A study done for the Southwest Power Pool state regulators has revealed the kind of information that usually is not seen beyond a small group of those directly involved. It provides a window into the "who benefits and why" question that so many times is opaque to outsiders.
SPP has a package of transmission projects under consideration, and this study was to show how the projects would affect wind revenue in SPP's various zones. With arguments at regional and national levels about how broadly new-transmission costs should be shared, this piece of research reminds us that in the midst of policy debates, brass-tacks talk about dollars and cents is at the base of much of the wrangling.
Oklahoma Gas & Electric customers would make out very well in SPP's proposed transmission-build plan, largely because it includes a 345-kV link to West Texas, where lots of wind power is located. Wind farms in the OG&E zone, however, would get $4.2 million less per year after the new lines were built.
"This provides the economic justification for constructing the new transmission; it provides access to cheaper sources," OG&E's Brian Alford told our colleague Mark Watson.
In Nebraska, by contrast, wind farms could get $5.3 million more a year. An observer in that state said one new 345-kV line in the plan would connect southeast Nebraska to the Kansas City, Missouri, area, which would allow more coal-fired energy to be sold south, raising zone prices available to Nebraska wind generators.
The utilities there would have to pay their load-ratio share of socialized transmission costs, and any additional revenue would go to the wind developer.
Is it a wonder that "who pays?" haunts everything?
Please provide us a way to get the full report. Thanks.
I'm particularly interested in why the SW Power Pool is going to take 62.5 million dollars and build a new building in the most expensive part of Little Rock, instead of putting most of it into the hundreds of miles of new grid that's needed in our state? What happened to filling in brownfields with new buildings to keep our cities viable? I'd think a power pool would have a good consciousness about where to build and how fancy to build.
Do you have any insight into that decision? Would love to hear what you know, if anything.
Thank you a lot,
Dina Nash
University Teacher
Little Rock, AR
Here is a link to a page that includes the February 22 presentation with slides about the report: http://www.spp.org/section.asp?group=381&pageID=27. Click on "CAWG 2/24/10 Additional Background Materials."
As for the new-building issue, SPP officials said at an October meeting that they needed a site that was large enough for the new tasks SPP is taking on by consolidating utility balancing-authority functions, and that had entrances from two different directions, for security reasons. A downtown location would not fill those needs, apparently. We don't have an explanation for the price tag.