I agree, Chris. Anytime the federal government gets involved in anything, inefficiency and wasting money are a certainty. I always appreciate your thoughts, Chris. Ed
The CREZ line is 2,400 miles and it doesn't have that many maintenance workers full time! Try to find one to do a repair and they are missing inaction!
Good point. The technology is supposed to be lower maintenance than conventional transmission lines, but time will tell. Workers that work are hard to find. Ed
A wonky clarification, perhaps too wonky but here it goes. FERC DOES HAVE JURISDICTION OVER DIRECT CURRENT ELECTRICITY. The Federal Power Act gives FERC jurisdiction over all interstate transmission of electricity, and it exercises jurisdiction over transmission on DC lines throughout the country. The reason that FERC does not have jurisdiction over the DC lines between Texas and the Eastern Interconnect is because FERC ordered those interconnections to be built pursuant to a section of the Federal Power Act that gives FERC the authority to order interconnections in certain circumstances. The interconnections were constructed as part of a special political deal that allowed the interconnections, which were needed for reliability purposes, to be constructed without subjecting Texas to FERC jurisdiction. I personally see no reason why use of that special statutory provision should make any difference, certainly nothing in it suggests that interconnections ordered pursuant to that section do not constitute transmission in interstate commerce, but there you have it.
In any event, the fact that the proposed new line is a DC line does not, alone, guarantee that Texas will remain outside of FERC jurisdiction. That will require another similar order from FERC
Thanks Ed, I saw the hoopla over Texas connecting to the Southern Grid and was afraid the Feds had the Camels Nose Under the Tent. Now this sounds win win for all concerned. Those still aligned to bedevil us won’t quit trying, I have no doubt. But for now, Hoorah!
John, I agree that this project looks like a win for Texas but the "Camel's Nose is Under the Tent," as you say, so staying vigilant is necessary. You are correct that the feds won't stop trying to get their hands on the Texas grid. Thanks for the comment, John. Good to hear from you. Ed
Interesting. I always thought of DC generation as being low voltage and therefore unsuitable for transmission lines. Learn something every day. That's what I love about substack- it's an educational gold mine.
Yes, JF, eminent domain always wins but landowners usually lose. That's how the interstate highway system got built so I guess it was inevitable that is how new interstate transmission lines will get built. Ed
There are two problems I see. 1. Just because ERCOT is not subject to FERC jurisdiction now, that could be reversed with a stroke of a Harris pen -- just because DC makes it exempt today does not mean it will remain exempt. 2. The fact of connection makes the Texas grid subject to the poor decisions by other operators and makes them subject to the poor decisions being made by ERCOT. My preference would be to allow, by complete deregulation, the formation of local, distributed, power grids.
I agree with you, Martin. Texas must stay vigilant because the feds will not stop trying to get their regulatory hands on ERCOT. I also agree that complete deregulation with local, distributed power grids is the best way to go but it probably won't happen. It is important that Texas remains separate from the other power grids and this project is a godsend because it provides backup power without federal regulation. Thanks for reading and commenting, Martin. Ed
I agree it's naive to think a lack of FERC jurisdiction over DC transmission today means it will stay that way in perpetuity. The federal government will grasp at any opportunity to expand it's powers. More interconnections create bigger, more tempting targets.
I'm not so quick to get on board with dissolving ERCOT and replacing it with deregulated local power grids. I worked for an electric utility during the 1990's when deregulation was The Next Big Thing and a lot of experiments were tried. Some failed disastrously (California comes to mind). No denying, ERCOT has its issues. IMHO, any alternative is sure to be worse.
For the avoidance of doubt, I don't stand to benefit regardless of which approach is taken- that is, beyond the general societal benefits we'll all enjoy (or suffer).
I agree, Evil Incarnate (great pen name by the way). The feds will never stop trying to get its regulatory hands on the Texas' ERCOT grid. Once Texas is involved in this transmission line, it is one step closer to being subjected to federal regulation. Vigilance is of utmost importance as mentioned is other comments. Thanks for reading and commenting, Evil. Ed
"create ... 305 permanent operations jobs. (up to $360 million potential contract value)"
Over US$ 1 million per 'green' job.
I agree, Chris. Anytime the federal government gets involved in anything, inefficiency and wasting money are a certainty. I always appreciate your thoughts, Chris. Ed
The CREZ line is 2,400 miles and it doesn't have that many maintenance workers full time! Try to find one to do a repair and they are missing inaction!
Good point. The technology is supposed to be lower maintenance than conventional transmission lines, but time will tell. Workers that work are hard to find. Ed
A wonky clarification, perhaps too wonky but here it goes. FERC DOES HAVE JURISDICTION OVER DIRECT CURRENT ELECTRICITY. The Federal Power Act gives FERC jurisdiction over all interstate transmission of electricity, and it exercises jurisdiction over transmission on DC lines throughout the country. The reason that FERC does not have jurisdiction over the DC lines between Texas and the Eastern Interconnect is because FERC ordered those interconnections to be built pursuant to a section of the Federal Power Act that gives FERC the authority to order interconnections in certain circumstances. The interconnections were constructed as part of a special political deal that allowed the interconnections, which were needed for reliability purposes, to be constructed without subjecting Texas to FERC jurisdiction. I personally see no reason why use of that special statutory provision should make any difference, certainly nothing in it suggests that interconnections ordered pursuant to that section do not constitute transmission in interstate commerce, but there you have it.
In any event, the fact that the proposed new line is a DC line does not, alone, guarantee that Texas will remain outside of FERC jurisdiction. That will require another similar order from FERC
Thanks Ed, I saw the hoopla over Texas connecting to the Southern Grid and was afraid the Feds had the Camels Nose Under the Tent. Now this sounds win win for all concerned. Those still aligned to bedevil us won’t quit trying, I have no doubt. But for now, Hoorah!
John, I agree that this project looks like a win for Texas but the "Camel's Nose is Under the Tent," as you say, so staying vigilant is necessary. You are correct that the feds won't stop trying to get their hands on the Texas grid. Thanks for the comment, John. Good to hear from you. Ed
Interesting. I always thought of DC generation as being low voltage and therefore unsuitable for transmission lines. Learn something every day. That's what I love about substack- it's an educational gold mine.
It is an interesting technology for sure, Al. I plan to write more about it. Thanks for your comments, Al. Ed
Looking forward to it, Ed.
Great overview article - and puts to rest some of the scuttlebutt I have been hearing.
Its still a long way from reality from what I hear with land disputes etc., but eventually eminent domain will win!
Yes, JF, eminent domain always wins but landowners usually lose. That's how the interstate highway system got built so I guess it was inevitable that is how new interstate transmission lines will get built. Ed
There are two problems I see. 1. Just because ERCOT is not subject to FERC jurisdiction now, that could be reversed with a stroke of a Harris pen -- just because DC makes it exempt today does not mean it will remain exempt. 2. The fact of connection makes the Texas grid subject to the poor decisions by other operators and makes them subject to the poor decisions being made by ERCOT. My preference would be to allow, by complete deregulation, the formation of local, distributed, power grids.
I agree with you, Martin. Texas must stay vigilant because the feds will not stop trying to get their regulatory hands on ERCOT. I also agree that complete deregulation with local, distributed power grids is the best way to go but it probably won't happen. It is important that Texas remains separate from the other power grids and this project is a godsend because it provides backup power without federal regulation. Thanks for reading and commenting, Martin. Ed
I agree it's naive to think a lack of FERC jurisdiction over DC transmission today means it will stay that way in perpetuity. The federal government will grasp at any opportunity to expand it's powers. More interconnections create bigger, more tempting targets.
I'm not so quick to get on board with dissolving ERCOT and replacing it with deregulated local power grids. I worked for an electric utility during the 1990's when deregulation was The Next Big Thing and a lot of experiments were tried. Some failed disastrously (California comes to mind). No denying, ERCOT has its issues. IMHO, any alternative is sure to be worse.
For the avoidance of doubt, I don't stand to benefit regardless of which approach is taken- that is, beyond the general societal benefits we'll all enjoy (or suffer).
I agree, Evil Incarnate (great pen name by the way). The feds will never stop trying to get its regulatory hands on the Texas' ERCOT grid. Once Texas is involved in this transmission line, it is one step closer to being subjected to federal regulation. Vigilance is of utmost importance as mentioned is other comments. Thanks for reading and commenting, Evil. Ed