ISO should call for offshore wind transmission discussion
The deadline for beginning the debate is now
NEW ENGLAND is in the midst of an energy sea change. Brought about by the people of the region acting through their elected officials, states in the region have passed legislation directing the procurement of large sources of renewable energy, including up to 3,200 megawatts of offshore wind in Massachusetts. The federal government is a partner with the region, having made large lease areas for offshore wind available in federal waters. And interest in bringing this zero-carbon, fuel-secure energy to the region is high. In the recent auction for lease rights conducted by the federal government, three winning bidders paid over $400 million for rights to build wind farms in federal waters. The jobs are already following with developers and manufactures moving to the region; a good example is turbine manufacturer Vestas-MHI’s announcement that is plans to open a US headquarters in Boston.
While Massachusetts, and other states in the region, rapidly move ahead on making these projects a reality that provide residents with fossil-free, low-cost energy, the question that has emerged is: how to get the power to land from miles over-the-horizon off the coast? The simple answer is: transmission lines – large, high voltage buried submarine cables sized to move bulk amounts of electricity over large distances.
But what does that transmission look like? Is it planned and deliberate, optimizing the existing transmission system, the best landing points, and sharing common costs among co-located projects (the federal water wind lease areas are all grouped together)? Might states ultimately even share the costs of bringing the power to shore? Or will we pursue an ad hoc program where a line is built to each wind farm, each farther out and more expensive than the last with each state paying for each line individually? How Massachusetts and other New England states choose to answer that question at this stage will make all the difference regarding the ultimate cost of the transmission, the expandability and usefulness of the system, and the environmental impacts of numerous sea-to-shore projects.
Nearly a decade ago, the federal government created a mechanism whereby states can cooperatively plan for transmission to maximize common facilities and the existing infrastructure to meet just these sorts of “public policy” goals. The process looks a lot like the comprehensive regional planning process that has been used for years to meet the basic reliability needs of the power system. In this process, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, approved rules that allow states to work with the regional grid operator and transmission system planner, ISO New England , to find the most cost-effective solution for transmission to implement public policies.
Edward N. Krapels is the CEO of Anbaric, an energy transmission company.