I am trying to understand the BIG WIRES act from the perspective of small-government conservatives. In particular I am thinking of midwesterners who would not see BIG WIRES as permitting reform at all, but yet another big government regulation that forces the midwest to pay (share power) every time another region (with poorer planning or a less stable climate) has a blackout. I'm not arguing that it is not good for the country overall, but trying to see a case that is a gain for our region. Would this lower or raise or not change our energy prices? I can't find definitive answers, except that it would probably make it all more uniform across the country, which for us would mean more expensive.
The gridlock in southern MN is perhaps one answer. here, more streamlined energy would surely bring all this extra wind energy to other parts of the state or country, making energy more plentiful (and bringing the price down, in general) and allowing the turbines to keep working, and southern MN to keep making money off of it.
BIG WIRES stands to increase the pressure for permitting reform, as now these companies HAVE to secure permits to build more lines, but in itself it is not permitting reform. I'm thinking of my Rep. and how to sell to him that our supposed support of permitting reform is simply another government rule imposed on companies, with no guarantee that they will be able to do what is now newly required of them.
It seems the BIG WIRES act is better sold as “safety and security” against blackouts, or perhaps wildly fluctuating energy prices?
Hi @Katya Gordon. BIG WIRES will help Minnesota by increasing its transmission capacity. That will alleviate the congestion that's causing the state's wind energy to at times be curtailed, a.k.a. shut off and go to waste because the grid can't currently handle it. If Minnesota could share more electricity with other regions, it would allow that wind energy to be used and more wind energy to be developed, creating jobs and revenue for the state.
The grid stability and security angle is also a good one. The more capability we have to share electricity between regions, the less we have to worry about dangerous power outages. That's an angle that appeals to a lot of conservatives.
The bill probably won't have much impact on local electricity prices. Some utilities will have to build more transmission lines, but they'll also benefit from being able to share electricity with other regions.
And the bill doesn't force anyone to share electricity, but an increased electricity sharing capacity would allow that possibility. That would also make the grid more efficient in general. If we can share more electricity between regions then we have to build less new capacity locally, which can save money. People often use the analogy that the interstate highway system similarly made the country more efficient by allowing us to more easily transport stuff between different regions.
Search Forums
Forum help
Select a question below
CCL Community Guidelines
- Discuss, ask and share
- Be respectful
- Respect confidentiality
- Protect privacy
CCL Blog Policy Area Categories
- Price on Carbon
- CBAM
- Clean Energy Permitting Reform
- Healthy Forests
- Building Electrification and Efficiency