In Kansas, V stands for high voltage.
A behind-the-scenes struggle is going on between two companies to build and operate a transmission line that could move 765,000 volts of electricity.
That is twice the capacity of the largest line in existence in Kansas now. "It's like building an interstate over country roads," said David Springe, general counsel for the Citizens' Utility Ratepayer Board.
Although the specific route of the line hasn't been determined, it would roughly form a V, running from outside Wichita, southwest to Medicine Lodge and then northwest to Spearville. The proposed line is commonly referred to as the "V-Plan."
Supporters say the line, which would cost hundreds of millions of dollars, would spur development of wind energy by providing a way to transport that power produced in southwest Kansas to other parts of the country.
And two companies are vying for the right to build the line. One is Prairie Wind Transmission, which is half owned by Topeka-based Westar Energy, and the other is ITC Great Plains, a subsidiary of the nation's largest independent electricity transmission company, which has won the support of two electric cooperatives.
But picking a company for the project is going to be difficult, Springe said, because the state has no criteria set up to handle a situation where two utilities are competing for the same transmission project.
"If you look at our transmission policy, it's not equipped to handle the question of what to do when there are two people who want to build the same line. How do we make sure the right person builds for the cheapest amount?" he said.
The Kansas Corporation Commission, which regulates electric utilities, has asked its staff to identify issues that must be decided to address the V-Plan applications, propose a process for handling those issues and recommend a timetable to make a decision.
That report is due in early October.
Recently, ITC Great Plains announced an agreement with Sunflower Electric and Mid-Kansas Electric Co. to build two sections of the V-Plan, which run within the service territory of those electric cooperatives, and also to allow Westar to build the section of the line between Wichita and Medicine Lodge, which extends into Westar's service area.
"This agreement is a revolutionary approach and a major milestone in the quest to build a 21st-century transmission grid in Kansas," said Carl Huslig, president of ITC Great Plains.
But Westar/Prairie Wind would prefer to work alone.
In testimony to the KCC, Kelly Harrison, president of Prairie Wind and vice president of transmission operations for Westar, said its partnership brings "substantial expertise in transmission facilities construction and operation." Its plan would cost $600 million and also include building a section of line to connect with Oklahoma's network, according to Harrison's testimony.
The ITC proposal carries no specific pricetag but Kimberly Gencur Svaty, a lobbyist for ITC, said the national average for building a high-voltage line is $2.2 million per mile, and ITC's proposal is about 180 miles, which would bring the total to nearly $400 million.
Springe said a lot of questions remain on the project. Kansas customers will be on the hook for some of the costs, he said, but they and customers in other states may also benefit from the sales and production of renewable energy.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
Daytrader23 (anonymous) says…
But, But clean coal.
belexus73 (anonymous) says…
When these lines are built they should be the large 765kv lines rather than the 345kv. Hopefully both firms can engage a firm that can pull this off. This will allow more electrons to flow at a lower cost and not make us have more transmission expansion in this area any time in the near or distant future. I believe Westar's line might sent some wind development into Oklahoma that would otherwise stay in Kansas. Interesting set of questions that need to be studied by the KCC.
gccs14r (anonymous) says…
It sounds like ITC is $200 million cheaper, and they're letting Westar in on the work. What's not to like? Unless you're Westar, and seeing $200 million in excess waste/profit on the backs of the ratepayers evaporate in a cloud of competition makes your blood boil.
CatFan (anonymous) says…
If this line connects to Oklahoma, how will we prevent the export of our precious wind power outside of Kansas? The Governor was adamant that we not export coal power. The complaint was that Kansas would keep all the pollution, although it was never explained when power plant emissions agreed to honor state boundaries. (Perhaps that will keep all of China's coal plants from causing global warming in Kansas.) I guess we will accept all the unsightly transmission lines to benefit other states.
gr (anonymous) says…
Polluting our view to export power to other states!
jayhaitch (anonymous) says…
This seems like the appropriate forum to share an email I received from Nancy Boyda in response to my suggestion that she support the Pickens plan.So far no response from Roberts or Brownback.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- September 12, 2008Thank you for contacting me about the Pickens' Plan. As your representative, I both need and value your opinion on this important issue. In 1970, the United States imported about 24% of our oil needs. By 1990 that had increased to 42%. Now we are importing nearly 70% of our oil and it's increasing every day. We are sending nearly $700 billion per year to foreign nations who do not have our best interests at heart. I'm convinced we're paying for both sides of the Iraq War. Building wind facilities in the corridor that stretches from the Texas panhandle to North Dakota could produce 20% of the electricity for the United States at a cost of $1 trillion. It would take another $200 billion to build the capacity to transmit that energy to cities and towns. That's a lot of money, but it's a one-time cost. Compared to the $700 billion we spend on foreign oil every year, it's a bargain. Wind power currently accounts for 48 billion kWh of electricity a year in the United States - enough to serve more than 4.5 million households. That is still only about 1% of current demand, but the potential of wind is much greater. A 2005 Stanford University study found that there is enough wind power worldwide to satisfy global demand seven times over - even if only 20% of wind power could be captured. In addition to creating new construction and maintenance jobs, thousands of Americans will be employed to manufacture the turbines and blades. These are high skill jobs that pay on a scale comparable to aerospace jobs. Plus, wind turbines don't interfere with farming and grazing, so they don't threaten food production or existing local economies. For these reasons, I support the Pickens Plan. Our state is a prime candidate for cultivating wind energy that can be processed and then used as a source for clean energy. Kansas is the third windiest state in the country. We are on the brink of a very exciting time in energy production and I am excited to see how Kansas can contribute! Please know that as work on the energy situation progresses, I look forward to hearing your opinions on how the government can best meet the needs of Kansans. Thank you again for contacting me. As your representative, I both need and value your perspective. I hope you will continue to keep in touch and let me know whenever I may be of future assistance. Sincerely,Nancy BoydaMember of CongressThis is not an active email account, if you would like to contact our office through email, please go to our website: http://boyda.house.gov.
bartstop (anonymous) says…
"No for Pickens natural gas. All fossil fuels are going to disappear over the next century. We need to move to electric vehicles."The electricity needed to power electric cars has to come from somewhere. Pickens plan buys us the time needed to develop alternative energy sources. It can't happen over night. On the other hand, any gasoline powered car can be converted to run on natural gas. It could, in theory, get us off foreign oil relatively fast.
CatFan (anonymous) says…
Net metering is a bad, bad idea. It forces utilities (i.e., utility customers) to pay a much higher rate for wind energy than can be produced by large wind farms. Also, small wind machines, even though small, still cost 10's of thousands of $$. Thus, only the high income can afford them, but all customers, even the low income are forced to subsidize them. If someone wants to spend their own money on hobby size wind machines, let them. But don't force all customers to pay for it when large wind is half the price.
ralphralph (anonymous) says…
Clean. Safe. Reliable. Nuclear.Notice that Rep Boyda's letter doesn't include the 'N-word' of energy? Nuclear must be part of the mix.
gr (anonymous) says…
"If we had net metering,"You have yet to show how that would work if everyone did net metering.
jayhaitch (anonymous) says…
If, by 'net metering' you're referring to ability to 'run your meter backwards' when your generator is feeding more into the grid than your taking from it, then it's already here. When I checked into it with my utility company, they said that they would install a meter to keep track of what my system produced pay me at 1.5 times the wholesale rate for it.
belexus73 (anonymous) says…
Jayhaitch, You are slightly off on your definition of net metering and it is a bit complicated to totally understand. None of the utilities in the state at this time will allow you to run your meter backwards-which is the definition of net metering. What they will do is install at second meter (you will pay for this) and run your renewables off of the second meter and pay you 1.5 times the avoided cost of fuel or the wholesale rate. This will come in around 1.5 to 2.0 cents per kilowatt hour. However, they will continue to charge you the full retail rate on your original meter. So basically, you will charge them wholesale and they will charge you retail. To KCPL's credit, they are attempting to allow net metering in their service territory in Kansas, but have to get KCC approval of it (they already have approval in Missouri). CatFan, the CURB equivalent in Utah and Iowa have come out publicly and stated that net metering is only a subsidy in theory and not reality to customers. If the percent of people implementing it goes up expotentially, then the system may need revamping. But as of now it is not a realistic subsidy. Just one more thought on the transmission scrum: I believe that giving ITC permission to build the line over Westar is probably the way to go-if ITC can pull off building the larger lines-and I don't know if they can. But competition for Westar and keeping a little more of the wind development in Kansas makes me lean towards ITC-sort of.....