Skip to comments.Fed Plan to Consolidate Power Over Nation's Power Highway Has States Nervous
Posted on 10/01/2011 7:46:59 AM PDT by Son House
The need for more transmission lines is apparent -- in the vast states where wind and other forms of renewable energy are produced, the energy is often hundreds of miles from where it would be consumed.
The states, which along with local governments have long had authority over whether and where power lines get built, derided the plan as a move that would make it harder for local residents to weigh in.
The proposed change has drawn the skepticism of at least one senator. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., who helped write a 2005 law that initially expanded federal power over power lines, complained about the plan in a letter to Energy Secretary Steven Chu.
The chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee said it appears the commission is trying to "rewrite" the language in the law. He said that's a decision for Congress, not the commission, to make.
The move, he wrote, "would pave the way for the commission to use the newly consolidated powers in ways never intended by Congress."
On paper, the federal government has had expanded authority over transmission lines since 2005, when the Energy Policy Act set up a process that split federal oversight between two agencies -- the Department of Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Under the law, the Department of Energy was tasked with studying where transmission lines were needed most. Then the FERC was given the power to grant construction permits in those areas under certain circumstances, including if a state withheld approval for more than a year.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
A single “switch” controlled by the 57 States
and unelected czars.
What could go wrong?
As long as you are determined to generate power far, far away from where it's needed.
I wanted to say something like that but couldn’t think of such an elegant way to say it.
When your track record is Pontiac, Saturn, Solyndra, Health Care Insurance, ect, there’s good reason to expect other forms of renewable energy will leave Power Transmission lines idle too. I might be going to do laundry as this thought sets in...
Our government is insane. Between this and the green roads to nowhere at $700k per job created.
As are we for encouraging them.
And storage? Or do we all wait for a windy day to plan for doing laundry?
I was thinking more along the lines of neighborhood gas turbine plants, at least until neighborhood thorium plants are available...
“This state has taken billions and billions of dollars of subsidies for renewable energy generation... we’re gonna have to send them power from other states or they’ll be in the dark!”
If they are going to spend billions on “green energy” why not just install solar panels on homes and buildings instead of erecting transmission lines??
Because solar panels are unreliable and cost too much. Unless you install a boatload of batteries you will always need those transmission lines.
Forget about State’s Rights on transmission power lines....the well-abused Commerce Clause will surely be invoked, and the propeller farms and green payoff-suppliers will be given mandated safe passage to far away load for their remote generation.....ALL subsidized by Taxpayers across the Nation, who get NOTHING OF BENEFIT from it.
All your electrons are belong to us!
Indeed expanded federal power over power lines will give them more power for control.
1.Ability to shut down the internet
2.Shut down power lines
End result no power for city water pumps,gas stations........
With the progressives it’s all about control.
Of course, there is a counter-strategy that would make such a gambit impossible, but nobody seems to be interested.
Anytime you see the words “Fed”, “Consolidate”, and “Power” in the same sentence, it’s a recipe for disaster.
My point is instead of creating giant solar farms and transporting the power to the consumer it makes far more sense to locate the panels at the consumption site. Regardless of the reliability or storage requirements it makes more sense to put the panels where they are ultimately used. Financially it would be far cheaper and functionally it would be more reliable.
Solar is very reliable here in Colorado given the number of sunny days and if you put aside cost does provide independence from the power grid. There are enough taxpayer incentives in place to see a ROI in roughly 12 years. If panels last 25 years without major maintenance that would be a significant savings.
Once again, I ask the question - at what point does the federal government go too far? At what point do we, the people who own this government, say enough is enough and take our government back? At what point do we stop being Chicken Littles running around screaming that “the sky is falling” and actually DO something to STOP the sky from falling??
At what point is enough actually enough?
What could ultimately work is a system where some people put up solar and those and other people install systems that use power when it is available rather than whenever they currently use it. One example might be pumped heat storage. Out in the country I could build a pumped water storage system. I could have my water heater set on a timer, etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.