The tension between the growing number of renewable energy projects and limited transmission capacity is reflected in Washington’s legislative agenda of establishing a national renewable portfolio standard and new transmission lines dedicated to moving renewable energy coast-to-coast. Even if those ideas become law, hurdles to the happy marriage of renewables and transmission remain.
A total overhaul of the U.S. power delivery system, commercial practices, and regulatory oversight is required to accommodate the higher levels of renewable energy expected to be generated over the next decade. Specifically, transmission of the anticipated enormous quantities of renewable energy from coast to coast poses several key challenges and risks that must be mitigated as part of any comprehensive energy plan. The key question is, Can a growing body of renewable energy and a federal transmission plan be forced into what is surely a shotgun marriage?
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) recognizes the challenges posed by bringing electrons from new and disparately located renewable energy sources to population centers. In late May, FERC announced a series of transmission planning meetings that will focus on "wider integration of regional energy resources into the nation’s power grid." In essence, renewable energy generation, principally wind energy, is located where the transmission infrastructure does not exist, and other distributed energy resources are located in transmission-constrained regions.
According to FERC Chairman Jon Wellinghoff, "Planning is one of the three legs on the transmission policy stool — the others are siting and cost allocation — and all are crucial to meeting the goals of assimilating demand resources, renewable energy and distributed generation into the grid for the benefit of consumers."
We believe that the FERC review process currently under way will acknowledge that renewable energy development is changing the traditional energy source and transmission planning process in three principal ways:
-
Market push, not pull, is driving project development.
-
Longer distances are hindering new transmission capacity additions.
-
The intermittency of most renewable energy drags down new transmission line economics.
Together, these planning changes make it unlikely that evolutionary changes alone will enable the nation to reach its ambitious renewable goals. Rather, a more revolutionary approach that includes a proactive, regional approach to wind and other renewable energy generators will be required, as will electric system operation policies and procedures, and electricity market development, to keep access to transmission corridors open (Figure 1).

1. How the grid is managed. The U.S. electricity grid is divided into three separate management units or “interconnections.” Within each interconnection are further levels of grid operation involving states, utilities, regions, and a host of different regulators. The fractured nature of the grid impedes the efficient flow of energy between interconnections and complicates adding renewable energy to the mix. Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Comments (2)
It is good to see a rational, quantitative discussion of transmission and intermittent energy (The Odd Couple: Renewables and Transmission, Power, July 2009). One of the big problems has been that renewable energy advocates have been unwilling to allocate transmission and back-up costs reasonably. This is understandable since nothing can compete with cheap coal and natural gas, and anything that makes renewable energy more expensive is to be avoided.
But times have changed, and if we are to move to a utility system in which intermittent renewable energy supplies most of our power, we must look at these issues more openly.
I would take issue with the comment that compressed air energy storage (CAES) has not been proven on a utility scale. There is a 110 MW CAES facility at Macintosh, Alabama, that has been operating reliably since about 1991. In addition there are several proposals for large scale CAES plants based on the Macintosh-Dresser-Rand design. See for example www.epri.org <http://www.epri.org/> ; www.isepa.com <http://www.isepa.com/> for more information. There was also a session at the May ElectricPower 2009 Conference in Chicago devoted to CAES; papers are available on-line.
The LBL transmission cost estimates quoted in the article may be too low. One important data point is that Texas is upgrading its transmission system at a cost of $5 Billion to enable up to 10,000 MW additional wind turbine capacity. This is $500/installed kW. Large scale, long distance transmission may be even more expensive, and without storage will add immensely to integration problems.
The real issue is having renewable energy advocates acknowledge that CAES and large-scale transmission are needed and that the customer will have to pay for these installations. These costs are both affordable and urgently needed.
Alfred Cavallo, Ph.D.
But times have changed, and if we are to move to a utility system in which intermittent renewable energy supplies most of our power, we must look at these issues more openly.
I would take issue with the comment that compressed air energy storage (CAES) has not been proven on a utility scale. There is a 110 MW CAES facility at Macintosh, Alabama, that has been operating reliably since about 1991. In addition there are several proposals for large scale CAES plants based on the Macintosh-Dresser-Rand design. See for example www.epri.org <http://www.epri.org/> ; www.isepa.com <http://www.isepa.com/> for more information. There was also a session at the May ElectricPower 2009 Conference in Chicago devoted to CAES; papers are available on-line.
The LBL transmission cost estimates quoted in the article may be too low. One important data point is that Texas is upgrading its transmission system at a cost of $5 Billion to enable up to 10,000 MW additional wind turbine capacity. This is $500/installed kW. Large scale, long distance transmission may be even more expensive, and without storage will add immensely to integration problems.
The real issue is having renewable energy advocates acknowledge that CAES and large-scale transmission are needed and that the customer will have to pay for these installations. These costs are both affordable and urgently needed.
Sincerely yours,
Alfred Cavallo, Ph.D.
US DHS EML
201 Varick Street, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10014-7447