In fact, some of the best reasons for this project not to go forward have nothing to do with NIMBYism and little (perhaps nothing) to do with potential damage to bucolic rural vistas.
My OPED exploring this issued appeared in the Fairfax County edition of The Washington Post this morning ...
No Efficiency Focus In Power Line Debate seeks to shift the focus in the debate re the high-voltage power line. This OPED argues for a holistic approach to thinking about energy issues, highlighting the fact that sensible (and quite affordable) efficiency measures could make moot any requirement for this power line while reducing Northern Virginia's carbon-footprint. E.g., being just a little (not even that much) smarter about energy would make building the power line a ridiculous choice to consider.
Most media reporting, however, focuses on "NIMBY-ism" (Not In My BackYard) as the basis and sole justifier for opposition to the power line.
Just from The Washington Post, here are a few examples of this. Tysons Developer Sues Dominion Over Power Line Proposal provides a sort of gotcha moment seemingly mean to frame the discussion as the good, little guy (the average electricity user supported by Dominion Virginia Power) against the big, evil guy
The developer best known for pushing a generation of growth in Northern Virginia has filed a lawsuit against Dominion Virginia Power over a controversial proposal to run a high-voltage power line through his front yard in pastoral Fauquier County.
One gets a similar feel from Landowners Fear Ruin From Power Line Route
Across parts of Loudoun, Prince William and Fauquier counties, property owners who possess some of the most valuable land in Virginia are struggling with the sudden shock of learning that Dominion Virginia Power, which supplies electricity to most of the state, plans to erect 40 miles of power line through their back yards.Of particular concern is that plans call for the 500,000-volt cables to be carried by a series of steel lattice towers planted along a 150-foot-wide ribbon of land stripped of trees and buildings. The area's picturesque countryside, with its emerald farms dotted by Civil War-era barns, is arguably its most valuable quality, area real estate agents say.
The mere suggestion that it could be marred by this line has sent land values plummeting, said Matt Sheedy, a land developer and president of Virginians for Sensible Energy Policy, a group opposed to the power line.
NIMBY-ism, this article screams ...
How about The Washington Post editorial that castigated the two candidates (R and D) for VA-10 for opposing the power line.
Power Politics: The region's high-tech growth depends on electricity. started with:
IN THE HOTLY contested House race in Virginia's 10th District, one of the few things on which Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R) and challenger Judy Feder (D) agree is that a proposed high-voltage electricity line should not bisect the district. We hate to spoil bipartisan concord, but both candidates are being irresponsible.
The Post editorial board then continued to argue for the power line as "the power crunch will get worse if no transmission line is built. Blackouts can be expected starting in 2011." The single-minded focus on power generation / delivery and inexorable demand growth led me to write this OPED. (Note -- e.g., it has took almost three months from writing to publication in the Post. And, in the interim, all reference to the Post's (politely speaking) ignorant OPED were deleted as this was, "obviously", simply dated ... As part of that process, I diaried a version of the OPED in Thinking past NIMBY -- An energy solution not a power line.)
As in the OPED, the resources to build the power lines could make it OBE ... "For the $1.5 billion that this project is estimated to cost, the region could work to make such a power line unnecessary."
I call on public officials to consider three questions and their potential responses:
1. Could investment by utilities and government (and individuals and the private sector) in regulations, incentives and building codes cut electrical requirements by efficiency while supporting economic and population growth?Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute, one of the nation's top energy experts, coined the phrase "negawatts" to capture the concept of the value of investing in efficiency to cut electrical requirements. With systems designed for efficiency, we could reduce our per capita electrical needs by roughly 20 to 25 percent -- at an average cost of less than 2 cents per kilowatt.
Truth be told, the American economy -- writ large -- is so inefficient in energy use that it is incredibly easy and cheap to cut energy use with actually improving the economy and people's way of life.
Installing better electricity meters in homes, for example, would almost overnight cut usage by 10 percent. Following-up with home energy audits would multiply that impact. Roofs could be painted white and air conditioning units shaded to reduce air conditioning loads. All jurisdictions could apply Green Building Council (GGC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards (or better) as are Montgomery County, MD, and Washington, DC. And ... well the potentials for savings are straightforward, enormous, and (relatively) inexpensive to apply.
2. In addition to saving energy, are there ways for the region to generate more of its own power through efficient local means and/or renewable power sources such as solar or urban wind projects?Renewable-energy systems -- such as solar water-heating -- are already cost-effective. For government and many businesses, small solar and wind projects can save money by assuring continuity of operations during external power interruptions. Such projects could both foster a more efficient power structure and provide resilience against disasters that might interrupt power supplies. Making a concerted effort to develop such projects would reduce the need to devastate natural treasures to bring electricity from polluting coal plants.
While it is unlikely that, in the near term, large percentages of the DC area's electricity will be supplied through renewable systems, there are real opportunities for introducing power. There are areas of New York City, for example, that require all new buildings to supply a few percent of their electricity with solar panels. Surprisingly, perhaps, there are many viable places for small-scale wind in the NVA region (such as along highways).
And, there could be CHP (combined heat-power) systems to add electrical generation. (For example, the utilities could work together to introduce something like the Climate Energy micro-CHP to the area, which would create some additional distributed power generation and increase overall energy efficiency in terms of burning natural gas.
3. Does the utility have any incentive to explore energy efficiency and distributed power generation rather than expanding the distribution system to facilitate greater use of electricity?Sadly, no. The utility rate structure rewards the utility for selling more kilowatt hours. Under current structuring, massive energy-efficiency projects would be money-losers. There are ways to address this -- most notably through profit-decoupling, which provides paths for a utility to make money through "negawatts" just as it might through selling more kilowatts.
Note that many in the electricity industry are big supporters of profit decoupling, such as you will find at the Regulatory Assistance Project. Or, for example, the Energy Pulse article: Divorcing Electricity Sales from Profits Creates Win-Win for Utilities and Customers. In other words, it is a mainstream -- not out-of-this-world -- concept to seek to create incentives for the utility to cut energy use/seek efficiencies even more aggressively than creating additional power.
And, well, the Washington, DC, area has a minor issue to consider -- which is the potential for disaster (natural (such as a hurricane or ice storm) or manmade). The power lines will not, despite Dominion Virginia Power claims, do much in that regard.
We must not discount the potential to eliminate the need for the power lines through investment that would both reduce electricity demand (efficiency) and promote distributed power that provides resilience in the face of disaster.
A better power system is a core Homeland Security issue. And, it is a core issue toward turning the nation toward a better path re Global Warming issues.
Note that my OPED was not the only Post item questioning the power line today. For example, from the Loudoun County edition was a great LTE A Faulty Connection which made reinforcing points to my OPED:
Small localized power plants and energy conservation with demand-side management could be solutions, however. Dominion does not have a great record in promoting any of those techniques in the 10 years I have been one of its customers. Other electric utilities, such as PPL Corp. in Allentown, Pa., have implemented "smart metering," for example. ...The proposed line is possibly the least expensive to build and the most profitable to operate for Dominion, but it is a technology that is obsolescent, not fit for the 21st century. It would stand for the next 60 to 100 years as a monument to Dominion's lack of progress and lack of candor in defending its need.
And, there is a mounting movement -- it seems -- to move the discussion from NIMBY-ism and land value to discussion of more sensible (and sustainable) energy policy in the region. Enlighten "omes in response to a plan by Dominion Power to build a power line through Virginia's historic countryside. ... campaign to encourage people to use less energy."
While it might take threats to bucolic vistas and property values to get there, perhaps there is hope for a holistic approach to electricity in the Northern Virginia market so that the power line will not be required and that the region will move toward a more sustainable and less-polluting energy future.
As I concluded No Efficiency Focus In Power Line Debate:
All of this would protect the environment by reducing the demand to carve through parks to erect new power lines while reducing, as well, the Washington area's contribution to greenhouse-gas emissions.There is a win-win solution out there that does not involve vistas of pylons in national parks.
NOTES:
1. Answer the Call to turn us (US) away from a catastrophic path on Global Warming.
2. PIEDMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL main powerline page. (Note -- embarassingly, I had not checked this site out until today.)
3. And ... Imagine Life Differently ... Imagine it Better ... And Seek to create that better life