us from upgrading the electricity grid. Yet our oil and gas pipelines easily traverse the nation.

Images from HistoryWiz and Flikr users and  Zephyra of the SW and CSullivan and frogdog*
Graphs and study:  Policy Barriers to Electrical Transmission

]]> http://mikegarofalo.greenoptions.com/2007/11/21/power-to-the-people-ch-ch-ch-changes/feed/ http://shirleysilukgregory.greenoptions.com/2007/11/06/good-news-maybe-for-green-collar-workers/ http://shirleysilukgregory.greenoptions.com/2007/11/06/good-news-maybe-for-green-collar-workers/#comments Tue, 06 Nov 2007 20:50:06 +0000 Shirley Siluk Gregory http://shirleysilukgregory.greenoptions.com/2007/11/06/good-news-maybe-for-green-collar-workers/ There’s good news for the future of green-collar employment, but it comes with a caveat: maximizing job growth in green industries will require the right public policy support. That means law-makers need to approve measures such as a renewable portfolio standard, incentives for renewable energy, public education programs and adequate funding for research and development.

If such measures are put in place, the U.S. could see as many as one out of every four workers employed by a renewable-energy or energy-efficiency industry by 2030, according to a new report from the American Solar Energy Society (ASES). That’s promising for both U.S. employees and for anyone concerned about reducing greenhouse gas emissions and our dependence on fossil fuels. But it will happen only, as the ASES report says, under “an aggressive deployment forecast scenario.”

That means we, as citizens and consumers, are going to have to apply strong and steady pressure on legislators — local, state and national — to do the right thing. And that, we all know, isn’t easy.

Still, if — as the saying goes — money walks, green-collar types might see Beltway support grow as green industries expand their economic muscle, which means more dollars for lobbying and campaign financing. And, in that regard, the future looks bright.

In the U.S., renewable-energy and energy-efficiency industries are already generating 8.5 million jobs and nearly $970 billion in annual revenues, according to the ASES report. “To put this in perspective,” the report states, “(t)otal sales for Wal-Mart, Exxon-Mobil and General Motors in 2006 were $905 billion.”

While companies on the energy-efficiency side — things like better windows, efficient appliances and insulation — are making more of the money right now, the renewables side is growing more rapidly.

The ASES predicts the hottest, fastest-growing industries will involve solar power, wind energy, ethanol and fuel-cell technologies. With the right level of public support, it says, we could see up to 40 million people employed — as everything from accountants and biochemists to engineers, mechanics and truck drivers — in the renewable-energy and energy-efficiency sectors by 2030, with annual green-industry revenues of $4.5 trillion.

Getting there, though, will require much more than a business-as-usual approach, the ASES report warns.

“This scenario requires appropriate, aggressive, sustained public policies at the federal and state level during next two decades,” it states. Getting decision-makers to come on board might take oil shortages, fossil-fuel price increases, growing security concerns or a greater awareness of the impact of climate change. The fear of suffering economically at a global level might also be a motivator.

“If we fail to invest in (renewable energy and energy efficiency), the United States runs the risk of losing ground to international … programs and industries,” the report concludes. “For the United States to be competitive in a carbon-constrained world, the (renewable energy and energy efficiency) industry will be a critical economic driver.”

Our history hampers a national grid

Hundreds of tiny local entities own small portions of our grid. None of them have enough income to seriously expand it. The cost and risk causes investors to require a high rate of return; which adds to the cost of transmission services, which arouses public opposition to new transmission proposals, which in turn add to the risk of investment. This has become a vicious cycle.

Balkanization of ownership hinders economies of scale and discourages investment. Complex and fragmented regulatory jurisdictions increase transaction costs, slow the permitting process, and add to the risk and uncertainty of transmission investments. Currently each state has its own transmission siting process and uses different parameters and terminology in evaluating transmission projects.

Each state has separate regulations for electric utilities in the state, making it difficult now to cross state lines as we must to build a national super grid. Half the country is served by regulated public utilities, and half is private. And there is a huge number of private, investor‐owned utilities. With the majority of transmission assets are privately owned, horizontal integration is extremely difficult.

Because of these barriers, there has been a sustained underinvestment in transmission for decades, even aside from the need for a major grid upgrade to add renewable energy.

This has created another problem:

Antiquated infrastructure

Due to years of underinvestment, most of the technology is between 25 and 60 years old. Antiquated transmission infrastructure is not only limiting the utilization of renewable energy resources, but it is also hindering means of mitigating their intermittency.

Our grid was designed to deliver local power from small coal-fired utilities to the consumers near by. Even without adding stranded renewable power, transmission bottlenecks impact daily power delivery.

Like herding cats

All these convoluted sociopolitical and institutional obstacles have historically prevented the modernization of transmission infrastructure. Not just NIMBYism, but balkanized ownership, fragmented regulatory authorities, and institutional disincentives are in the way.

Unlike most other countries, the United States cannot easily restructure its electricity sector by divesting state‐owned generation assets and consolidating transmission assets into a national monopoly. FERC can only attempt to cajole this multitude of owners and interests to a common cause.

Two thirds of the population (in the Northeast, Mid‐Atlantic, and much of the Midwest, Texas, and California) have competitive power markets operated under an ISO or a RTO; the rest of the country has traditional vertically integrated utilities.

Currently all the counties, townships, and communities along the transmission line can require local approval. And if the line crosses any federal lands or waterways, it will require additional approvals from relevant federal agencies.

A major risk to a transmission project is the possible failure in obtaining site approval from multiple jurisdictions. There have been cases where transmission projects were canceled due to continued local opposition even after site approval. Many states now have renewable energy contracts stuck in this limbo.

Our generation well outpaces transmission abilities - hindering renewable adoption

Easier for other nations to “socialize” grid

Other countries have consolidated multiple antique little grids into one single entity with ease, to easily integrate new renewable power. A unique historical legacy left the United States with an outdated transmission infrastructure and an ineffective institutional structure.

The UK completed their restructuring into one national grid in one year, by 1990. China completed theirs in three months. They had had a similarly fragmented vertically integrated utility sector as we still do; till 2002. They switched from 12 local grids to just 2 in just three months.

Only our old regulatory structure hinders us from upgrading the electricity grid. Yet our oil and gas pipelines easily traverse the nation.

Images from HistoryWiz and Flikr users and  Zephyra of the SW and CSullivan and frogdog*
Graphs and study:  Policy Barriers to Electrical Transmission

]]> http://shirleysilukgregory.greenoptions.com/2007/11/06/good-news-maybe-for-green-collar-workers/feed/ http://maxlindberg.greenoptions.com/2007/11/01/greening-the-golden-years-podcast-age-shall-not-weary-them/ http://maxlindberg.greenoptions.com/2007/11/01/greening-the-golden-years-podcast-age-shall-not-weary-them/#comments Thu, 01 Nov 2007 21:27:15 +0000 Max Lindberg http://maxlindberg.greenoptions.com/2007/11/01/greening-the-golden-years-podcast-age-shall-not-weary-them/ Five Australian senior citizens who are committed to the environment, both in terms of reversing damage already done to our planet’s eco-system, and ensuring it doesn’t continue, are the subjects of today’s podcast. Their stories are featured in an article published by the Sydney Morning Herald.

More proof that individual effort, based on one’s skills and background, are empowering the groundswell of grassroots environmentalism around the world.

You can hear the podcast at The Lindberg Report.

Our history hampers a national grid

Hundreds of tiny local entities own small portions of our grid. None of them have enough income to seriously expand it. The cost and risk causes investors to require a high rate of return; which adds to the cost of transmission services, which arouses public opposition to new transmission proposals, which in turn add to the risk of investment. This has become a vicious cycle.

Balkanization of ownership hinders economies of scale and discourages investment. Complex and fragmented regulatory jurisdictions increase transaction costs, slow the permitting process, and add to the risk and uncertainty of transmission investments. Currently each state has its own transmission siting process and uses different parameters and terminology in evaluating transmission projects.

Each state has separate regulations for electric utilities in the state, making it difficult now to cross state lines as we must to build a national super grid. Half the country is served by regulated public utilities, and half is private. And there is a huge number of private, investor‐owned utilities. With the majority of transmission assets are privately owned, horizontal integration is extremely difficult.

Because of these barriers, there has been a sustained underinvestment in transmission for decades, even aside from the need for a major grid upgrade to add renewable energy.

This has created another problem:

Antiquated infrastructure

Due to years of underinvestment, most of the technology is between 25 and 60 years old. Antiquated transmission infrastructure is not only limiting the utilization of renewable energy resources, but it is also hindering means of mitigating their intermittency.

Our grid was designed to deliver local power from small coal-fired utilities to the consumers near by. Even without adding stranded renewable power, transmission bottlenecks impact daily power delivery.

Like herding cats

All these convoluted sociopolitical and institutional obstacles have historically prevented the modernization of transmission infrastructure. Not just NIMBYism, but balkanized ownership, fragmented regulatory authorities, and institutional disincentives are in the way.

Unlike most other countries, the United States cannot easily restructure its electricity sector by divesting state‐owned generation assets and consolidating transmission assets into a national monopoly. FERC can only attempt to cajole this multitude of owners and interests to a common cause.

Two thirds of the population (in the Northeast, Mid‐Atlantic, and much of the Midwest, Texas, and California) have competitive power markets operated under an ISO or a RTO; the rest of the country has traditional vertically integrated utilities.

Currently all the counties, townships, and communities along the transmission line can require local approval. And if the line crosses any federal lands or waterways, it will require additional approvals from relevant federal agencies.

A major risk to a transmission project is the possible failure in obtaining site approval from multiple jurisdictions. There have been cases where transmission projects were canceled due to continued local opposition even after site approval. Many states now have renewable energy contracts stuck in this limbo.

Our generation well outpaces transmission abilities - hindering renewable adoption

Easier for other nations to “socialize” grid

Other countries have consolidated multiple antique little grids into one single entity with ease, to easily integrate new renewable power. A unique historical legacy left the United States with an outdated transmission infrastructure and an ineffective institutional structure.

The UK completed their restructuring into one national grid in one year, by 1990. China completed theirs in three months. They had had a similarly fragmented vertically integrated utility sector as we still do; till 2002. They switched from 12 local grids to just 2 in just three months.

Only our old regulatory structure hinders us from upgrading the electricity grid. Yet our oil and gas pipelines easily traverse the nation.

Images from HistoryWiz and Flikr users and  Zephyra of the SW and CSullivan and frogdog*
Graphs and study:  Policy Barriers to Electrical Transmission

]]> http://maxlindberg.greenoptions.com/2007/11/01/greening-the-golden-years-podcast-age-shall-not-weary-them/feed/ http://mikegarofalo.greenoptions.com/2007/10/31/power-to-the-people-pride-goeth-before-ron-paul-%e2%80%a6/ http://mikegarofalo.greenoptions.com/2007/10/31/power-to-the-people-pride-goeth-before-ron-paul-%e2%80%a6/#comments Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:07:13 +0000 Mike Garofalo http://mikegarofalo.greenoptions.com/2007/10/31/power-to-the-people-pride-goeth-before-ron-paul-%e2%80%a6/

Republican Congressman Ron Paul has been a member of the US House sporadically since 1976. He served terms of 1976 to 1977, 1979 to 1985, and 1997 to present, always serving different Congressional districts of Texas. Paul is a licensed physician and practiced for a number of years before entering politics. He is married, and he and his wife, Carol Wells, have 5 children. Paul ran for President once before, as the Libertarian candidate in 1988. Interestingly, he ran as the Libertarian nominee while registered as a Republican.

Paul has not visited New Hampshire very often. In fact, only Fred Thompson, who entered the presidential race a month ago in September, has visited NH less often than Ron Paul. That may explain why Congressman Paul is mired at 3% in the most recent NH poll.

Paul visited WMUR-TV, Channel 9, and appeared on their popular Conversations with a Candidate program in February. I had the opportunity to ask Congressman Paul if he believed that global warming was a serious problem. His response, "I don’t think that the jury has fully come in on global warming. There is still a lot of debate on that subject."

Given that context, I followed up by asking Paul if he felt that we need to embrace clean energy. Paul’s response: "I am a Free Trader and I think that if Clean Energy were a viable option, it would be more economical in the marketplace."

My final question centered on how Paul felt we should deal with making America energy independent. Paul stated, "We should look at more domestic drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge and we should look at nuclear power as well as a short-term solution."

Paul’s positions, regrettably, are fairly predictable for this self-avowed free trader. Paul supports and believes as follows:

• He doesn’t believe that climate change is an important issue to voters. He has stated that some global warming may be occurring naturally and may not be caused by human beings.
• In a speech before the US House in 2006, Paul stated that "environmentalists go back and forth warning about a coming ice age to then arguing about the dangers of global warming. Fear is constantly generated by politicians to rally the support of the people."
• Paul has voted in favor of offshore drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. He has also voted for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
• Paul would end all subsidies of any kind to all energy companies, including oil companies.
• Paul would suspend the federal gasoline tax when retail gasoline prices hit $3 a gallon.
• Paul co-sponsored legislation that would fast track the federal approval process for oil refinery construction or expansion.
• Paul voted in 2001 against raising CAFÉ standards to 27.5 mpg for 2005 and 2006 cars and trucks.
• Paul supports expanding the use of domestic coal as a fuel source. "Technology is improving all the time and by using coal this might be something that can help the US become more energy independent."
  
• Paul opposes domestic subsidies for the corn industry to support ethanol.
• Paul opposes offering any federal subsidies to the energy technology sector, much like oil, gas and coal have received for many years. As a free market trader, Paul believes that the market will only support the best product at the best price. All subsidies should be stopped.
• Paul opposes a carbon tax. Paul believes that the carbon tax is like legalizing pollution.
• According to Paul, energy independence does not mean that the US has to produce every single ounce of energy used. Paul believes that independence means having no government-mandated policy. If you need oil or energy, you can simply buy it.
• Paul thinks nuclear is a great source of power for the future. Paul believes "…it’s the safest form of energy we have." (Seriously, he actually believes that!)

Paul’s positions are predictable for a free trader and Libertarian at heart, and so will be his finish in the New Hampshire Republican primary. It is highly unlikely that his views will garner double-digit support in the Granite State.

Stay tuned to see if NH voters have the common sense for which I am giving them credit.

Next week: Former Senator Mike Gravel, Democrat from Alaska

SmartPower — the national, non-profit marketing organization that is leading the creation of a voluntary market for clean energy and energy independence

Ron Paul for President Campaign

NH Republican Presidential Poll

Image Credit on Flickr

Also on GO:

Mike Garofalo’s Previous ‘Power to the People’ Columns

Our history hampers a national grid

Hundreds of tiny local entities own small portions of our grid. None of them have enough income to seriously expand it. The cost and risk causes investors to require a high rate of return; which adds to the cost of transmission services, which arouses public opposition to new transmission proposals, which in turn add to the risk of investment. This has become a vicious cycle.

Balkanization of ownership hinders economies of scale and discourages investment. Complex and fragmented regulatory jurisdictions increase transaction costs, slow the permitting process, and add to the risk and uncertainty of transmission investments. Currently each state has its own transmission siting process and uses different parameters and terminology in evaluating transmission projects.

Each state has separate regulations for electric utilities in the state, making it difficult now to cross state lines as we must to build a national super grid. Half the country is served by regulated public utilities, and half is private. And there is a huge number of private, investor‐owned utilities. With the majority of transmission assets are privately owned, horizontal integration is extremely difficult.

Because of these barriers, there has been a sustained underinvestment in transmission for decades, even aside from the need for a major grid upgrade to add renewable energy.

This has created another problem:

Antiquated infrastructure

Due to years of underinvestment, most of the technology is between 25 and 60 years old. Antiquated transmission infrastructure is not only limiting the utilization of renewable energy resources, but it is also hindering means of mitigating their intermittency.

Our grid was designed to deliver local power from small coal-fired utilities to the consumers near by. Even without adding stranded renewable power, transmission bottlenecks impact daily power delivery.

Like herding cats

All these convoluted sociopolitical and institutional obstacles have historically prevented the modernization of transmission infrastructure. Not just NIMBYism, but balkanized ownership, fragmented regulatory authorities, and institutional disincentives are in the way.

Unlike most other countries, the United States cannot easily restructure its electricity sector by divesting state‐owned generation assets and consolidating transmission assets into a national monopoly. FERC can only attempt to cajole this multitude of owners and interests to a common cause.

Two thirds of the population (in the Northeast, Mid‐Atlantic, and much of the Midwest, Texas, and California) have competitive power markets operated under an ISO or a RTO; the rest of the country has traditional vertically integrated utilities.

Currently all the counties, townships, and communities along the transmission line can require local approval. And if the line crosses any federal lands or waterways, it will require additional approvals from relevant federal agencies.

A major risk to a transmission project is the possible failure in obtaining site approval from multiple jurisdictions. There have been cases where transmission projects were canceled due to continued local opposition even after site approval. Many states now have renewable energy contracts stuck in this limbo.

Our generation well outpaces transmission abilities - hindering renewable adoption

Easier for other nations to “socialize” grid

Other countries have consolidated multiple antique little grids into one single entity with ease, to easily integrate new renewable power. A unique historical legacy left the United States with an outdated transmission infrastructure and an ineffective institutional structure.

The UK completed their restructuring into one national grid in one year, by 1990. China completed theirs in three months. They had had a similarly fragmented vertically integrated utility sector as we still do; till 2002. They switched from 12 local grids to just 2 in just three months.

Only our old regulatory structure hinders us from upgrading the electricity grid. Yet our oil and gas pipelines easily traverse the nation.

Images from HistoryWiz and Flikr users and  Zephyra of the SW and CSullivan and frogdog*
Graphs and study:  Policy Barriers to Electrical Transmission

]]> http://mikegarofalo.greenoptions.com/2007/10/31/power-to-the-people-pride-goeth-before-ron-paul-%e2%80%a6/feed/ http://mariasurmamanka.greenoptions.com/2007/10/31/singapore-lands-largest-solar-production-complex/ http://mariasurmamanka.greenoptions.com/2007/10/31/singapore-lands-largest-solar-production-complex/#comments Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:52:40 +0000 Maria Surma Manka http://mariasurmamanka.greenoptions.com/2007/10/31/singapore-lands-largest-solar-production-complex/ Renewable energy is big, big, big: Josh just wrote about the world’s largest wind farm possibly going up in South Dakota (yahoo!), California could see the world’s largest solar power plant, and now Singapore is in the foray with landing the largest solar manufacturing facility the world’s ever seen.

A Norwegian company called Renewable Energy Corporation (REC) will build the complex, which will be completed in different stages to incorporate wafer, cell, and module production. REC already operates the world’s current largest solar plant in Norway, which produces about 650 megawatts of energy annually.

A solar manufacturing plant would be the first of its kind in Southeast Asia, and REC looked at 200 locations before settling on Singapore. A combination of tax incentives, grants, and a skilled workforce were some of the reasons REC liked it. Likewise, Singapore officials are thrilled about playing center stage in the world’s rush to clean technology. Ko Kheng Hwa of the Economic Development Board explained:

The project will be a ‘queen bee’ to attract a hive of solar activities to Singapore — big companies and young start-ups engaged in research and development, manufacturing and innovation, as well as the supplier ecosystem… This investment will be a tremendous boost to our national drive to develop the solar industry.

Once completed in 2010, the capacity of all the products the plant produces will generate up to 1.5 gigawatts (GW) of energy each year — that’s compared to the total global industry output of 2 GW in 2006. That large of an impact, combined with the 3,000 expected jobs, shines a new light on an emerging area of the world hungry for innovative and clean technology.

Accelerating Innovation
All Headline News
Manufacturing.net

Our history hampers a national grid

Hundreds of tiny local entities own small portions of our grid. None of them have enough income to seriously expand it. The cost and risk causes investors to require a high rate of return; which adds to the cost of transmission services, which arouses public opposition to new transmission proposals, which in turn add to the risk of investment. This has become a vicious cycle.

Balkanization of ownership hinders economies of scale and discourages investment. Complex and fragmented regulatory jurisdictions increase transaction costs, slow the permitting process, and add to the risk and uncertainty of transmission investments. Currently each state has its own transmission siting process and uses different parameters and terminology in evaluating transmission projects.

Each state has separate regulations for electric utilities in the state, making it difficult now to cross state lines as we must to build a national super grid. Half the country is served by regulated public utilities, and half is private. And there is a huge number of private, investor‐owned utilities. With the majority of transmission assets are privately owned, horizontal integration is extremely difficult.

Because of these barriers, there has been a sustained underinvestment in transmission for decades, even aside from the need for a major grid upgrade to add renewable energy.

This has created another problem:

Antiquated infrastructure

Due to years of underinvestment, most of the technology is between 25 and 60 years old. Antiquated transmission infrastructure is not only limiting the utilization of renewable energy resources, but it is also hindering means of mitigating their intermittency.

Our grid was designed to deliver local power from small coal-fired utilities to the consumers near by. Even without adding stranded renewable power, transmission bottlenecks impact daily power delivery.

Like herding cats

All these convoluted sociopolitical and institutional obstacles have historically prevented the modernization of transmission infrastructure. Not just NIMBYism, but balkanized ownership, fragmented regulatory authorities, and institutional disincentives are in the way.

Unlike most other countries, the United States cannot easily restructure its electricity sector by divesting state‐owned generation assets and consolidating transmission assets into a national monopoly. FERC can only attempt to cajole this multitude of owners and interests to a common cause.

Two thirds of the population (in the Northeast, Mid‐Atlantic, and much of the Midwest, Texas, and California) have competitive power markets operated under an ISO or a RTO; the rest of the country has traditional vertically integrated utilities.

Currently all the counties, townships, and communities along the transmission line can require local approval. And if the line crosses any federal lands or waterways, it will require additional approvals from relevant federal agencies.

A major risk to a transmission project is the possible failure in obtaining site approval from multiple jurisdictions. There have been cases where transmission projects were canceled due to continued local opposition even after site approval. Many states now have renewable energy contracts stuck in this limbo.

Our generation well outpaces transmission abilities - hindering renewable adoption

Easier for other nations to “socialize” grid

Other countries have consolidated multiple antique little grids into one single entity with ease, to easily integrate new renewable power. A unique historical legacy left the United States with an outdated transmission infrastructure and an ineffective institutional structure.

The UK completed their restructuring into one national grid in one year, by 1990. China completed theirs in three months. They had had a similarly fragmented vertically integrated utility sector as we still do; till 2002. They switched from 12 local grids to just 2 in just three months.

Only our old regulatory structure hinders us from upgrading the electricity grid. Yet our oil and gas pipelines easily traverse the nation.

Images from HistoryWiz and Flikr users and  Zephyra of the SW and CSullivan and frogdog*
Graphs and study:  Policy Barriers to Electrical Transmission

]]> http://mariasurmamanka.greenoptions.com/2007/10/31/singapore-lands-largest-solar-production-complex/feed/ http://maxlindberg.greenoptions.com/2007/10/30/another-north-dakota-david-challenges-the-dea/ http://maxlindberg.greenoptions.com/2007/10/30/another-north-dakota-david-challenges-the-dea/#comments Tue, 30 Oct 2007 19:15:37 +0000 Max Lindberg http://maxlindberg.greenoptions.com/2007/10/30/another-north-dakota-david-challenges-the-dea/ I love David and Goliath stories, and the recent news from North Dakota is just that: two farmers and a publicly funded land grant university sticking it to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). As you know from an earlier article on Green Options , and my subsequent podcast Greening the Golden Years Podcast: Hemp, The North Dakota Story, two North Dakota farmers, State Rep. Dave Monson and Wayne Hauge filed a lawsuit to end the DEA’s ban on state-regulated commercial hemp farming in the U.S.

Now comes North Dakota State University, with a current student body of around 12,000, filing an amicus brief in support of the two farmers. And NDSU has its own bone to pick with the DEA: an almost unbelievable snub of the small school.

In 1999, according to a news release from Vote Hemp, the university applied for permission to grow non-drug industrial hemp to create varieties best suited for the North Dakota climate and soil conditions. The DEA, according to the release, has chosen to ignore completely the 8 year old request. How’s that for big brother arrogance?

The DEA still holds that industrial hemp, almost completely bereft of the hallucinogenic compound that produces a "high," can be used as a drug. I read somewhere that smoking industrial hemp would produce nothing more than a bad headache.

According to the news release,

Gold can hypothetically and has in some instances been extracted from seawater, but the minimal concentration makes it technically and economically inefficient and commercially non-viable to do so. There are trace opiates in poppy seeds consumed on bagels, that could also be hypothetically be concentrated; but just as with industrial hemp is not a practical source of drugs for the illicit market

So what’s the big deal, DEA?

The farmers’ case will be heard in federal court on Wednesday, November 14, 2007, in Bismark, North Dakota. A press conference will follow, and I’ll have an article and hopefully an interview that same day.

In any case, let’s hear it loud and clear for the "Davids" of this world who aren’t afraid to stand up and cry "foul." It’s time someone put the DEA’s feet to the fire. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California could have set up the same scenario by signing a bill that passed through the state legislature, asking for approval to grow industrial hemp in four California counties. Arnold obviously didn’t have the stomach for a possible showdown with the DEA, and vetoed the publicly supported legislation. Strange, too, because Schwarzenegger has been a big proponent of environmentalism, but, on the other hand had the temerity to tell a columnist that "marijuana is not a drug, it’s a leaf."

Our history hampers a national grid

Hundreds of tiny local entities own small portions of our grid. None of them have enough income to seriously expand it. The cost and risk causes investors to require a high rate of return; which adds to the cost of transmission services, which arouses public opposition to new transmission proposals, which in turn add to the risk of investment. This has become a vicious cycle.

Balkanization of ownership hinders economies of scale and discourages investment. Complex and fragmented regulatory jurisdictions increase transaction costs, slow the permitting process, and add to the risk and uncertainty of transmission investments. Currently each state has its own transmission siting process and uses different parameters and terminology in evaluating transmission projects.

Each state has separate regulations for electric utilities in the state, making it difficult now to cross state lines as we must to build a national super grid. Half the country is served by regulated public utilities, and half is private. And there is a huge number of private, investor‐owned utilities. With the majority of transmission assets are privately owned, horizontal integration is extremely difficult.

Because of these barriers, there has been a sustained underinvestment in transmission for decades, even aside from the need for a major grid upgrade to add renewable energy.

This has created another problem:

Antiquated infrastructure

Due to years of underinvestment, most of the technology is between 25 and 60 years old. Antiquated transmission infrastructure is not only limiting the utilization of renewable energy resources, but it is also hindering means of mitigating their intermittency.

Our grid was designed to deliver local power from small coal-fired utilities to the consumers near by. Even without adding stranded renewable power, transmission bottlenecks impact daily power delivery.

Like herding cats

All these convoluted sociopolitical and institutional obstacles have historically prevented the modernization of transmission infrastructure. Not just NIMBYism, but balkanized ownership, fragmented regulatory authorities, and institutional disincentives are in the way.

Unlike most other countries, the United States cannot easily restructure its electricity sector by divesting state‐owned generation assets and consolidating transmission assets into a national monopoly. FERC can only attempt to cajole this multitude of owners and interests to a common cause.

Two thirds of the population (in the Northeast, Mid‐Atlantic, and much of the Midwest, Texas, and California) have competitive power markets operated under an ISO or a RTO; the rest of the country has traditional vertically integrated utilities.

Currently all the counties, townships, and communities along the transmission line can require local approval. And if the line crosses any federal lands or waterways, it will require additional approvals from relevant federal agencies.

A major risk to a transmission project is the possible failure in obtaining site approval from multiple jurisdictions. There have been cases where transmission projects were canceled due to continued local opposition even after site approval. Many states now have renewable energy contracts stuck in this limbo.

Our generation well outpaces transmission abilities - hindering renewable adoption

Easier for other nations to “socialize” grid

Other countries have consolidated multiple antique little grids into one single entity with ease, to easily integrate new renewable power. A unique historical legacy left the United States with an outdated transmission infrastructure and an ineffective institutional structure.

The UK completed their restructuring into one national grid in one year, by 1990. China completed theirs in three months. They had had a similarly fragmented vertically integrated utility sector as we still do; till 2002. They switched from 12 local grids to just 2 in just three months.

Only our old regulatory structure hinders us from upgrading the electricity grid. Yet our oil and gas pipelines easily traverse the nation.

Images from HistoryWiz and Flikr users and  Zephyra of the SW and CSullivan and frogdog*
Graphs and study:  Policy Barriers to Electrical Transmission

]]> http://maxlindberg.greenoptions.com/2007/10/30/another-north-dakota-david-challenges-the-dea/feed/ http://mariasurmamanka.greenoptions.com/2007/10/29/minneapolis-mayor-first-to-use-plug-in-hybrid-as-official-car/ http://mariasurmamanka.greenoptions.com/2007/10/29/minneapolis-mayor-first-to-use-plug-in-hybrid-as-official-car/#comments Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:21:36 +0000 Maria Surma Manka http://mariasurmamanka.greenoptions.com/2007/10/29/minneapolis-mayor-first-to-use-plug-in-hybrid-as-official-car/

Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak may be the first mayor in the nation to drive a plug-in hybrid vehicle as his official city car.

Since he was first elected in 2002, Mayor Rybak’s official car has been a Toyota Prius. But the dramatically superior gas mileage of a plug-in hybrid vehicle prompted him to make the switch: he had his hybrid converted to a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle, from which he expects to get about 70 miles per gallon (mpg) compared to his average 40 mpg with the Prius.

A plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) is like a regular hybrid with a cord. That is, its battery can be recharged by plugging it into a regular 120-volt outlet.

Typical of many PHEVs, Mayor Rybak’s car can travel about 30 miles solely on battery power if the speeds are 30 mph or less. If he drives further or needs to go faster, the car automatically switches over to using the gas engine. But for local city driving — when speeds are low and distances are shorter — he could go days without using any gasoline to power the engine.

Although most of Minnesota’s electricity comes from coal power, powering a vehicle with the electric grid is still cleaner than gasoline. But the Mayor and other city officials want to make it even cleaner: Minneapolis has applied for a state grant to install solar panels on some city buildings so that future plug-in cars could charge up using solar power instead of fossil fuels. Rybak told the Minnesota Daily:

It became clear to me that the two big things we had to do were convert to plug-in hybrids and find a way to have them use electricity from non-coal sources … I become very frustrated with people saying we need to do years of research on all these issues. Research is great, but the technology is there right now.

Last year, Minnesota became the first state in the nation to pass legislation promoting plug-in hybrids. The law instructs the state to buy plug-in hybrids on a preferred basis when they become available and encourages Minnesota State University - Mankato to develop flex-fuel plug-in hybrid vehicles (plug-ins that can run on an ethanol blend).

Minneapolis has about 100 government vehicles that are either hybrids or use E-85 fuel (an 85 percent ethanol, 15 percent gasoline blend). Leadership from the city and supportive government policies could make plug-in hybrids a more common occurrence on Twin Cities roads.

BIOconversion Blog
Cal Cars
City of Minneapolis
Minnesota Daily

Photo Source: City of Minneapolis

Our history hampers a national grid

Hundreds of tiny local entities own small portions of our grid. None of them have enough income to seriously expand it. The cost and risk causes investors to require a high rate of return; which adds to the cost of transmission services, which arouses public opposition to new transmission proposals, which in turn add to the risk of investment. This has become a vicious cycle.

Balkanization of ownership hinders economies of scale and discourages investment. Complex and fragmented regulatory jurisdictions increase transaction costs, slow the permitting process, and add to the risk and uncertainty of transmission investments. Currently each state has its own transmission siting process and uses different parameters and terminology in evaluating transmission projects.

Each state has separate regulations for electric utilities in the state, making it difficult now to cross state lines as we must to build a national super grid. Half the country is served by regulated public utilities, and half is private. And there is a huge number of private, investor‐owned utilities. With the majority of transmission assets are privately owned, horizontal integration is extremely difficult.

Because of these barriers, there has been a sustained underinvestment in transmission for decades, even aside from the need for a major grid upgrade to add renewable energy.

This has created another problem:

Antiquated infrastructure

Due to years of underinvestment, most of the technology is between 25 and 60 years old. Antiquated transmission infrastructure is not only limiting the utilization of renewable energy resources, but it is also hindering means of mitigating their intermittency.

Our grid was designed to deliver local power from small coal-fired utilities to the consumers near by. Even without adding stranded renewable power, transmission bottlenecks impact daily power delivery.

Like herding cats

All these convoluted sociopolitical and institutional obstacles have historically prevented the modernization of transmission infrastructure. Not just NIMBYism, but balkanized ownership, fragmented regulatory authorities, and institutional disincentives are in the way.

Unlike most other countries, the United States cannot easily restructure its electricity sector by divesting state‐owned generation assets and consolidating transmission assets into a national monopoly. FERC can only attempt to cajole this multitude of owners and interests to a common cause.

Two thirds of the population (in the Northeast, Mid‐Atlantic, and much of the Midwest, Texas, and California) have competitive power markets operated under an ISO or a RTO; the rest of the country has traditional vertically integrated utilities.

Currently all the counties, townships, and communities along the transmission line can require local approval. And if the line crosses any federal lands or waterways, it will require additional approvals from relevant federal agencies.

A major risk to a transmission project is the possible failure in obtaining site approval from multiple jurisdictions. There have been cases where transmission projects were canceled due to continued local opposition even after site approval. Many states now have renewable energy contracts stuck in this limbo.

Our generation well outpaces transmission abilities - hindering renewable adoption

Easier for other nations to “socialize” grid

Other countries have consolidated multiple antique little grids into one single entity with ease, to easily integrate new renewable power. A unique historical legacy left the United States with an outdated transmission infrastructure and an ineffective institutional structure.

The UK completed their restructuring into one national grid in one year, by 1990. China completed theirs in three months. They had had a similarly fragmented vertically integrated utility sector as we still do; till 2002. They switched from 12 local grids to just 2 in just three months.

Only our old regulatory structure hinders us from upgrading the electricity grid. Yet our oil and gas pipelines easily traverse the nation.

Images from HistoryWiz and Flikr users and  Zephyra of the SW and CSullivan and frogdog*
Graphs and study:  Policy Barriers to Electrical Transmission

]]> http://mariasurmamanka.greenoptions.com/2007/10/29/minneapolis-mayor-first-to-use-plug-in-hybrid-as-official-car/feed/ http://maxlindberg.greenoptions.com/2007/10/25/greening-the-golden-years-podcast-great-grandmother-activist-ex-con-and-now-mayoral-candidate/ http://maxlindberg.greenoptions.com/2007/10/25/greening-the-golden-years-podcast-great-grandmother-activist-ex-con-and-now-mayoral-candidate/#comments Thu, 25 Oct 2007 14:19:29 +0000 Max Lindberg http://maxlindberg.greenoptions.com/2007/10/25/greening-the-golden-years-podcast-great-grandmother-activist-ex-con-and-now-mayoral-candidate/ She’s back, ready for another challenge and promising to stay active as an environmental protester. Betty Krawczyk is in the news again, this time planning to run for Mayor of Vancouver, BC, Canada in November of 2008. I talked with her after her release from the Alouette Correctional Center a few weeks after our first interview, and she spoke of many things: the new political party she’s joined as a candidate, the ills of Vancouver, and what she plans for it’s future should she be elected Mayor.

There’s more on Betty in the companion article I wrote that features several links to her personal website and blog, and to other articles about her. This is one tough lady, who’s as gentle and caring as you might imagine a great-grandmother to be. But she won’t back down from a fight; she picks them. Listen to the interview, then check out the companion article.

Our history hampers a national grid

Hundreds of tiny local entities own small portions of our grid. None of them have enough income to seriously expand it. The cost and risk causes investors to require a high rate of return; which adds to the cost of transmission services, which arouses public opposition to new transmission proposals, which in turn add to the risk of investment. This has become a vicious cycle.

Balkanization of ownership hinders economies of scale and discourages investment. Complex and fragmented regulatory jurisdictions increase transaction costs, slow the permitting process, and add to the risk and uncertainty of transmission investments. Currently each state has its own transmission siting process and uses different parameters and terminology in evaluating transmission projects.

Each state has separate regulations for electric utilities in the state, making it difficult now to cross state lines as we must to build a national super grid. Half the country is served by regulated public utilities, and half is private. And there is a huge number of private, investor‐owned utilities. With the majority of transmission assets are privately owned, horizontal integration is extremely difficult.

Because of these barriers, there has been a sustained underinvestment in transmission for decades, even aside from the need for a major grid upgrade to add renewable energy.

This has created another problem:

Antiquated infrastructure

Due to years of underinvestment, most of the technology is between 25 and 60 years old. Antiquated transmission infrastructure is not only limiting the utilization of renewable energy resources, but it is also hindering means of mitigating their intermittency.

Our grid was designed to deliver local power from small coal-fired utilities to the consumers near by. Even without adding stranded renewable power, transmission bottlenecks impact daily power delivery.

Like herding cats

All these convoluted sociopolitical and institutional obstacles have historically prevented the modernization of transmission infrastructure. Not just NIMBYism, but balkanized ownership, fragmented regulatory authorities, and institutional disincentives are in the way.

Unlike most other countries, the United States cannot easily restructure its electricity sector by divesting state‐owned generation assets and consolidating transmission assets into a national monopoly. FERC can only attempt to cajole this multitude of owners and interests to a common cause.

Two thirds of the population (in the Northeast, Mid‐Atlantic, and much of the Midwest, Texas, and California) have competitive power markets operated under an ISO or a RTO; the rest of the country has traditional vertically integrated utilities.

Currently all the counties, townships, and communities along the transmission line can require local approval. And if the line crosses any federal lands or waterways, it will require additional approvals from relevant federal agencies.

A major risk to a transmission project is the possible failure in obtaining site approval from multiple jurisdictions. There have been cases where transmission projects were canceled due to continued local opposition even after site approval. Many states now have renewable energy contracts stuck in this limbo.

Our generation well outpaces transmission abilities - hindering renewable adoption

Easier for other nations to “socialize” grid

Other countries have consolidated multiple antique little grids into one single entity with ease, to easily integrate new renewable power. A unique historical legacy left the United States with an outdated transmission infrastructure and an ineffective institutional structure.

The UK completed their restructuring into one national grid in one year, by 1990. China completed theirs in three months. They had had a similarly fragmented vertically integrated utility sector as we still do; till 2002. They switched from 12 local grids to just 2 in just three months.

Only our old regulatory structure hinders us from upgrading the electricity grid. Yet our oil and gas pipelines easily traverse the nation.

Images from HistoryWiz and Flikr users and  Zephyra of the SW and CSullivan and frogdog*
Graphs and study:  Policy Barriers to Electrical Transmission

]]> http://maxlindberg.greenoptions.com/2007/10/25/greening-the-golden-years-podcast-great-grandmother-activist-ex-con-and-now-mayoral-candidate/feed/