Questions raised about cost of, need for new electricity grid

As is the case with other parts of the U.S. infrastructure, experts generally agree that the U.S. electrical grid needs to be upgraded — especially if the country is to increase its use of renewable-energy sources like wind power and significantly reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Kevin Bullis writes, however, that plans to string new high-voltage lines to bring wind power from the midsection of the country to the coasts, where most of the demand is, could be expensive and unnecessary, and a distraction from more urgent needs, some experts say.

Some have likened the new national grid to the Interstate Highway System constructed in the 1950s, and different groups and associations — for example, the Center for American Progress, a Washington-based think tank, and AEP, a large utility — have supported the project. These groups envision new high-voltage transmission lines costing billions of dollars built across the country, augmenting the existing patchwork of transmission lines.

Bullis quotes Paul Joskow, president of the Sloan Foundation and a professor of economics at MIT, to say that such a plan is “only a dream”: “It’s expensive. It’s politically contentious. In the end, I think you’re better off spending the money on other things.”

Critics of the new grid say that what is needed instead are improved local and regional electricity transmission, the development of an efficient and adaptable smart grid, and the demonstration of technology such as carbon capture and sequestration, which could prove a cheaper way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions than transmitting power from North Dakota to New York City.

Yes, new local and regional transmission lines are needed to bring wind power to market, since many wind farms are located in remote areas without the necessary connections to the grid. Steven Specker, the president and CEO of the Electric Power Research Institute, says that the lack of such transmission is the biggest obstacle to the growth of renewables.

National transmission lines, however, are a different story: they would face large obstacles and may not be necessary. “Unlike local and regional transmission projects, where regulatory mechanisms are in place to distribute the costs of construction, it’s not clear who would pay for a national grid,” writes Bullis. There could also be resistance from states between the wind farms and the coasts, which would have to give up land for the transmission lines without benefiting from the power that they carry.

A national system would also be expensive. A study by the utility AEP suggests that a new national system of 19,000 miles of high-voltage lines would cost $60 billion. It is not clear whether the costs of such a system will be competitive with other approaches to reducing emissions, says Steven Hauser, vice president of grid integration at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, in Golden, CO. “It may be cost effective to build it from North Dakota to Chicago; building it to Boston or to Los Angeles may not,” he says. “From a cost point of view, where’s the point of no return?”

Then there is the issue of off-shore power production: far-offshore wind farms could be located just a few dozen miles from major cities and provide wind power that is cheaper and more reliable than wind farms on land.

Hauser says that ultimately, stringing high-voltage trunk lines from the Midwest to the rest of the country is unnecessary. The important thing is to develop a smarter grid. Equipping transmission lines, distribution networks, and electrical appliances in homes and businesses with sensors and controls that can communicate remotely with grid operators could reduce demand for electricity, allow existing lines to handle more electricity, and make it easier to integrate wind and other intermittent renewable-energy technologies.