| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
AnnDe
Joined: 25 Oct 2003
Posts: 649
Location: Town of Herndon
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 2:09 am Post subject: A bad direction--inescapable (?) eminent domain |
 |
|
Questions:
1. What power plans in NOVA threaten unprecedented "power plays" with eminent domain?
2. Is it acceptable for the federal DOE to encourage and support strong-arm takings by Virginia Power, or even to move in on us with federal "takings"??
3. Do Dominion Va Power needs and methods justify these actions, and
4. Are there better alternatives?
Excerpt from an SELC (Southern Environmental Law Center) notice:
"Dominion’s plans tie directly into a new effort by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to designate “National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors" that would essentially bypass many rules for energy projects within the corridors. On October 2, 2007 the DOE finalized a designation of mid-Atlantic corridor that includes the landscape crossed by Dominion’s proposed power line.
This "national interest" corridor designation jeopardizes Virginia’s traditional role to safeguard conservation easements and historic, natural, and cultural resources as it considers Dominion’s power-line application. If the SCC does not approve the power line within one year, Dominion could ask federal authorities to overrule the state. The national corridor designation also opens the door for the utility to seek unprecedented federal powers of eminent domain. "
Go to the website for more info and links. http://www.southernenvironment.org/cases/nova_powerline/index.htm
This is something that affects all of us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
stix
Longtime Member
Joined: 17 Oct 2003
Posts: 5184
Location: USofA
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 6:41 am Post subject: Re: A bad direction--inescapable (?) eminent domain |
|
|
| AnnDe wrote: | Questions:
4. Are there better alternatives? |
It is a good question that those that toss out hot button words like "unprecedented "power plays" with eminent domain" should at least try and answer. Clearly AnnDe your mind seems to made up with how you frame the issue, so what are the alternatives?
How about doing nothing about new energy transmission in order to "safeguard conservation easements and historic, natural, and cultural resources"? Is that acceptable with a growing public energy demand?
Or perhaps this discussion is just a proxy for 'everyone should conserve more and use less energy', which is true but not likely to happen in order to obviate the need for more future energy supply to businesses and homes....
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lehuster
Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts: 252
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, there are alternatives,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/10/AR2007011000757.html
| Quote: | 1. Could investment by utilities and government (and individuals and the private sector) in regulations, incentives and building codes cut electrical requirements by efficiency while supporting economic and population growth?
Amory Lovins, one of the nation's top energy experts, coined the phrase "negawatts" to capture the concept of the value of investing in efficiency to cut electrical requirements. With systems designed for efficiency, we could reduce our per capita electrical needs by roughly 20 to 25 percent -- at an average cost of less than 2 cents per kilowatt. Such investments would put off for a decade any requirement for new transmission lines.
2. In addition to saving energy, are there ways for the region to generate more of its own power through efficient local means and/or renewable power sources such as solar or urban wind projects? Renewable-energy systems -- such as solar water-heating -- are already cost-effective. For government and many businesses, small solar and wind projects can save money by assuring continuity of operations during external power interruptions. Such projects could both foster a more efficient power structure and provide resilience against disasters that might interrupt power supplies. Making a concerted effort to develop such projects would reduce the need to devastate natural treasures to bring electricity from polluting coal plants.
3. Does the utility have any incentive to explore energy efficiency and distributed power generation rather than expanding the distribution system to facilitate greater use of electricity?
Sadly, no. The utility rate structure rewards the utility for selling more kilowatt hours. Under current structuring, massive energy-efficiency projects would be money-losers. There are ways to address this -- most notably through profit-decoupling, which provides paths for a utility to make money through "negawatts" just as it might through selling more kilowatts.
There are tremendous opportunities, in the use of efficiency programs and the sensible pursuit of renewable energy, for Northern Virginia, the metropolitan area and the nation to reduce reliance on power sources that pollute.
We must not discount the potential to eliminate the need for the power lines through investment that would both reduce electricity demand (efficiency) and promote distributed power that provides resilience in the face of disaster. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Bruhns
Longtime Member
Joined: 15 Oct 2003
Posts: 10441
Location: Herndon, Virginia, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
I remember a series of dramatic 'rolling blackouts' in California a few years back, that were supposedly the inevitable result of an inadequate electrical grid. But then, a certain energy company turned out to be a total fraud, and those those blackouts pretty much stopped.
That said, our use of electricity keeps growing, and our electrical grid needs to grow as well. We can not have our population continue to grow, without also expanding our electrical grid as well as our natural gas distribution system. And even if by some technological trick we can put off the addition of new distribution lines, we need to plan for the locations and alignments of those lines now, and as we move forward.
_________________
Government debt and deficits are robbing your children, your grandchildren, and your great-grandchildren. http://www.usdebtclock.org/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stix
Longtime Member
Joined: 17 Oct 2003
Posts: 5184
Location: USofA
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 1:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lehuster.. are the "alternatives" you have posted viable enough to eliminate the need for new energy distribution systems and alignments (and that pesky talk of possible environmental impact and eminent domain). If not, they are not really "alternatives" now are they...
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
T.H.Monck
Longtime Member
Joined: 09 May 2005
Posts: 1035
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stix. Lehuster quoted a link from the Washington Post. He didn't write it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lehuster
Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts: 252
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Much depends on how efficient we are using our energy right now. If we are already highly efficient, then it would not make sense to talk of reducing per capita energy needs through increased efficiency. My personal opinion - and I do not claim to be an expert - is that we don't use energy very efficiently, and we could at the very least defer the need for more production / distribution systems with an aggressive program of increased efficiency. This is something we ought to be doing anyway, regardless of whether or not we think we need more power plants and power lines soon.
Getting an energy audit, sealing all the air leaks, and getting blown-in insulation made all the difference in how comfortable my home is... and it's going to pay for itself very quickly! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Atronach
Longtime Member
Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 1038
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes, this is inescapable. Actually, this is a great example of something that is totally inescapable. We all knew it was going to happen, we all knew why it was going to happen, now it is going to happen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RestonResident
Longtime Member
Joined: 12 Nov 2006
Posts: 1266
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
@Bob: Those blackouts were caused by deregulation. As soon as california deregulated the energy sector, Enron decided they could make more money selling power to other states. They intentionally caused the blackouts to make more money.
There is alot of data on this. Note how the blackouts went away after the laws were changed. Capacity did not increase that dramatically that quickly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Lorax
Joined: 22 Oct 2003
Posts: 897
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 12:21 pm Post subject: Re: A bad direction--inescapable (?) eminent domain |
|
|
| stix wrote: |
How about doing nothing about new energy transmission in order to "safeguard conservation easements and historic, natural, and cultural resources"? Is that acceptable with a growing public energy demand?
Or perhaps this discussion is just a proxy for 'everyone should conserve more and use less energy', which is true but not likely to happen in order to obviate the need for more future energy supply to businesses and homes....
. |
Yeah, forget conservation of energy, we have limitless supplies of oil and other natural resources. Plus, it sounds like HARD WORK. We're Americans - we're entitled to live fat, dumb and happy. Let's just bulldoze those pesky parks and historic areas for more power lines. That's the easiest solution, so it must be the right one. 
_________________
"Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing will change. It simply will not." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stix
Longtime Member
Joined: 17 Oct 2003
Posts: 5184
Location: USofA
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Cute reply TL.. so what are you saying.. there are enough viable "alternatives" that we do not need any more energy transmission capability?
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Lorax
Joined: 22 Oct 2003
Posts: 897
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stix wrote: | Cute reply TL.. so what are you saying.. there are enough viable "alternatives" that we do not need any more energy transmission capability?
. |
Thanks. I try. 
No, there are not nearly enough alternatives developed. Creating more power lines certainly isn't going to solve the problem.
I'm saying that necessity is the mother of invention. IF we had to, we as a nation would figure out a way to conserve energy and/or put the required time, effort and money into developing enough alternatives.
We, as a nation are additcted to cheap, easy energy. Like any addict, we are influenced by both our vice and the people around us.
Enablers who make excuses and make it easier for addictz to spiral out of control. Ever see those Discovery documentaries with the morbidly obese people who can't even get out of bed? If they can't get out of bed, how do they get their chubby little hands on so much food? Somone brings it to them. Proposals like the one in the above post are like brining a chocolate cake to a 1200 lb man. Providing more access to energy will only make the American people gorge themselves more.
The Lorax chooses not to be an enabler, but instead is trying to spark an intervention. We need to kick our addiction to cheap, oil-based energy before we as a nation hit rock bottom. My fear though, is that like most addicts we won't be able to avoid it.
Unless..............
_________________
"Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing will change. It simply will not." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
