250 mile transmission line

[tolex42]

An extra-high voltage transmission line proposed to run 250 miles across West Virginia received approval June 22 from regional grid manager PJM Interconnection.

Dubbed the Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline, the line would extend from the John Amos substation in Putnam County to the Bedington substation in the Eastern Panhandle and east from there to Kemptown, Md. 290 miles in total.

The "PATH," 765 kilovolts for most of its length, would cross at least 12 West Virginia counties.

It would be constructed for a June 2012 completion date under a joint venture between American Electric Power and Allegheny Energy, the two utilities announced in April.

This is the second transmission line PJM has directed to cross West Virginia in the past year.

Last summer, PJM approved a 500-kV Allegheny Energy line from southwestern Pennsylvania across West Virginia to Virginia. Called the Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line, or "TrAIL," the 114-mile West Virginia portion crosses six northern counties and has met with strong opposition. It is in process with the state Public Service Commission.

Blackouts Foreseen

With growing demand for electricity in the East, PJM's annual Regional Transmission Expansion Plan, or RTEP, sees the grid becoming over-loaded - resulting in blackouts, according to Michael Kormos, senior vice president for reliability services.

"There were approximately 13 high-voltage transmission lines that we saw overloading as early as 2012," Kormos said in a conference call about the RTEP approval. "The grid is not able to carry the flow that we modeled."

RTEP planners look 15 years into the future, seeking to predict changes in load and to evaluate possible needs.

"We looked at different upgrades that could be done," Kormos said. "The Amos-to-Kemptown line was by far the best at relieving those overloads."

Benefits and Costs

But while the primary motivation for the line, PJM officials said, is grid stability, money is another important aspect.

Who benefits? And who pays?

Along with another line approved last week by PJM, this line is expected to reduce the cost of providing electricity to eastern power consumers.

"These two new lines ... have the secondary benefit of resolving about $450 million in annual congestion costs," said PJM president and CEO Phillip G. Harris on announcing approval of the RTEP.

Those congestion costs result, in general, when Eastern demand is met through local but expensive natural gas-fired generation rather than through in-expensive Midwestern and Appalachian coal-fired power.

"Eastern coastal heat waves are the most difficult situations," explained Mike Bryson, PJM manager of dispatch operations. When air conditioners run on high across the East, transmission

West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin sent a letter to FERC June 15 protesting the decision.

"West Virginians have always been proud to take the lead in powering this country," Manchin wrote, "but to expect them to do the heavy lifting of generating and delivering so much of America's power and then pay for others' use of the power is simply unfair."

Some Factors Not Considered capacity across the mountains becomes jammed, and the power demand has to be met locally.

So these costs show up as higher rates for eastern power users.

Yet it's unclear where congestion savings would show up. Any cost reduction, should one result, might benefit the eastern users, the providers that serve them or both.

"Wholesale prices in the east potentially could be lower," said PJM's Kormos. "But it's based on forecasted conditions, so a lot of it will depend on fuel costs five to six years from now and how those costs get allocated is up to the utilities."

What is clear is who will pay the $1.8 billion cost of the line: all power users in PJM's 13-state territory, West Virginians included.

An April decision from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ordered the cost of new transmission at or more than 500 kV would be shared by all users in the region.

For the shorter 500-kV TrAIL, that is estimated at $0.90 per month for Allegheny Power residential customers and $0.35 for other West Virginia residential customers. Charges for this longer, bigger line may be higher.

Opponents of the TrAIL, where Allegheny Energy's preferred route would cross and be visible from many homes and private properties, have argued that Eastern power demand should be met through new generation capacity in the East.

At the national level, some have faulted a grid planning process that simply assumes both demand growth and insufficient generation in the East.

"Building (these two lines in West Virginia) will make these assumptions self-fulfilling prophecies," wrote Environmental Defense and the Clean Air Council in a comment letter on the RTEP.

Some also have questioned the wisdom of planning transmission investments around coal as an economical fuel just as Congress prepares to take on carbon di-oxide regulation later this summer - a move that would raise the cost of coalfired generation.

These considerations are not part of PJM's RTEP process.

"On the reliability analysis we did, we don't look at fuel type," Kormos said. "We're simply looking at where is existing excess generation, where is the load, and can the system in fact deliver it?"

The routing study and environmental assessment stage should take about a year, according to AEP spokesperson Melissa McHenry. The next step would be to apply to the PSC for approval to site the line.

The PSC may not have the final word, however. A National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor recently proposed by the Department of Energy encompasses 38 West Virginia counties, including those that would be crossed by the PATH. If finalized as proposed, then FERC will have eminent domain authority to site the line should the PSC delay or deny approval.

Copyright State Journal Corporation Jun 29, 2007

(c) 2007 State Journal, The. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.

[Stinger]

Tolex- very interesting article. Was there any word when this project may start?

[tolex42]

Tolex- very interesting article. Was there any word when this project may start?

Proably start footers in mid or late 2008

[Hemingray Insulators]

mabey i'll have to get on as a union app on this project for a while lol.

[lager]

Tolex42,
I am currently on the "waiting for placement list" with NEAT for local 1319 and have read a lot of your very informative posts on NEATS forum.
Yesterday I was reading an article in the Times-Tribune (Scranton, PA) about the Susquehanna-Roseland line. If this line is passed, would 1319 be putting on more Apps for this job? Just curious if all these new transmission lines would mean more Apps called.
It was a very interesting article, and just like the "Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line" it too has been met with major resistance.
Here is the article incase anyone is interested:

Proposed power line through region sparks concerns.
Imagine a new interstate highway, six to eight lanes wide, slicing across the landscape of Northeastern Pennsylvania.
But there are no cars, no trucks, no traffic jams — just electricity on the move, racing through lines suspended from high towers, en route from PPL Corp.’s Susquehanna nuclear plant to power-hungry homes and businesses along the Eastern Seaboard.
“That’s actually a good analogy,” PPL spokesman George Lewis said. “These are like highways ... High voltage at high speed.”The Allentown-based PPL and two utility partners are quietly forging ahead with plans for a $960 million transmission line that will knife through the region on its way from the nuclear power plant in southern Luzerne County to a substation in northern New Jersey.
PPL officials say the siting of the 500,000-kilovolt Susquehanna-Roseland line — so designated for its beginning and ending points — is still an undetermined work in progress.
The transmission line will be strung from 150-foot-tall steel towers along a right of way 200 feet wide, and environmental groups worry about the impact on scenic or environmentally sensitive habitats, particularly in the Pocono Mountains.
But the siting process will also be played out against the backdrop of a controversial proposal that would let the federal government override state officials when it comes to routing major transmission lines.
For these reasons and others, the planned line is one of several drawing scrutiny from the state chapter of the Sierra Club.
“We haven’t seen evidence that this power line is needed to serve electricity consumers in Pennsylvania,” the chapter director, Jeff Schmidt, said.
The Susquehanna-Roseland line was authorized in late June by Valley Forge-based PJM Interconnection, which operates the power grid serving 51 million people in Pennsylvania and a dozen other mid-Atlantic and Midwest states, plus the District of Columbia.
The line is intended to address overloads anticipated as early as 2013 on 23 existing transmission lines in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. It still must win approval from utility regulators in both states.
PPL, which expects to spend $320 million on its share of the project, is consulting with partners Public Service Electric and Gas Co. of Newark, N.J., and FirstEnergy Corp. of Akron, Ohio, to identify possible routes.
Essentially, PPL must determine how best to get the Pennsylvania section of the line to the Delaware River, while its counterparts do the same with the New Jersey portion. The problem, Mr. Lewis said, is the optimum route through Pennsylvania may not end where the optimum route through New Jersey begins.
“We’re working with them to bring the potential routes into clearer view,” Mr. Lewis said.
A map prepared by PJM last spring shows the line sweeping northeast from the Berwick area past Wilkes-Barre to a point north of Scranton. From there, it cuts due east through southern Wayne County and into Pike County before diving southeast, crossing over into New Jersey near Delaware Water Gap.
PPL officials insist the map was merely for illustration purposes and depicts just one possible route.
They acknowledged, however, that the prospective route follows the path of an existing right of way — and an existing 230,000-kilovolt line on towers that could be upgraded to carry a 500,000-kilovolt line — between the Susquehanna plant and a substation in Blakely. Other existing rights of way extend to the Delaware River.
Mr. Lewis said when siting transmission lines, the availability of an existing right of way is a factor utilities look at for two reasons: There is no need to negotiate with property owners for a new right of way — an often costly and time-consuming endeavor — and if there is already a line in place, aesthetics is less of an issue.
Another PPL spokesman, Ryan Hill, cautioned against reading too much into the PJM map or even into the fact the utility has existing rights of way that will be reviewed as part of the routing process. Although a route along existing rights of way might be “a sensible path,” it is not the only option, he said.
“There’s no guarantee that it’s going to run that way,” Mr. Hill said.
Beyond right of way issues, Mr. Lewis said a host of factors, including environmental concerns, engineering and design considerations and costs, will go into the route selection process. There also will be opportunity for public input before PPL goes to the state Public Utility Commission with a proposal.
Mr. Lewis said PPL hopes to have siting options available for public scrutiny by late this year or early in 2008.
“We’ll do our best at putting a proposed route together that balances all the interests involved, and that’s what we’ll take to the PUC,” he said.
The Susquehanna-Roseland line is taking shape as the U.S. Department of Energy is being criticized for plans to designate National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors, where the federal government could overrule state regulators on the siting of major power lines.
The proposed Mid-Atlantic Area corridor would encompass 50 of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties, an expanse so broad the Rendell administration has branded it meaningless.
U.S. Rep. Chris Carney, D-Dimock Township, was among a bipartisan group of congressmen who in May joined the Sierra Club and other environmental and historic preservation groups in calling for a pullback of the federal authority over the corridors.
Although Mr. Carney believes the issue needs to be addressed, he does not think the federal government should have the power of eminent domain in people’s back yards, said April Metwalli, the lawmaker’s chief of staff.
“We want to make sure local communities can weigh in on decisions that alter the landscape,” she said.
Environmental advocates say the more basic issue is whether the Susquehanna-Roseland line is truly needed.
Nathan Wilcox, energy advocate for Philadelphia-based Penn Environment, said one of the things his organization always examines is whether greater energy conservation and efficiency could achieve the same end as new construction.
“Why are we building, and is there another way to do this?” Mr. Wilcox asked. “Those are the big questions that often get overlooked.”
The Sierra Club’s Mr. Schmidt said the Susquehanna-Roseland line will be a vehicle for taking electricity generated in Pennsylvania to consumers elsewhere, a situation he finds analogous to the flow of out-of-state trash into Keystone State landfills. In each case, Pennsylvanians suffer the environmental degradation at no benefit to themselves.
“We’re bearing the environmental harms, while the benefits are going to states east of us and north of us,” he said.
PPL is pursuing an ambitious timetable for construction of the line, which PJM says needs to be completed by the summer of 2012 to ensure the continued reliability of its grid. The utility is confident its proposal will pass muster with the PUC as a necessary and environmentally sound project, Mr. Lewis said.
“Very many factors will all get put into the pot and stirred around,” he said. “Before you take anything to the PUC, you want to make sure you’ve considered everything.

Thanks for reading and take care!!
Lineman Hopefull

[tolex42]

Northern U.S. Utilities Seek Approval for 3 Major Transmission Lines

Aug 21, 2007 2:45 PM
Xcel Energy


A group of regional utilities has asked Minnesota regulators to approve construction of three major transmission lines to ensure customers continue to enjoy reliable access to low-cost electricity and to increase access to renewable energy sources.

“The 345-kV lines proposed by the CapX 2020 utilities will help ensure continued reliable electricity service in Minnesota and the surrounding region by upgrading and expanding the high voltage transmission network that is the backbone of the region’s electricity system,” said Terry Grove of Great River Energy, a co-leader of the CapX 2020 effort. “Additionally, the lines will strengthen the network so that more wind energy resources can be developed in southern and western Minnesota and eastern North Dakota and South Dakota.”

The CapX 2020 utilities – an alliance of 11 electric cooperatives, municipals and investor-owned utilities – asked the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission to determine the new high-voltage lines and associated projects are needed. CapX 2020 is short for Capacity Expansion needed by 2020.

The proposed lines would span more than 600 miles and represent one of the largest single transmission initiatives in the region in decades. The approximate lengths and general locations of the proposed lines are as follows:

A 200-mile, 345-kV line between Brookings, South Dakota, and the southeast Twin Cities, plus a related 345-kilovolt line between Marshall, Minnesota, and Granite Falls, Minnesota.
A 250-mile, 345-kVline between Fargo, North Dakota, and Alexandria, St. Cloud and Monticello, Minnesota.
A 150-mile, 345-kV line between the southeast Twin Cities, Rochester, Minnesota, and La Crosse, Wisconsin.
Following a rigorous public process, the commission is expected to decide whether the lines are needed by early 2009. If the commission decides the projects are needed, it will determine routes for the new lines in separate proceedings. Portions of the lines also will require approvals by federal officials and by regulators in North Dakota, South Dakota and Wisconsin.

As soon as regulatory need and routing decisions are complete in 2009 or 2010, construction will get under way, and the lines are expected to be completed three or four years later.