PSC: No economic benefits from new wind power
Maryland badly needs to increase its internal electricity generation and its access to juice made out of state. The PSC asked consultants to rate investments in various types up infrastructure. The best bang for the buck, consultants said, is not in building new in-state generation but in building capacity to import electricity from out of state:
Transmission offers the highest total economic value added compared to the costs. New transmission affects both capacity and energy costs because it relieves the physical transmission constraints in the grid. From this perspective alone, it is the most attractive option economically. It is, however, the "option" that is the most uncertain because its fate resides largely in the hands of other state and federal officials.
Even if approved, transmission alone probably wouldn't solve Maryland's impending electricity shortage, anyway. So the consultants looked at different options to boost generation.
The nuclear case provides the highest cumulative economic value added of all scenarios. Given the lead time associated with such a project, however, price benefits [for consumers] are not realized until 2017.
For short-term relief, the consultants recommend building 1200 megawatts worth of natural-gas powered plants. These are relatively cheap to build, but the fuel has gotten expensive. They say that, despite the environmental benefits of wind power, the addition of significant new wind generation in Maryland wouldn't bring prices down.
The wind option our consultants modeled does not provide net economic benefits in either the short- or long-term. Wind does, however, represent a source of clean, carbon-free power.
Comments
Why doesn’t MD have a program for solar power like they do for septic systems? If you guarantee loans at 3 or 4 % people would have enough incentive to put up home systems. What good is a $3,000 tax break if a full system will cost 30-70k per home? You can put a cap on the loan program just like the MDE does for water quality link deposits.
Posted by: Phil J. | December 4, 2007 8:53 AM
Oh yeah, listen to the stellar, visionary, and courageous PSC. (sound familiar?)
Posted by: Larry | December 4, 2007 9:36 AM
And how much do the individual members of the PSC and the CEOs of BGE and Constellation stand to profit from these alternatives? How many homes could have electricity for a year on just one under-the-table deal? These people have richly earned public mistrust, and it's hard to see anything here that won't cost more money that will be passed on to the consumer. We're supposed to trust that when all these things are built (on time and under budget, I don't think), we'll ultimately have lower rates. When cows fly to the moon. Maybe.
Posted by: Leigh H | December 4, 2007 3:00 PM
How about a lower rate for solar like they did in California. And why can't we do Time of Use and Solar, it is technically possible. We could add a lot of solar if it is incentivized enough. And it is during peak usage that solar adds capacity to the system.
Posted by: Nan | December 4, 2007 6:09 PM