[Thermalseeker]

The costs won't just be on the "front end." Adding 3000 miles of new transmission lines also adds the cost of maintaining those transmission lines, not just the front end installation cost. I'm not saying that we don't need to update the grid. We clearly do, but the notion that this addition of 3000 miles of new transmission lines, plus a doubling of so-called "renewable energy sources", is somehow going to make electricity costs to the consumer go down is pure folly. The larger the grid gets the more it costs to maintain. Those costs are most assuredly passed on to the end consumer.

What I'd like to know is since when is it the Federal Gubmint's responsibility to add anything to the privately owned electrical grid?

[ElayneJ]

Yes. And add to that the environmental impact - and the expense of studying it, not to mention how it play out with his green supporters. This could be a huge problem and definitely not a cost cutter, as far as I can see.

[Max in Utah]

I'm not saying that we don't need to update the grid.

Or locate new power plants closer to the point of use (major cities) to reduce transmission losses. California needs to do this, but they won't. They'll just whine for more federal intervention to remedy their self-inflicted limitations.

[penowa]

"I'm not saying that we don't need to update the grid."

Why would we need new power lines and an update of the grid? The Democrats are going to shut down the coal-fired utilities, refuse to allow us to drill for gas and oil, and never build another nuclear plant. The grid is more than adequate for Boone Picken's and Nancy Pelosi's windmills and the solar expansion which is all that will remain for power generation.

It's like all the highways they plan to build for the plug-in cars that there will be no electricity to run.