|
|
|
Low Wire Act
The only thing missing from the debate over a cross-Sound electric transmission line is a crystal ball
|
Business New Haven
8/6/2001
By: Susan Cornell
|
The state's largest utility and one of New England's largest competitive energy suppliers, Northeast Utilities, has unveiled plans for a high-capacity transmission line from Norwalk to Hempstead Harbor, L.I. The plan was announced at the company's annual meeting on June 28. Also, TransEnergie US, the company whose proposal to lay an underwater cable from New Haven to Brookhaven, N.Y. was rejected by state officials in March, submitted modified plans on July 24.
NU's transmission project entails burying an environmentally friendly (i.e., non-fluid-filled) cable along part of an existing transmission path beneath the Sound. The line would tie Long Island's grid to Connecticut's grid via a direct current cable that would allow electricity to flow from Connecticut to Long Island or Long Island to Connecticut (the power flow direction could be reversed in a matter of seconds). Project cost information has not been disclosed as the cable will be competitively bid; the price tag will be revealed after the bidding process has been completed.
At the company's annual meeting, NU chairman Michael Morris said his company's underwater-cable proposal is a plus for Connecticut's economy. “By combining the strengths of Long Island and Connecticut grids, we connect the economic corridors on both shores and deliver enhanced reliability and access to a larger, more diverse generation supply. Providing consumers with opportunities for new sources of power to flow to both regions fosters the competition necessary to ensure competitively priced power.”
NU officials maintain that the proposal would deliver major benefits for Northeast consumers, including “system-reliability improvements, which come at a lower environmental cost than building new power plants; improved infrastructure for economic development; and enhanced diversity of power generation technologies.”
Added Morris, “A more reliable electricity-delivery system will allow the Connecticut, Long Island and New England economies to continue to expand, and the new DC [direct current] line under the Sound will provide generators of electricity a new way to get power to these fast-growing areas, promoting competition of supply.”
TransEnergie US, a subsidiary of Canadian power giant Hydro-Quebec, has revised its plan so that the proposed cable will cut through shipping channels at the mouth of New Haven Harbor rather than through Long Island Sound's rich shellfish beds. In March, regulators rejected the proposal saying that the beds, vital to the state's oyster industry, would be harmed while the cable would provide little if any benefit to Connecticut consumers. Jim Nash, TransEnergie's project manager, said that, under the new plan, trench digging at the mouth of New Haven Harbor would disturb only about one-tenth of an acre of low-productivity beds.
TransEnergie project spokesperson Rita Bowlby describes the plan as follows: “The Cross-Sound Cable Co., LLC (“Cross-Sound”) proposes to construct a high-voltage direct current and fiber optic cable system, approximately 24 linear miles in length. The cable system will be installed beneath the seabed of the New Haven Harbor Federal Navigation Channel and Long Island Sound. The cable system will be buried approximately six feet below the seabed, to assure that the cable will not be impacted by, or interfere with, ship anchors or maintenance dredging operations in the Harbor.”
Bowlby added, “Power will be able to flow from New York to Connecticut, and from Connecticut to New York, as controlled by the independent system operators.”
TransEnergie maintains that cross-Sound cable technology would deliver environmental benefits. “An underwater cable route provides new and additional alternatives to extend Connecticut electrically,” says its report. “The path for a traditional land-based power line would adversely impact many more neighbors and towns.” Plus, environmentally-preferred technology with high-power delivery capability only recently available would be used; the cables would utilize solid insulation with nothing to leak.
According to Bowlby: “The Federal Navigation Channel is significantly disturbed and regularly disturbed by the maintenance dredging operations of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Installation and operation of the cable within the Federal Navigation Channel will not disrupt or change the character of the channel. Additionally, there will be no impact on shellfish resources because leased shellfish beds are reportedly not actively cultivated in the Federal Navigation Channel.”
She added: “By providing another interconnection between the New York and Connecticut electricity markets, the project will increase access in the event of a system emergency, and will provide permanent reliability benefits for both states.”
State Consumer Counsel Guy Mazza says it's premature to comment on specifics, since “We have not yet been provided with details of either proposal.” Mazza's chief objection to the initial TransEnergie proposal had been the paucity of benefits for Connecticut residents.
Stratford State Sen. George L. (Doc) Gunther (R-21), who led opposition to the line, pointed out that NU's and TransEnergie's plans are not the only ones going to the table. “There are four major applications being filed,” he explains. “Duke has filed with FERC [Federal Energy Regulatory Commission]. To my knowledge, Northeast Utilities has eight lines going between Norwalk and Northport, L.I. that are leaking. They are insulated with mineral oil and must be replaced. I haven't seen their filing yet. There is another unknown on western end of Long Island Sound.”
Adds Gunther: “We should find some common area where transmission can be accomplished with minimal impact on the environment. Long Island Sound is an ecological asset to finfish and shellfish. It's an important unit. It affects not just us but to a lesser degree affects all migratory species.”
Adds Gunther: “This is vitally important to fisheries. They are being seriously impacted. Some think we are fish-huggers - like tree-huggers - but no, this is serious and these utilities are looking at their own interests. Within next few weeks we will have a better look at the whole thing. It's important as a state - but just as serious for Long Island - to look at the total picture.”
Says Bowlby: “The potential impact to shellfish resources in New Haven Harbor will be, at most, limited to the few days necessary to bury the cable under the seabed, and will not adversely impact the activities in any shellfish bed.”
In addition to the new cross-Sound cable, NU announced that it hopes to run two transmission lines to the Norwalk area to meet growing demand in southwestern Connecticut. Here demand is anticipated to grow at a higher rate than elsewhere in the state due to a healthy economy and growing population.
ISO-New England's chief operating officer, Stephen Whitley, warned in June that southwestern Connecticut risked total power failure as lines in the area are inadequate to meet demand. ISO-New England is the system operator of the region's power grid; it is the independent corporate entity responsible for dispatching the region's transmission and generation facilities.
Gunther likewise cautions: “Our transmission system is so inadequate that if we ever had a breakdown or a brownout in Bridgeport Station, we would have a blackout for the entire western end of the state from Bridgeport to Greenwich. We don't have the adequacy of generation.” As well, he points out, “These [projects] take two to three to four years to accomplish.”
One issue both companies will face is the perception that power will be siphoned from Connecticut to New York. In a brief, the Office of the Consumer Counsel, the government watchdog on behalf of utility customers, argues that power would flow only to New York, where suppliers would command a higher price than in Connecticut. The outcome would mean less power for Connecticut - at higher prices.
As the Siting Council, which rarely rejects applications, stated at its March denial, the “project would have substantial benefit to Long Island…It would at best provide only incremental benefits to Connecticut and the region that may not be realized for several years.”
Metropolitan New York has recently experienced power problems that have been compared to those on the West Coast. New York City and Long Island have too few power plants to meet demand and inadequate lines which make it challenging to import power. While cables could send power in either direction, Long Island is short on power and the electricity flow, in reality, might be a one-way street. If less power is available in Connecticut with demand stable or increasing, prices for electricity in Connecticut would rise, according to the assistant to the consumer counsel, Eugene Koss.
TransEnergie officials argue that when electric ties link regions, power companies can assist one another and energy can be produced and transmitted at the lowest possible cost. Additionally, TransEnergie contends, competition can bring benefits as long as buyers and sellers are able to find choices in the market. The company's cross-Sound cable, officials argue, would expand available choices, attract additional suppliers to Connecticut, and help to keep prices low.
According to TransEnergie's report, “Public Benefits of Cross-Sound Cable Project,” “A transmission interconnection provides reliability benefits to both [Connecticut and New York] regions, even if one region is predominantly exporting to the other. A state may tend to import power from other states because there are cheaper sources of supply outside the state.
“For example,” the report continues, “Connecticut tends to be a net importer of power. However, this does not necessarily mean that the reliability benefits flow only in that one direction. The exporting area - such as Massachusetts - obtains reliability benefits from the interconnection with Connecticut because of load and generation availability diversity. The relative sharing of the benefits between these two regions does not depend on power flows.”
Says Gunther: “It is impossible to react to the plans without seeing them. It's difficult for any of us.” But the co-chair of the legislature's Environment Committee, Danielson State Sen. Donald E. Williams Jr. (D-29), praised NU's plan. Williams contends that the project should ease concerns over power reliability.
The rejection of the initial TransEnergie proposal was cited in a Bush administration report as an illustration of the contention between regional concerns and national energy policy. Authors of the President's national energy plan have used the Siting Council's rejection as an example of why the federal government should expand its eminent domain powers. Federal regulators can take land for highways and natural gas pipelines. President Bush has argued that state laws needlessly encumber the maximization of lines that benefit a larger region.
The President's position has irked some state lawmakers and regulators. “I don't know if Bush has studied the history behind the Constitution,” says Gunther. “I happen to be a strong federalist and feel that he should keep his nose out of the states. I'm a strong state's-righter. We're closest to the problem and can do the job better any day.”
Gubernatorial spokesperson Dean Pagani says that Rowland “has not had an opportunity to review the NU proposal. It will be handled by the Connecticut Siting Council, DPUC and the DEP.. He would seek their input before reaching his own conclusions on the merits of the proposal.” Pagani also says that the governor agrees that more regional cooperation on energy issues is needed.
Following the siting council's rejection of TransEnergie's initial proposal, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal argued, “The Connecticut Siting Council rightly ruled that TransEnergie's ill-conceived, self-serving plan to lay its cable through New Haven Harbor threatened irreversible damage to our oyster beds and other irreplaceable natural resources and offered no benefit to Connecticut - only the prospect of higher energy prices, as power is siphoned to Long Island from our state.”
Additionally, Blumenthal said, “It also included findings, based on TransEnergie's own submissions, that there would be virtually no power flowing to Connecticut for the foreseeable future, if ever. If New York really faces an energy crisis of California proportions, it will need much more than a single transmission line from Connecticut.”
Officials will soon consider the pair of underwater electric transmission lines. NU intends to apply to the siting council by the end of September. Under state law, the council can approve the project only if the project would provide a benefit to Connecticut and if there is a demonstrable public need. NU anticipates that review by local, state and federal regulators will continue until spring.
NU hopes that installation of the cables beneath the Sound will commence in November 2002, be completed within six months, and be fully operational by 2004.
|
Go FirstGo PreviousGo
NextGo LastGo
to Index
|
|
