Subscribe
Key Documents
Resource Library
Research Links
Alerts
Press Releases

Help keep this education resource going strong!

Other ways to help

FAST FACTS
Publications & Products
Photos & Graphics
Videos
Affiliates

add NWW to your search bar ]

Latest News RSS
loading...
News Feed

RSS

Add feed to:

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)


add NWW News to your search bar ]

Categories

  • LOCATIONS
  • SOURCES
  • Archives

  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • ALL

    Power struggle is still building

    An unprecedented battle between two utilities seeking to build key high-voltage transmission lines in southwest Kansas looked poised to stretch into the future Wednesday.

    Despite a proposed settlement aimed at allowing each company to build a portion of the project, the fight over the so-called V-plan looked likely to remain before utility regulators instead.

    Electric power providers for central and western Kansas announced late Tuesday evening that they had reached a deal with a transmission-building utility, ITC Great Plains, to construct two of the plan’s three sections.

    Sunflower Electric Power Corp. and Mid-Kansas Electric Co., both based in Hays and run by the same six rural electric cooperatives, also extended an offer to the state’s largest electric utility, Topeka-based Westar Energy.

    Westar would be allowed to build the third section of the line, which would run from Medicine Lodge to just outside Wichita, according to company officials.

    ITC Great Plains would be responsible for building a first section running from Spearville to Comanche County and a second piece extending to Medicine Lodge.

    The two sections that would be built by ITC Great Plains sit wholly within the service territories of Sunflower and Mid-Kansas Electric while the third section extends eight miles into Westar’s service area.

    “We think this is a proposed settlement amongst all interested parties in the state of Kansas to move this project forward,” ITC Great Plains President Carl Huslig told Kansas Electric Transmission Authority in Topeka on Wednesday morning.

    But Westar spokesman Jim Ludwig said it will be up to the Kansas Corporation Commission to decide which firm will construct the project.

    “We have joined with the right partners to get that line built as efficiently and in the most timely way possible,” Ludwig said. “We remain committed to the entire project, not just some portion of it.”

    Westar is asking state utility regulators to block ITC Great Plains’ bid to build the entire V-project, which could be the most electrified transmission line west of the Mississippi River.

    The company instead wants its own cooperative venture, Prairie Wind Transmission, to build the V-plan with a spur extending down in Comanche County to connect with Oklahoma’s transmission network.

    By the end of the year, Kansas should have 1,000 megawatts of wind power online, making it among the first 10 states to accomplish such a goal and the first to do so without a mandate, according to Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.

    But some state energy experts consider the transmission line project crucial to further development of wind energy production in Kansas. That’s because the lines would provide a way for southwest Kansas wind farms to send more power to eastern Kansas.

    State officials say that it’s highly unusual for two entities to compete for the right to build the same transmission line.

    Larry Holloway, chief of energy operations for the KCC, told the transmission authority Wednesday that his agency’s legal staff can find no other case where that’s occurred.

    “This is somewhat unique,” Holloway said.

    On Tuesday, commissioners issued an order designed to launch the process of resolving the question of which company should be allowed to build the lines.

    The commission asked its staff to summarize the issues it will need to decide, propose ways for making those determinations and suggest a schedule for resolving the case. Comissioners asked for the report to be filed within 30 days.

    Westar and ITC Great Plains, as well as several other parties involved in the case, will have 15 days to provide a response after the report is filed.

    By Chris Green
    Harris News Service

    Hutchinson News Online

    3 September 2008

    The copyright of this article is owned by the author or publisher indicated. Its availability here constitutes a "fair use" as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law as well as in similar "fair dealing" exceptions of the copyright laws of other nations, as part of National Wind Watch's effort to advance understanding of the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development. For more information, click here.

    Blog it: 

    Tags: Wind power, Wind energy


    « Later PostNews Watch HomeEarlier Post »

    Loading ...
    National Wind Watch
    HOME ABOUT CONTACT DONATE
    © National Wind Watch, Inc.
    Use of copyrighted material is protected by Fair Use.
    "Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.
    We recommend the Firefox browser.
    Formerly at windwatch.org.

    Get the Facts
    key words:  national wind watch, nationalwindwatch.org, windwatch, wind-watch.org; industrial wind energy, industrial wind power; wind action group, windfarm action group, wind power and wind energy opposition, wind opponents; windmill, wind farm, windfarm, wind tower, wind turbine; wind energy facts, truth about wind; wind power and wind energy news, information, resources, research, photos, graphics, videos, DVDs, wind videos; wind power and wind energy impacts, problems with wind power, negatives of wind energy and wind power, wind turbine syndrome, wind turbine and windfarm noise, pros and cons of wind power, risks of wind energy, how wind energy works, arguments against wind power