Climate and energy

Coal controversies. Transmission controversies. Kansas has it all. The Kansas transmission picture has radically changed since even one year ago. As Duane Schrag of the Salina Journal put it:

It was only a few months ago that Kansans were being warned that killing the proposed coal-fired power plants at Holcomb would kill the fledgling wind industry because it also would kill transmission lines needed by new wind farms.

Today the coal project is off the table, interest in new wind has grown faster than the price of crude oil, and companies are elbowing each other for the chance to build new transmission lines.

Here’s what’s currently going on with the transmission picture in Kansas.

Our regional transmission organization, the Southwest Power Pool (SPP) has recently approved major transmission line upgrades. SPP is in the middle of a giant planning overhaul. They are trying to redesign the electric grids of KS, OK, and the TX panhandle to handle an onslaught of wind development.

Why does KS need to kick it into high gear on building transmission lines? Because we’ve got the wind to compete in major renewable energy markets - yet our wind-rich rural areas are poor when it comes to transmission infrastructure.

Rep. Carl Holmes, chair of the KS House Energy and Utilities Committee, summed it up best for the Hays Daily News: “Wind proposals now are two to three times more numerous in Texas and Oklahoma than they are in Kansas,” Holmes said. “If Kansas doesn’t develop the transmission, if Kansas doesn’t get out front, someone else will.”

Holmes was also one of the driving forces behind the formation of KETA, the Kansas Electric Transmission Authority. KETA’s job is to stimulate transmission development in Kansas.

Part of the SPP’s plan for Kansas is what is known as the “V” plan. The original concept was that two lines would originate out of Spearville, KS. One would head north toward Axtell NE. The other would head east toward Wichita KS. The size of the lines could have been 345 kV or 765 kV. 765 kV lines are part of a much discussed “transmission super-highway” that could be part of a major grid upgrade across the United States. The construction costs would then be socialized across all users.

Here’s the good news - there is strong competition to build the V plan. Transmission is going to be built in Kansas, and soon. More than $1 billion will probably be invested in the state over the next five years.

There’s not really any bad news, just questions on how it will all work out. Getting transmission built is basically good for Kansas.

Who gets to build the lines, though, still matters. The KCC will be deciding this critical issue this summer or fall sometime. Their decision turns on a legal point of who has the right to build (or object to building), but for Kansas citizens interested in the issue, there’s plenty of other more general questions to consider:

Who can get the lines built the quickest?
Who can build them most economically? Most reliably?
What size do they plan on making the lines, 345 kV or 765 kV?
What will the transmission line paths look like?
Will the builders consult with wind developers who are planning utility scale wind developments in the area?
Will they talk to counties and rural economic development organizations who are interested in community wind?
What is their attitude toward eminent domain and the rights of landowners?
How will they accommodate concerns over disturbing wildlife, grasslands, etc.?

The “drama” part. Drama is an overstatement (it was in the title of the blog entry to get you to read about something like transmission). Basically, any time you have businesses competing to do the right thing the best way possible, that’s good.

Still, there is definitely tension in the competition to build the lines. Last Friday, there was a meeting of KETA in Wichita. Two companies came to report to KETA on their transmission plans - Westar’s Prairie Wind venture, and ITC Great Plains.

Both companies have currently filed papers with the KCC, disputing each other’s rights to build the Spearville-Wichita portion of the V plan (plus an additional little spur down to OK). (It appears that ITC Great Plains is still going to go ahead and build the Spearville-Axtell line.) As covered by the Salina Journal:

In a volley of filings with the KCC in the past month, both sides took turns accusing the other of making “egregious” claims and of distorting the facts.

“Westar is reluctant to continue the back and forth in this matter and, ordinarily, would not reply to a response,” the company said in its latest reply, which was filed Thursday. “However, in light of the vituperative tone of ITC’s filing and the numerous ad hominem attacks made on Westar in the filing, Westar will address a few of the more egregious statements in ITC’s responses.”

… The disagreement centers on whether Westar Energy has a right of first refusal to build the entire project, as it claims, or whether its right of first refusal extends to only a portion of the project, as ITC claims.

Traditionally in Kansas, transmission lines have been the responsibility of the local utility. When KETA was formed three years ago, its mission was to encourage transmission line development, while ensuring that local utilities maintained a right to build lines if they wished.

Thus when ITC last year asked for KCC’s permission to pursue the V-Plan — the north half of the X-Plan — the KCC was careful to stipulate that ITC will be given the opportunity only “once each of the Affected Incumbent Transmission Owners determines that it will not construct a particular … transmission project.”

The proposed route for the V-Plan goes through areas served by Westar and Mid-Kansas Electric Company. ITC’s position is that Westar has a right of first refusal only for the portion that goes through its territory.

Want to know more about transmission in Kansas? Check out CEP’s interview with KEPCo’s Les Evans, who has worked in the Kansas electrical industry for more than thirty years.

— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org