- Email: [email protected]
Environmental concerns regarding electric power transmission in North America
Environmental concerns regarding electric power transmission in North America John M. DeCicco, Stephen S. Bernow and Jan Beyea
The electric utilities o f North America have become ever more interconnected via transmission facilities, largely to insure reliability. Current policy discussions regarding transmission include calls for improved access, increased capacity, and deregulation to facilitate trade in electric power. From an environmental perspective, two issues have been notably absent in much o f the debate: (1) a recognition of the full range o f environmental impacts related to electricity transmission; and (2) the potential for end-use efficiency to address the reliability and economy requirements that motivate attention to transmission. This paper broaches these issues, starting with an elaboration of the environmental impacts, which range from global and regional effects to local concerns, including the potential health risks associated with electric and magnetic fields. We emphasize that transmission planning should occur as part o f an integrated planning process, in which the environmental and social costs o f various options are fully considered. We discuss the potential for end-use efficiency to lessen environmental impacts of both transmission and generation. We conclude that there is a need to ensure that environmental externalities and demand-side alternatives are adequately considered when transmission network expansions are proposed. Keywords: Electric power transmission; North America; Environment
J o h n M. D e C i c c o is a R e s e a r c h A s s o c i a t e with t h e A m e r ican Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, 1001 Con-
necticut Ave NW, Suite 535, Washington 20036, DC, USA; Stephen S. Bernow is Director of Research at the Tellus Institute for Resource and Environmental Strategies, Boston, MA, USA; Jan Beyea is Senior Staff Scientist with the National Audubon Society, 950 Third Ave, New York, NY 20022, USA.
30
This paper presents our perspective on the environmental implications of electric power transmission, related in particular to possible expansions of the transmission grid serving the USA, which has come to extend beyond the national boundaries. We lay out a broad framework for the evaluation of transmission planning and siting proposals by focusing on three aspects of the issue. First, we discuss the environmental impacts of transmission that must be addressed in the planning process - these concerns range from local impacts to effects on a regional, national, and international scale. Second, we note that the possible human health effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) have important planning and siting implications. Finally, we emphasize the need for transmission planning to occur within the context of a coherent overall energy policy which accounts for environmental externalities. The view developed in this paper is that the amount and location of transmission should be determined as part of an appropriate mix of end-use efficiency improvements and environmentally compatible supply options by which electricity-related services can be economically provided. Our objective is not only to summarize the range of environmental impacts of electric power transmission, but also to point out the role of end-use efficiency as related to the transmission issue. Some limited attention was given to these views in a recent study.1 Nevertheless, the importance of end-use efficiency improvements in meeting the economy and reliability requirements of the electrical system has been often neglected in recent discussions of electric power transmission2 and it is this imbalance which we hope to redress here.
Environmental impacts The environmental impacts of electric power networks occur in ecosystems at all levels. Local environmental effects will occur in the immediate 0301-4215/92/001030-10 © 1992 Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd
Environmental concerns and electricity transmission in North America
surroundings of particular facilities. Non-local effects may extend to adjoining regions, to neighbouring countries, and to the world as a whole. This range of impacts must be considered at the earliest stages of the planning and decisionmaking process. Related to local ecological concerns are other local impacts, which touch on a variety of local economic, political, and environmental concerns. These include land-use governance, concerns of local landowners, community development plans, cultural resources, and impacts on adjacent areas that may affect property values and the character of an area. 3 In this section we list some examples of how power transmission can affect the environment or slowdown efforts to mitigate ecological damage. We also offer prescriptions for including these considerations in the planning process.
Regional and global impacts Large-scale and long-term environmental impacts often occur by increments, each of which may seem small enough to ignore. The incremental nature of environmental impacts should not, however, be permitted to obscure the potential seriousness of their cumulative consequences. Both long-term additive effects and the movement of ecosystems towards conditions of discontinuity can have serious consequences. Thresholds can be reached, beyond which habitats and wildlife populations may change radically and perhaps irreversibly. Except in its local environment, the effects of a single project (such as the siting of a transmission line) may be too small to easily observe. Yet if this project is one step in a plan of similar steps, if it is an instance of many disparate but similarly conceived resource choices, or if it sets a precedent, then the cumulative impacts of the series of changes it helps promote can be devastating. The present ecological damage due to acid precipitation did not occur overnight from a single large power plant. Rather, it is the result of many choices about power production (as well as industry, transportation, and agriculture) that have resulted over the years in an ongoing regional acidification. While there has been progress, eg, by Federal regulatory processes in the USA, in evaluating cumulative environmental impacts, this principal is not yet applied in all situations and has been absent from consideration in some critical projects. The adage 'dilution is not the solution to pollution' is quite apt to this discussion. Not much more than a decade ago tall stacks were thought to solve the then apparent air quality problems arising from fossil-fuel use. They dispersed the pollutants more
ENERGY POLICY January 1992
widely and reduced the ground level concentrations near power plants and other facilities. Human populations in those areas were therefore expected to suffer less health and visibility problems. Yet greater dispersion can mean a larger population is exposed and, perhaps more importantly, has since that time become associated with regional ecological degradation from acid precipitation. Moreover, dispersion of the pollutant offers no remedy for global climate changes that may be caused by the emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Environmental hazards are not necessarily reduced by exporting them to other regions by means of importing the electricity. There is ce'rtainly a need to protect human populations and ecosystems in areas that are already heavily stressed by energyinduced environmental impacts. But this should not be done by burdening relatively clean areas with new power production facilities. Moreover, through regional and global transport, some of the hazard will return. 'Coal-by-wire' can be equivalent to 'smokeby-wire' when the impacts of the emissions are not limited by geographic boundaries. An example of the export of hazard through transmission capability expansion is related to the exploitation of the hydroelectric potential of the Canadian James Bay watershed. A recent report 4 on this issue concludes: Canadian law does not presently require environmental assessments to include consideration of cumulative effects or alternatives to hydroelectric projects. To our knowledge, no official cumulative impact studies have been done of lignite extraction, the Grand Canal diversion project, or the full program of hydro-development proposed for the James Bay region. Yet the proposed hydro program alone is gigantic, leading to a damming or diversion of almost all major rivers entering James Bay from the East. The resulting changes in discharge patterns could affect the habitat severely. Some of the power that might be produced from such hydroelectric projects would be transmitted for consumption in the northeastern USA. While it could reduce the need for added fossil or nuclear generation in the USA, it would effectively export environmental damage (albeit in a different form) to the ecosystems in Canada. This export, moreover, would be the result of import 'needs' associated with a New England electricity demand still based on inefficient use of electricity. Our growing understanding of the links between ecosystems suggests that some ecological impacts of such projects might even be observable in the power-consuming, supposedly damage-spared regions. Many of the migrating birds which are seen on the shores of the
31
Environmental concerns and electricity transmission in North America
northeastern USA depend on the James Bay area as a critical migration stopover. Severe alteration of that habitat could potentially result in a decimation of those populations, some of which may be already stressed by loss of key staging areas throughout the hemisphere.
Local ecosystem protection Once new electric power transmission has been justified by an integrated planning process, the design and siting stage of the planning must carefully consider the impacts on local ecosystems. Members of the public and organizations concerned with local impacts must be involved in this stage, as their input is critical for determining whether any re-design, siting changes, and other measures are needed to minimize adverse local impacts. If the initial costbenefit analysis has demonstrated need by a clear margin, it is likely that some version of the project would be supported, perhaps with refinements specified in the course of the detailed consideration of local impacts. Nonetheless, the final evaluation must allow for rejection, as well as acceptance or modification, of the project. This latter-stage liability is the only way to enforce an accurate consideration of environmental costs of transmission during the earlier, integrated planning stage. Otherwise stated, the local planning will not place an undue burden on transmission projects if the environmental costs (including human health concerns addressed later in this paper) have been adequately addressed during integrated planning. The efficacy of a two-stage approval process used for electrical facilities in the State of Wisconsin since 1975 is discussed by Arny. 5 Protected lands or proximity to transmission lines will, of course, create siting constraints. The industry has generally shown sensitivity in this regard, and would likely seek to avoid problems such as siting a line along the edge of a protected area where the line might adversely affect the natural beauty of the area, or where right-of-way management might impact on the habitat. A similar sensitivity should be shown in multiple-use areas, where there can be more flexibility as long as the siting does not harm other uses, such as wildlife or recreation. A high priority should be given to wetlands protection. Filling or channelization of wetlands should be avoided; more generally, the integrity of wetland ecosystems should be respected when constructing transmission lines and maintaining rights-of-way. Local habitats through which a planned line will pass should be surveyed to determine appropriate wildlife protection measures, for example, the placement of towers and guy wires out of flight paths of
32
birds that traditionally use an underlying wetland, so as to prevent collisions, or attaching devices to enhance visibility of structures. There may be situations when a design is used to minimize visual impacts for humans, and a tradeoff will have to be made. Right-of-way management should also be considered when planning transmission lines. A clearly laid out and environmentally sound management programme should be developed when the line is being planned. Again, significant studies have been done in this area. We realize that manual, mechanical management can be quite costly; but herbicide use can be costly, too, in terms of ecosystem damage, and should be minimized. We have heard of a number of innovative solutions to right-of-way management. For example, selective or spot applications of herbicides are preferable to blanket applications such as aerial spraying. Judicious and selective use of herbicides can be used. 6 Nitrogen loading has been proposed to favour grass over trees; this can also attract herbivores, which can further keep trees from growing. 7 Right-of-way areas open 'edge habitat'; this can be beneficial or detrimental, depending on the circumstances. Builders of transmission lines should observe past lessons about protecting the wildlife that habituate a right-of-way or may come into contact with the lines. Although studies of harmful health or behavioural effects of EMFs on wildlife have generally been negative or inconclusive,9 this worry cannot be dismissed, given the evidence of possible health effects on humans. However, such effects are small compared to impacts due to possible contacts with lines and habitat alteration from the location, construction, and maintenance of transmission lines (as discussed in the previous section). It is these nonEMF effects which are of greatest concern from an environmental perspective. They can be at least partly remedied if adequate consideration is given to them during design and past experience is utilized. Although the US Fish and Wildlife Service once had a coordinated national involvement in addressing wildlife impacts of transmission lines, the current situation appears to rely on compliance with broader regulations and voluntary adoption of appropriate measures by the industry, l° Ways to insure that all firms involved with transmission lines are kept abreast of the state-of-the-art for minimizing adverse on wildlife habitat should be established where they are not already available. The implication for environmental organizations and the concerned public is that they must be vigilant to insure these issues are adequately addressed for projects in their area.
ENERGY POLICY January 1992
Environmental concerns and electricity transmission in North America
In summary, transmission line projects should be closely scrutinized by environmental groups regarding their local impacts, as well as by national environmental organizations when transmission may result in an export of environmental damages to other regions.
Human health concerns There is evidence of possible risks to human health from electromagnetic fields. 11 Effects of fields on living cells have been demonstrated in laboratory studies. Epidemiologic studies have found associations of magnetic fields with cancer, particularly childhood leukemia and cancers of the nervous system. This evidence is not fully conclusive and the level of risk that might be attributed to such fields appears to be relatively low. Biological effects of EMFs depend on a number of complex factors pertaining to the type of field, its magnitude and frequency, its interactions with other agents, and other factors which are not fully understood. An introduction to the nature of EMFs and their possible risks, written for a non-technical audience, is given by Morgan. lz A number of technical discussions are also availablefl 3 Electric power transmission lines are a source of EMFs, as are electric distribution lines, building wiring, and electric appliances. Magnetic fields from power lines and other electrical devices are generally weaker than the earth's magnetic field, but they are usually oscillating (50-60 Hz), unlike the steady field of the earth. The strength of such fields drops off with distance from the source, so power lines present a potential risk primarily to people who live or work near the lines. Generally, if one lives more than about 200 yards from transmission lines, magnetic fields from household sources will be stronger than that from the lines) 4 For many people, therefore, appliances (particularly electric blankets, toasters, and motorized devices such as electric clocks, shavers, and can openers) result in field intensities greater than those from transmission lines. While transmission lines may not currently be a large source of magnetic field exposures for most people, the siting of new lines can increase the exposed population, which is a reason for public concern.
EMF research As many have pointed out, ongoing research is certainly needed on EMF exposures, health effects, and ways to reduce exposures should this become necessary. This work should include better exposure
ENERGY POLICY January 1992
characterization for EMFs, epidemiologic work, as well as research on the response of biological systems to exposure. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) currently has the largest research programme in these aspects of the issue. 15 EPRI has developed instrumentation for measuring individual EMF exposures in everyday environments. Timely and open publication of data from this research would greatly improve public as well as scientific understanding of the issue. There has been no survey of the number of people potentially exposed because of very close proximity to transmission lines. Rough estimates are about 30 000 to 400 000 persons in the USA. t6 Better identification of the population so exposed should certainly be a research priority. A national data base might be considered for EMF exposure survey and research results. 17 This could include data on transmission-related field strengths in various regions and communities, as well as information on fields from other sources. An expanded Federal role is needed for coordinating research efforts and providing a clearinghouse for information on EMF health effects. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently reviewing the issue, is It is not yet clear what role EPA will have; further attention by the National Institutes of Health may also be important.
Policy implications Technical aspects and various policy responses to the issue have been addressed by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University. x9 Morgan has discussed the pros and cons of strategies ranging from denial of a problem to major retrofit facilities, noting that besides the incomplete knowledge of health effects from EMFs, knowledge of the means and costs of mitigation measures is also lacking, z° In the light of the great uncertainties regarding the extent of risk and how to manage it at this time, it is reasonable to follow the suggestion of 'prudent avoidance'. 21 Current knowledge of health effects of EMFs does not support investing large resources to reduce exposures to EMFs; neither does it support doing nothing. The best that can be said is that people should be protected from 'high' exposures to transmission line EMFs. Scientific knowledge is not sufficient to specify what a 'high' exposure would be, eg, based on dose-response assessments. However, given that there is no strong evidence of EMF risk to populations at large in our society, which uses electricity widely, 'high' can be interpreted as 'much higher than typical.' High household exposures can be avoided, for example, by not using electric blank-
33
Environmental concerns and electricity transmission in North America
ets and placing motorized electric clocks further away from a bed. Protection from transmission line EMFs can be accomplished by siting lines far enough away from populated areas so that the resultant field strengths are small compared to those commonly encountered in electricity use. Utility companies should assess field strengths resulting from their own transmission and distribution lines, in particular, by gathering information on numbers and locations of residences, commercial centres, and schools that are very close to power lines. Such information should be readily available to scientific researchers as well as the public. A regulatory approach for effecting avoidance during siting of transmission lines is to charge a fee based on the number of persons exposed to fields above some threshold. 22 There may be some concern that citizens will raise fears of health effects as an economic 'smoke screen' against transmission sites which they oppose. This may drive up the compensation price required by affected property owners or communities. However, the costs required to meet public concerns are one measure of the risk in the face of uncertainty regarding potential problems. One might thus consider these costs to be a measure of the environmental externalities of a transmission project. To the extent that such factors raise the price of transmission, they are a market-correction mechanism which, by reflecting these externalities, may allow alternatives (such as electrical efficiency measures) to compete more fairly with supply-side options. People incur personal costs, which may be only partially accountable in financial terms, when they chose to intervene in a siting process. These costs are in some way equivalent to the added expenses companies incur in meeting public objections and perhaps re-routing a line or moving to an alternative plan. These costs are as valid as those that may be more directly calculable in terms of material and labour. If the affected public's compensation requirements cannot be met except at a high cost, then this 'market' fact could be reflected in the comparison of options. Transmission projects will have to bear the consequences of competing on a 'level playing field' with these costs so internalized. Issues of social equity arise when poorer communities are more likely to bear transmission siting burdens because of their lower political influence. Using governmental powers to override public objections to transmission line projects can be viewed as an effective subsidy to such projects by the government. Such a subsidy is unwarranted if there is not ample democratic process in reaching siting decisions or developing the
34
guidelines by which governments excercise power to override local concerns. Institutionalized guarantees are often needed to insure adequate public participation in planning processes. 23 The best regulatory framework for addressing transmission related health concerns is yet to be worked out. At this time, the focus should be on identifying the responsible bodies and types of public process needed to develop technical standards that may come to be warranted as scientific evidence evolves. 24 Presently, a basis for the development of standards might be found in guidelines for 'prudent avoidance' of 'high' EMFs; State, regional, and Federal entities should address this issue in a coordinated fashion. At minimum, there should be public disclosure of information on existing and projected EMF exposures from transmission lines. In the USA, some States have already acted on regulating EMFs; model legislation could be developed to facilitate coordination among States. Federal involvement is certainly warranted because of the interstate and international aspects of electricity transmission and since any justifiable safeguards ought to apply equally no matter where people live. Since it is currently unclear how various agencies25 should be involved, priority must be given to establishing and clarifying the Federal role, in both research and regulation, regarding EMFs and public health.
A context for transmission planning Transmission planning should take place as part of a process that considers the consequences for society as a whole of decisions regarding energy systems. The environmental impacts discussed in the previous sections of this paper should be fully considered in this process. It is essential that the planning for possible expansions of electric power transmission capability start at such a general level, beyond the geographic and financial confines of an interested utility company, regional power pool, or power producer. While some power planners may assert that this goal is routinely met, it is also an ideal of which the planning process sometimes falls short. As such, it is worth the special emphasis it is given here. Historically, the objectives in transmission planning have been the needs for power delivery and system reliability. In the context of integrated planning, however, the objectives are: first, minimizing the cost of services for customers; second, maintaining reliability; third, minimizing local environmental (including health) impacts; and, last, minimizing external environmental impacts on regional to global
ENERGY POLICY January 1992
Environmental concerns and electricity transmission in North America
scales. Economic returns to stakeholders as well as transmission design and operating requirements are constraints to be considered in the planning process. The standard of comparison in planning should be the social, economic and environmental benefit of improving electric end-use efficiency.
Reasons for building new transmission: good and bad Transmission system expansion - both within utility systems and power pools, and between regions - can provide economies in power production and maintenance of reliability. By permitting greater interutility power transactions, building transmission may be more economical than building new power plants or even continuing to operate certain existing facilities. The existence of power pools is a reflection of these facts. There are, however, a few potentially misleading generalizations that sometimes arise in discussions of transmission. We note these clarifying distinctions:
•
•
•
Needs for reliability differ from opportunities for lower cost power. Although both are related to transmission planning, to first order, these two considerations are distinct. Transmission for reliability improvement (avoidance of load loss risks) is most properly compared with peaking facilities, which have a relatively low capital cost. Transmission for economic reasons should be compared with relatively higher cost cycling and baseload generating resources. For example, when a reliability issue is addressed through a proposed enhancement of inter-regional transfer capability, the transmission line should not be posed as an alternative to costly new baseload capacity. Transmission is not an alternative to generation. While it may be an alternative to building or operating generating facilities in one region, transmission does not replace the operation of power plants altogether. Rather, it substitutes generation in one place for generation in another. While transmission losses within a region are generally small (3% or less), such losses increase with distance and can exceed 5% for long distance transmission. 26 Therefore, transmission into a region implies that generating capacity, of at least the same amount as displaced locally, is utilized elsewhere. This remote generation has its attendant environmental impacts, which may be of a different nature than those that would occur in the importing region. Transmission is not conservation. It has been suggested that, by replacing generation in one
ENERGY POLICY January 1992
place by another form of generation elsewhere, transmission projects are instruments of 'conservation'. This reflects a misleadingly narrow perspective. The primary purpose of such exchanges is generally economic, rather than either fuel efficiency or pollution reduction, and environmental externalities are rarely considered. Bona fide electricity conservation results in a decrease in electricity consumption and must be generally accomplished by enduse efficiency. Regarding the last two points we acknowledge that fuel conservation can be accomplished through transmission. This is valuable when it promotes the use of cleaner and more efficient generating facilities. However, conserving one fuel (eg, oil or coal) by replacing it with a different supply resource (eg, hydro or nuclear) is not the same as electricity conservation. Certain such replacements - with renewable, efficient, and relatively clean resources can play an important role in an integrated electric system. If transmission is used to move power produced by more efficient and environmentally benign resources or freed up through end-use efficiency, then it can aid in lessening environmental damage overall.
Justifying new transmission Potentially valid reasons for building new electric transmission lines can be classified under three headings. First, there may be transmission capacity limitations that result in lowered reliability in a service area or region. Second, adverse impacts of local power production can be reduced by utilizing power generated remotely. Third, economy transfers can take advantage of geographic variations in supply and demand, allowing for a more efficient allocation of resources. We will discuss these rationales in turn, introducing the environmental issues that need to be addressed before a compelling case for new transmission is made. In some areas, electricity shortages are apparently due to insufficient transmission capabilities, rather than insufficient generation capabilities. Indeed, the operating record reveals that loss of load occurs primarily from transmission, sub-transmission and distribution failures rather than from generation insufficiency. In such cases, the demands for movement of power in the electrical system exceed, or may soon exceed, the limitations of transmission 'capital stock', an infrastructure which was set up in the past but which may be insufficient for some scenarios of system growth. The implications are more frequent outages or higher costs of service, as
35
Environmental concerns and electricity transmission in North America
the most efficient deployment of existing supplies goes unrealized owing to such transmission constraints. However, an alleged transmission capacity limitation may really be a problem of insufficient attention to conservation, as we will elaborate below. Exapansions of transmission capacity are sometimes justified because a region cannot bear added environmental impacts of power production. A related reason may be constraints on conventional fuel supplies (eg, gas or oil). Examples of this are transmitting coal-fired power ('coal-by-wire') from central States to parts of the south and from the southwest to southern California, and transmitting hydroelectric power from Canada to New York and New England. However, the environmental impact analyses used to evaluate such proposals must not be too narrowly framed. In fact, environmental problems are not solved by exporting them to a different region under guise of importing power, as we have previously pointed out. The apparent economies of bulk power transfers can only be fully evaluated when all environmental costs are fully considered. While remotely generated power may seem to have a lower cost, it may also imply greater overall pollutant loadings (eg, substituting high sulphur coal for low, or coal for oil and gas). Although it is possible that the cost advantage of imported power arises from its generation at a more efficient and cleaner plant, this will often not be the primary basis for the transfer. Rather, the price differential between fuels will often be the primary factor. In fact, disregarding environmental externalities, it could happen that importing power from a dirtier, inefficient plant using a lower cost fuel would appear to be more economical than generating power locally at a clean, higher efficiency facility.
Transmission v end-use efficiency As suggested above, problems due to capacity limitations in both generation and transmission and the potential environmental impacts of both can also be the result of insufficient attention to end-use efficiency, or electricity conservation. In the electric industry, conservation is one of several strategies for demand-side management (DSM), which the industry often broadly defines to include any strategy that effects demand, including load shaping and load growth. 27 However, the approaches having the greatest potential for reducing adverse environmental impacts are those which improve the efficiency of electricity use and reduce peak loads. Successful electricity conservation programmes result in re36
duced overall energy consumption, lower peak power demand, or both. The utility industry and regulators have put increasing emphasis on DSM in recent years. In a number of regions, improving end-use efficiency and managing peak loads have become economic means of maintaining service without the need to add generating capacity as rapidly as was once projected. 28 The commitment to the conservation aspects of DSM is not uniform throughout the industry, however, and investments in conservation generally remain a small fraction of system-wide investments. 29 Just as the need for new generation can be reduced by reducing demand, so too can transmission requirements be reduced. Studies have shown that there is sufficient room for efficiency improvement to drastically reduce and even eliminate load growth over the next decade. 3° Electricity conservation can have a lower cost, particularly from a social perspective and if e n v i r o n m e n t a l impacts are fully accounted, than transmission and generation. While transmission system enhancement may sometimes meet supply or reliability needs at lower cost than generation, DSM can be even more attractive economically. This option would involve improving load management to meet reliability requirements and improving end-use efficiency to enhance both reliability and overall economy. When addressing the barriers that may inhibit transmission expansions, therefore, ways to overcome the regulatory and institutional barriers that currently inhibit greater demand-side investments should also be addressed. The subsequent planning efforts will then be more likely to result in an environmentally sound combination of end-use efficiency, transmission, and generation.
Regulatory considerations Local utilities as well as the producers of power at the remote source may benefit from inter-regional power transfers; so may consumers of the transmitted power. But for consumers, is adding transmission capacity less costly than load management or energy conservation? This question should always be asked, and answered, when considering the addition of new transmission lines. There have been regulatory developments that permit DSM to compete with supply options. Such approaches provide a promising way to answering the foregoing question, particularly when an accounting of environmental costs is incorporated into the procedures. Quantifying the cost of environmental impacts is a current c h a l l e n g e for the r e g u l a t o r y c o m m u n i t y . 31 Approaches inctude directly estimating damage ENERGY POLICY January 1992
Environmental concerns and electricity transmission in North America
costs or using control costs as a surrogate for actual damages (to health, amenity, ecosystems, or economic systems). Procedures for incorporating environmental externalities are being developed in some States. 32 When such protocols are established, it is important that the environmental costs of imported (purchased) power are also taken into account. Environmental organizations and citizens' groups have a key role to play in encouraging the internalization of environmental costs and participating in public review processes in order to insure that the methods proposed adequately address the impacts of concern. It is importanat to examine how changes in transmission networks might help or hurt the economics of facilities, such as cogenerators, which qualify for connection under the Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act of 1978 (PURPA). Looking ahead, similar considerations apply to power from photovoltaic cells, wind turbines, or other potentially renewable energy sources. These supply alternatives will all have their own environmental impacts, of course. Nevertheless, they do offer hope in addressing the current problems of air and water pollution, regional ecosystem damage (acidification), habitat destruction, and global warming which are caused largely by fossil-fuel use. In the future, the electrical system should emphasize overall efficiency and include efficient and dual-purpose energy production facilities, the use of renewable and minimally polluting fuels, as well as advanced energy conversion technologies. An expanded reliance on diverse and more dispersed sets of electricity supply and demand resources may have different transmission requirements than reliance on imports based on conventional coal or hydroelectric generation expansions in other regions. Therefore, transmission might affect the relative economics of different energy policy options. The supply options considered might also change the optimal timing and nature of transmission expansions. For example, what are the economic differences between a near-term expansion of AC transmission that facilitates electricity generation using western coal, and a near-term aggressive end-use efficiency programme with future highvoltage DC transmission expansion for southwestern photovoltaic generation? It is not too soon to carefully examine such tradeoffs, because transmission decisions we make now will affect the future economics and environmental impacts of the national electrical system.
Conclusion Even without explicit consideration of environmen-
ENERGY POLICY January 1992
tal externalities, it is not clear whether transmission expansion, as a general direction for the US electric system, is either necessary or socially beneficial. 33 Adding the considerations pointed out here, namely, the range of environmental impacts and the potential for end-use efficiency to solve problems traditionally addressed by transmission, the desirability of a concerted expansion of the electric transmission grid in the USA appears even more questionable. Proposed transmission projects must be considered in the context of a planning process which carefully evaluates the full range of supply and demand alternatives on a regional basis. The scope of a 'region' is at least the level of reliability councils and certainly crosses the boundaries of States, which are currently the principal governmental jurisdictions for electric system planning. Whether new transmission entails a net benefit or detriment from an environmental perspective can only be judged if a full accounting is made of impacts in all affected regions: the source of supply, the transmission corridor, and the demand area served. Excessive focus on the transmission of remotely generated electricity, whether for economy or to address environmental and fuel supply constraints in a demand region, can divert attention from achieving end-use efficiency and environmental protection at the local level. Utilities and power pools should focus on conversion, fuel switching, and attractive site-specific opportunities for cogeneration and renewable sources within their local service areas. Not only do these options have the potential for providing electricity without exporting environmental impacts but they can also free up transmission capacity for the transfers that will then make sense. Current regional surpluses and deficiencies of utility system generating capacity are part of the motivation for transmission grid expansion. But these imbalances are an historical artifact of past planning outcomes, particularly rapid capacity expansion in the 1970s intersecting with load growth that was far below expectations. Such a condition should not be used as a basis for long-term planning under the more balanced conditions that may arise as regional surpluses diminish. Certainly there will still be regional diversity - eg, different daily and seasonal load patterns - that will justify some level of economy transfers and bulk power support which should be rationally exploited. It is not clear, however, that a major expansion of transmission capability is necessary. As discussed previously, the environmental externalities associated with electric transmission lines
37
Environmental concerns and electricity transmission in North America
can be both direct and indirect. Direct external costs are those due to ecologic, land use, aesthetic, and potential human health impacts associated with the construction and operation of a line and the management of its right-of-way. Indirect costs include generation-related environmental impacts 'exported' to regions outside of the load areas served by the transmission lines. Regarding the possible risks due to EMFs from transmission lines, we recommend a concerted and ongoing research effort to clarify scientific understanding, a Federal role in coordinating this work and in providing a clearinghouse for results on effects and exposures, prudent avoidance34 of exposures from transmission lines and other sources, and the d e v e l o p m e n t of a nationwide regulatory framework for addressing the issue as better knowledge develops. We emphasize that in recommending an improved regulatory framework for addressing transmission related EMF effects, we are not calling for standards based on particular field strengths at this time. While the current scientific understanding of EMF health effects is inadequate for developing such specific technical standards, the prudent avoidance rationale can provide a basis for guidelines regarding power transmission as well as other EMF sources. The concerns raised here are addressed differently in different States. Some States, and regions covered by major Federal power authorities, have well developed procedures that address many of the issues, with the notable exception of international and global impacts. From an environmental perspective the adequacy of the transmission planning process is certainly not uniform across the USA, however, and our greatest worries are for those areas for which the process is poorly developed and poorly documented. The implication is a need for greater Federal involvement in the integrated aspects of the planning process. The interstate nature of much transmission and the universality of many environmental and health concerns make State boundaries an anachronistic impediment to good planning. The likely increasing role of independent power producers and transmission providers only serves to bolster the need for a regulatory process that is more comprehensive in addressing all of the issues raised here and which has broader horizons, both temporally and geographically. States will nevertheless need to retain jurisdiction for local transmission siting decisions, once the need for transmission has been clearly established during the broader stages of system planning. At every jurisdictional level, participation by the
38
public and environmentally concerned organizations is needed to insure that the concerns raised here are fully addressed. Such involvement will help to put in place meaningful mechanisms for taking environmental impacts of power transmission into account. Ongoing participation is needed to insure that the methods for internalizing environmental costs (points systems, fees, mitigation costs, etc) are properly carried out, that cumulative impacts are assessed, and that all alternatives are fully considered. Utilities and regulatory entities should encourage and facilitate such full participation. As is the case in many other environmental issues, the guidance provided by the concerned public - non-experts who are often more directly touched by the technologies of concern - is critical for truly achieving environmental protection and equitable social benefit. This paper grew out of our participation in the Consumer Energy Council of America/Research Foundation (CECA/RF) study on transmission line planning and siting, and we are grateful to Ellen Berman of CECA/RF and the members of the transmission task force for discussions which contributed to our formulation of this paper as well as comments on our first draft. In particular, for giving us written critiques of the paper, we thank M. Amy, T. Chancy, D. Driscoll, K. Florig, G. Hester, M.G. Morgan, M. Klinger, G. Rifakes, B. Palk, as well as A. Strauss for coordinating comments from several members of the Council of Large Public Power Authorities.
1Consumer Energy Council of America/Research Foundation,
Transmission Planning, Siting, and Certification in the 1990s: Problems, Prospects and Policies, Washington, DC, August 1990. The authors participated as members of the advisory committee which prepared this report. 2See, for example, US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Electric Power Wheeling and Dealing: Technological Considerations for Increasing Competition, Report OTA-E-409, Washington, DC, May 1989; Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Electricity Transmission: Realities, Theory, and Policy Alternatives, Washington, DC, October 1989. 3OTA, op cit, Ref 2, p 201ft. 4j. Rosenthal and J. Beyea, Long-term Threats to Canada's James Bay from Human Development, Environmental Policy Department Report No 29, National Audubon Society, New York, July 1989, p 32. SM. Arny, Summary of Wisconsin Transmission Planning and Siting Process, Public Service Commission, State of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA, January 1990. 6R. VanBossuyt, New England Electric System Companies Selective Right-of-way Vegetation Management Program, New England Power Service Company, Westborough, MA, USA, 1987. 7S.D. West, Nitrogen Fertilization and the Suppression of Tree Establishment on Western Washington Rights-of-Way, College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA, 1987. 8Other multiple uses for right-of-way areas might include biking or jogging trails, etc; in Finland, some right-of-way areas are used to grow Christmas trees, with the annual tree harvest helping on the maintenance. However, such uses raise questions regarding liability, damage to the facilities, and EMF effects. For example, a matching grants policy that encouraged multiple uses for transmission right-of-way areas was suspended by the New York State Public Service Commission to avoid unnecessary human
ENERGY POLICY January 1992
Environmental concerns and electricity transmission in North America exposures to EMFs. D. Driscoll et al, Evaluation of the New York State Power Lines Project Scientific Advisory Panel's Final Report, and Recommendations for the NYS Public Service Commission, Memorandum, State of New York, Department of Public Service, Albany, New York, 11 January 1988. 9Edison Electric Institute, R.S. Thorsell, Compatibility of Fish, Wildlife, and Floral Resources with Electric Power Facilities and Lands: An Industry Survey Analysis, EEl report, Washington, DC, USA, 1980; J.M. Lee et al, Electrical and Biological Effects of Transmission Lines: A Review, US Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR, USA, June 1989. ~°Ibid. EEI report has a fairly extensive bibliography, although it is now 10 years old. See also proceedings from the periodic Symposium on Environmental Concerns in Rights-of-Way Management and the newsletter Biocurrents (published by EEl) which addresses general biological issues of the utility industry. nUS Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Biological Effects of Power Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields, background paper OTA-BP-E-53, Washington, DC, USA, May 1989; D.A. Savitz, H. Wachtel, F.A. Barnes, E.M. John and J.G. Tvrdik. 'Case-control study of childhood cancer and exposure to 60 Hz magnetic fields', American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol 128, No 1, pp 21-38. 12M.G. Morgan, Electric and Magnetic Fields from 60 Hertz Electric Power: What Do We Know About the Health Risks?, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegic Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 1989. 13See OTA, op cit, Ref 11, and Lee et al, op cit, Ref 9. A broad survey of biological effects is given by G.J. Beers, 'Biological effects of weak electromagnetic fields from 0 Hz to 200 MHz: a survey of the literature with special emphasis on possible magnetic resonance effects', Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Vol 7, 1989, pp 309-331, A discussion of recent human health studies and their limitations is given by D.A. Savitz, N.E. Pearce and C. Poole, 'Methodological issues in the epidemiology of electromagnetic fields and cancer', Epidemiologic Reviews, Vol 11, 1989, pp 59-78. 14Morgan, op cit, Ref 12, p 4; Electric Power Research Institute, Electric and Magnetic Field Fundamentals: An EMF Health Effects Resource Paper, EPRI brochure EN 3012.9.89, Palo Alto, CA, USA, September 1989. 15Electric Power Research Institute, 'Pursuing the science of EMF', EPRI Journal, Vol 15, No 1, January 1990, pp 4-17. 16OTA, op cit, Ref 11, p 23. 17precedents are national data bases of air pollutions emissions, such for the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program US Environmental Protection Agency, The 1985 N A P A P Emissions Inventory [Version 2], Report EPA-600/7-89-012a, Washington, DC, USA, 1989. lsUS Environmental Protection Agency, Evaluation of the Potential Carcinogenicity of Electromagnetic Fields, external review draft, Report EPA/600/6-90/005B, Office of Research and Development, US EPA, Washington, DC, USA, October 1990. 19M.G. Morgan et al, 'Power-frequency fields: the regulatory dilemma', Issues in Science and Technology, Vol 3, No 4, 1987, pp 81-91; Morgan, op cit, Ref 12; OTA, op cit, Ref 11. 2°M.G. Morgan, Alternative Responses that Utilities Might Take to the Possible Risks of 60 Hz Electromagnetic Fields, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University,
ENERGY POLICY January 1992
Pittsburgh, PA, USA, (undated, ca 1989). 21Morgan, op cit, Ref 12. 22Morgan, et al, op cit, Ref 19, p 88. 23Such as the procedures for public participation developed by the Bonneville Power Administration (CECA/RF, op cit, Ref 1, Chapter VII). 24A separate issue is protection from shock, contact current, or induced voltage hazards, for which standards already exist (see Lee et al, op cit, Ref 9, pp 16if, 63, 85ff). 25In the USA, the Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, and National Institutes of Health all have potential roles in the EMF issue. 26OTA, op cit, Ref 2. 27D. Cogan and S. Williams, Generating Energy Alternatives, Investor Responsibility Research Center, Washington, DC, USA, 1987, p 9. 28H.S. Geller and S.M. Nadel, Electricity Conservation: Potential vs. Achievement, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC), Least Cost Utility Planning Conference, October 1989. 29C.J. Calwell and R.C. Cavanagb, The Decline of Conservation at California Utilities: Causes, Costs, and Remedies, NRDC Energy Program Special Report, Natural Resources Defense Council San Francisco, CA, USA, July 1989; C. Goldman and E. Kahn, 'Comparative assessment of the demand-side management plans of four New York utilities', Energy, Vol 14, No 10, 1989, pp 615-628. 3°New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, The Potential for Electricity Conservation in New York State, Energy Authority Report 8%12, Albany, NY, USA, March 1990; B.D. Hunn, M.L. Baughman, S.C. Silver, A.H. Rosenfeld and H. Akbari, Technical Potential for Electrical Energy Conservation and Peak Demand Reduction in Texas Buildings, Report to the Public Utility Commssion of Texas, Center for Energy Studies, University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA, 1986. 31S. Bernow, B. Biewald and D. Marron, Environmental Externalities Measurement: Quantification, Valuation, and Monetization, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, National Regulatory Research Institute, Seventh Biennial Regulatory Information Conference, September 1990; R.L. Ottinger, 'Consideration of environmental externality costs in electric utility resource selection and regulation', Proceedings of A C E E E 1990 Summer Study on Energy Efficien¢ T in Buildings, Vol 4, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Washington, DC, August 1990; ?? Ottinger et al, Environmental Costs of Electricity, Oceana Publications, New York, 1990, provides a comprehensive discussion of this issue. 32For example, New York is developing bidding procedures that account from environmental costs; see W. Mills, An Overview of Demand-Side Management Bidding Programs in New York State, staff paper, New York State Department of Public Service, Albany, NY, USA, (undated ca 1989), and S.N. Putta, Competition in Electric Generation-Environmental Externalities, staff paper, New York State Department of Public Service, Albany, NY, USA, October 1989. The Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities recently issued an order (Docket No. 89-239) requiring that monetized values of certain emissions be added to the costs of facilities evaluated in a utility's resource acquisition process. 33As pointed out by OTA, op cit, Ref 2. 34As proposed by Morgan, op cit, Ref 12.
39
The electric utilities o f North America have become ever more interconnected via transmission facilities, largely to insure reliability. Current policy discussions regarding transmission include calls for improved access, increased capacity, and deregulation to facilitate trade in electric power. From an environmental perspective, two issues have been notably absent in much o f the debate: (1) a recognition of the full range o f environmental impacts related to electricity transmission; and (2) the potential for end-use efficiency to address the reliability and economy requirements that motivate attention to transmission. This paper broaches these issues, starting with an elaboration of the environmental impacts, which range from global and regional effects to local concerns, including the potential health risks associated with electric and magnetic fields. We emphasize that transmission planning should occur as part o f an integrated planning process, in which the environmental and social costs o f various options are fully considered. We discuss the potential for end-use efficiency to lessen environmental impacts of both transmission and generation. We conclude that there is a need to ensure that environmental externalities and demand-side alternatives are adequately considered when transmission network expansions are proposed. Keywords: Electric power transmission; North America; Environment
J o h n M. D e C i c c o is a R e s e a r c h A s s o c i a t e with t h e A m e r ican Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, 1001 Con-
necticut Ave NW, Suite 535, Washington 20036, DC, USA; Stephen S. Bernow is Director of Research at the Tellus Institute for Resource and Environmental Strategies, Boston, MA, USA; Jan Beyea is Senior Staff Scientist with the National Audubon Society, 950 Third Ave, New York, NY 20022, USA.
30
This paper presents our perspective on the environmental implications of electric power transmission, related in particular to possible expansions of the transmission grid serving the USA, which has come to extend beyond the national boundaries. We lay out a broad framework for the evaluation of transmission planning and siting proposals by focusing on three aspects of the issue. First, we discuss the environmental impacts of transmission that must be addressed in the planning process - these concerns range from local impacts to effects on a regional, national, and international scale. Second, we note that the possible human health effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) have important planning and siting implications. Finally, we emphasize the need for transmission planning to occur within the context of a coherent overall energy policy which accounts for environmental externalities. The view developed in this paper is that the amount and location of transmission should be determined as part of an appropriate mix of end-use efficiency improvements and environmentally compatible supply options by which electricity-related services can be economically provided. Our objective is not only to summarize the range of environmental impacts of electric power transmission, but also to point out the role of end-use efficiency as related to the transmission issue. Some limited attention was given to these views in a recent study.1 Nevertheless, the importance of end-use efficiency improvements in meeting the economy and reliability requirements of the electrical system has been often neglected in recent discussions of electric power transmission2 and it is this imbalance which we hope to redress here.
Environmental impacts The environmental impacts of electric power networks occur in ecosystems at all levels. Local environmental effects will occur in the immediate 0301-4215/92/001030-10 © 1992 Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd
Environmental concerns and electricity transmission in North America
surroundings of particular facilities. Non-local effects may extend to adjoining regions, to neighbouring countries, and to the world as a whole. This range of impacts must be considered at the earliest stages of the planning and decisionmaking process. Related to local ecological concerns are other local impacts, which touch on a variety of local economic, political, and environmental concerns. These include land-use governance, concerns of local landowners, community development plans, cultural resources, and impacts on adjacent areas that may affect property values and the character of an area. 3 In this section we list some examples of how power transmission can affect the environment or slowdown efforts to mitigate ecological damage. We also offer prescriptions for including these considerations in the planning process.
Regional and global impacts Large-scale and long-term environmental impacts often occur by increments, each of which may seem small enough to ignore. The incremental nature of environmental impacts should not, however, be permitted to obscure the potential seriousness of their cumulative consequences. Both long-term additive effects and the movement of ecosystems towards conditions of discontinuity can have serious consequences. Thresholds can be reached, beyond which habitats and wildlife populations may change radically and perhaps irreversibly. Except in its local environment, the effects of a single project (such as the siting of a transmission line) may be too small to easily observe. Yet if this project is one step in a plan of similar steps, if it is an instance of many disparate but similarly conceived resource choices, or if it sets a precedent, then the cumulative impacts of the series of changes it helps promote can be devastating. The present ecological damage due to acid precipitation did not occur overnight from a single large power plant. Rather, it is the result of many choices about power production (as well as industry, transportation, and agriculture) that have resulted over the years in an ongoing regional acidification. While there has been progress, eg, by Federal regulatory processes in the USA, in evaluating cumulative environmental impacts, this principal is not yet applied in all situations and has been absent from consideration in some critical projects. The adage 'dilution is not the solution to pollution' is quite apt to this discussion. Not much more than a decade ago tall stacks were thought to solve the then apparent air quality problems arising from fossil-fuel use. They dispersed the pollutants more
ENERGY POLICY January 1992
widely and reduced the ground level concentrations near power plants and other facilities. Human populations in those areas were therefore expected to suffer less health and visibility problems. Yet greater dispersion can mean a larger population is exposed and, perhaps more importantly, has since that time become associated with regional ecological degradation from acid precipitation. Moreover, dispersion of the pollutant offers no remedy for global climate changes that may be caused by the emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Environmental hazards are not necessarily reduced by exporting them to other regions by means of importing the electricity. There is ce'rtainly a need to protect human populations and ecosystems in areas that are already heavily stressed by energyinduced environmental impacts. But this should not be done by burdening relatively clean areas with new power production facilities. Moreover, through regional and global transport, some of the hazard will return. 'Coal-by-wire' can be equivalent to 'smokeby-wire' when the impacts of the emissions are not limited by geographic boundaries. An example of the export of hazard through transmission capability expansion is related to the exploitation of the hydroelectric potential of the Canadian James Bay watershed. A recent report 4 on this issue concludes: Canadian law does not presently require environmental assessments to include consideration of cumulative effects or alternatives to hydroelectric projects. To our knowledge, no official cumulative impact studies have been done of lignite extraction, the Grand Canal diversion project, or the full program of hydro-development proposed for the James Bay region. Yet the proposed hydro program alone is gigantic, leading to a damming or diversion of almost all major rivers entering James Bay from the East. The resulting changes in discharge patterns could affect the habitat severely. Some of the power that might be produced from such hydroelectric projects would be transmitted for consumption in the northeastern USA. While it could reduce the need for added fossil or nuclear generation in the USA, it would effectively export environmental damage (albeit in a different form) to the ecosystems in Canada. This export, moreover, would be the result of import 'needs' associated with a New England electricity demand still based on inefficient use of electricity. Our growing understanding of the links between ecosystems suggests that some ecological impacts of such projects might even be observable in the power-consuming, supposedly damage-spared regions. Many of the migrating birds which are seen on the shores of the
31
Environmental concerns and electricity transmission in North America
northeastern USA depend on the James Bay area as a critical migration stopover. Severe alteration of that habitat could potentially result in a decimation of those populations, some of which may be already stressed by loss of key staging areas throughout the hemisphere.
Local ecosystem protection Once new electric power transmission has been justified by an integrated planning process, the design and siting stage of the planning must carefully consider the impacts on local ecosystems. Members of the public and organizations concerned with local impacts must be involved in this stage, as their input is critical for determining whether any re-design, siting changes, and other measures are needed to minimize adverse local impacts. If the initial costbenefit analysis has demonstrated need by a clear margin, it is likely that some version of the project would be supported, perhaps with refinements specified in the course of the detailed consideration of local impacts. Nonetheless, the final evaluation must allow for rejection, as well as acceptance or modification, of the project. This latter-stage liability is the only way to enforce an accurate consideration of environmental costs of transmission during the earlier, integrated planning stage. Otherwise stated, the local planning will not place an undue burden on transmission projects if the environmental costs (including human health concerns addressed later in this paper) have been adequately addressed during integrated planning. The efficacy of a two-stage approval process used for electrical facilities in the State of Wisconsin since 1975 is discussed by Arny. 5 Protected lands or proximity to transmission lines will, of course, create siting constraints. The industry has generally shown sensitivity in this regard, and would likely seek to avoid problems such as siting a line along the edge of a protected area where the line might adversely affect the natural beauty of the area, or where right-of-way management might impact on the habitat. A similar sensitivity should be shown in multiple-use areas, where there can be more flexibility as long as the siting does not harm other uses, such as wildlife or recreation. A high priority should be given to wetlands protection. Filling or channelization of wetlands should be avoided; more generally, the integrity of wetland ecosystems should be respected when constructing transmission lines and maintaining rights-of-way. Local habitats through which a planned line will pass should be surveyed to determine appropriate wildlife protection measures, for example, the placement of towers and guy wires out of flight paths of
32
birds that traditionally use an underlying wetland, so as to prevent collisions, or attaching devices to enhance visibility of structures. There may be situations when a design is used to minimize visual impacts for humans, and a tradeoff will have to be made. Right-of-way management should also be considered when planning transmission lines. A clearly laid out and environmentally sound management programme should be developed when the line is being planned. Again, significant studies have been done in this area. We realize that manual, mechanical management can be quite costly; but herbicide use can be costly, too, in terms of ecosystem damage, and should be minimized. We have heard of a number of innovative solutions to right-of-way management. For example, selective or spot applications of herbicides are preferable to blanket applications such as aerial spraying. Judicious and selective use of herbicides can be used. 6 Nitrogen loading has been proposed to favour grass over trees; this can also attract herbivores, which can further keep trees from growing. 7 Right-of-way areas open 'edge habitat'; this can be beneficial or detrimental, depending on the circumstances. Builders of transmission lines should observe past lessons about protecting the wildlife that habituate a right-of-way or may come into contact with the lines. Although studies of harmful health or behavioural effects of EMFs on wildlife have generally been negative or inconclusive,9 this worry cannot be dismissed, given the evidence of possible health effects on humans. However, such effects are small compared to impacts due to possible contacts with lines and habitat alteration from the location, construction, and maintenance of transmission lines (as discussed in the previous section). It is these nonEMF effects which are of greatest concern from an environmental perspective. They can be at least partly remedied if adequate consideration is given to them during design and past experience is utilized. Although the US Fish and Wildlife Service once had a coordinated national involvement in addressing wildlife impacts of transmission lines, the current situation appears to rely on compliance with broader regulations and voluntary adoption of appropriate measures by the industry, l° Ways to insure that all firms involved with transmission lines are kept abreast of the state-of-the-art for minimizing adverse on wildlife habitat should be established where they are not already available. The implication for environmental organizations and the concerned public is that they must be vigilant to insure these issues are adequately addressed for projects in their area.
ENERGY POLICY January 1992
Environmental concerns and electricity transmission in North America
In summary, transmission line projects should be closely scrutinized by environmental groups regarding their local impacts, as well as by national environmental organizations when transmission may result in an export of environmental damages to other regions.
Human health concerns There is evidence of possible risks to human health from electromagnetic fields. 11 Effects of fields on living cells have been demonstrated in laboratory studies. Epidemiologic studies have found associations of magnetic fields with cancer, particularly childhood leukemia and cancers of the nervous system. This evidence is not fully conclusive and the level of risk that might be attributed to such fields appears to be relatively low. Biological effects of EMFs depend on a number of complex factors pertaining to the type of field, its magnitude and frequency, its interactions with other agents, and other factors which are not fully understood. An introduction to the nature of EMFs and their possible risks, written for a non-technical audience, is given by Morgan. lz A number of technical discussions are also availablefl 3 Electric power transmission lines are a source of EMFs, as are electric distribution lines, building wiring, and electric appliances. Magnetic fields from power lines and other electrical devices are generally weaker than the earth's magnetic field, but they are usually oscillating (50-60 Hz), unlike the steady field of the earth. The strength of such fields drops off with distance from the source, so power lines present a potential risk primarily to people who live or work near the lines. Generally, if one lives more than about 200 yards from transmission lines, magnetic fields from household sources will be stronger than that from the lines) 4 For many people, therefore, appliances (particularly electric blankets, toasters, and motorized devices such as electric clocks, shavers, and can openers) result in field intensities greater than those from transmission lines. While transmission lines may not currently be a large source of magnetic field exposures for most people, the siting of new lines can increase the exposed population, which is a reason for public concern.
EMF research As many have pointed out, ongoing research is certainly needed on EMF exposures, health effects, and ways to reduce exposures should this become necessary. This work should include better exposure
ENERGY POLICY January 1992
characterization for EMFs, epidemiologic work, as well as research on the response of biological systems to exposure. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) currently has the largest research programme in these aspects of the issue. 15 EPRI has developed instrumentation for measuring individual EMF exposures in everyday environments. Timely and open publication of data from this research would greatly improve public as well as scientific understanding of the issue. There has been no survey of the number of people potentially exposed because of very close proximity to transmission lines. Rough estimates are about 30 000 to 400 000 persons in the USA. t6 Better identification of the population so exposed should certainly be a research priority. A national data base might be considered for EMF exposure survey and research results. 17 This could include data on transmission-related field strengths in various regions and communities, as well as information on fields from other sources. An expanded Federal role is needed for coordinating research efforts and providing a clearinghouse for information on EMF health effects. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently reviewing the issue, is It is not yet clear what role EPA will have; further attention by the National Institutes of Health may also be important.
Policy implications Technical aspects and various policy responses to the issue have been addressed by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University. x9 Morgan has discussed the pros and cons of strategies ranging from denial of a problem to major retrofit facilities, noting that besides the incomplete knowledge of health effects from EMFs, knowledge of the means and costs of mitigation measures is also lacking, z° In the light of the great uncertainties regarding the extent of risk and how to manage it at this time, it is reasonable to follow the suggestion of 'prudent avoidance'. 21 Current knowledge of health effects of EMFs does not support investing large resources to reduce exposures to EMFs; neither does it support doing nothing. The best that can be said is that people should be protected from 'high' exposures to transmission line EMFs. Scientific knowledge is not sufficient to specify what a 'high' exposure would be, eg, based on dose-response assessments. However, given that there is no strong evidence of EMF risk to populations at large in our society, which uses electricity widely, 'high' can be interpreted as 'much higher than typical.' High household exposures can be avoided, for example, by not using electric blank-
33
Environmental concerns and electricity transmission in North America
ets and placing motorized electric clocks further away from a bed. Protection from transmission line EMFs can be accomplished by siting lines far enough away from populated areas so that the resultant field strengths are small compared to those commonly encountered in electricity use. Utility companies should assess field strengths resulting from their own transmission and distribution lines, in particular, by gathering information on numbers and locations of residences, commercial centres, and schools that are very close to power lines. Such information should be readily available to scientific researchers as well as the public. A regulatory approach for effecting avoidance during siting of transmission lines is to charge a fee based on the number of persons exposed to fields above some threshold. 22 There may be some concern that citizens will raise fears of health effects as an economic 'smoke screen' against transmission sites which they oppose. This may drive up the compensation price required by affected property owners or communities. However, the costs required to meet public concerns are one measure of the risk in the face of uncertainty regarding potential problems. One might thus consider these costs to be a measure of the environmental externalities of a transmission project. To the extent that such factors raise the price of transmission, they are a market-correction mechanism which, by reflecting these externalities, may allow alternatives (such as electrical efficiency measures) to compete more fairly with supply-side options. People incur personal costs, which may be only partially accountable in financial terms, when they chose to intervene in a siting process. These costs are in some way equivalent to the added expenses companies incur in meeting public objections and perhaps re-routing a line or moving to an alternative plan. These costs are as valid as those that may be more directly calculable in terms of material and labour. If the affected public's compensation requirements cannot be met except at a high cost, then this 'market' fact could be reflected in the comparison of options. Transmission projects will have to bear the consequences of competing on a 'level playing field' with these costs so internalized. Issues of social equity arise when poorer communities are more likely to bear transmission siting burdens because of their lower political influence. Using governmental powers to override public objections to transmission line projects can be viewed as an effective subsidy to such projects by the government. Such a subsidy is unwarranted if there is not ample democratic process in reaching siting decisions or developing the
34
guidelines by which governments excercise power to override local concerns. Institutionalized guarantees are often needed to insure adequate public participation in planning processes. 23 The best regulatory framework for addressing transmission related health concerns is yet to be worked out. At this time, the focus should be on identifying the responsible bodies and types of public process needed to develop technical standards that may come to be warranted as scientific evidence evolves. 24 Presently, a basis for the development of standards might be found in guidelines for 'prudent avoidance' of 'high' EMFs; State, regional, and Federal entities should address this issue in a coordinated fashion. At minimum, there should be public disclosure of information on existing and projected EMF exposures from transmission lines. In the USA, some States have already acted on regulating EMFs; model legislation could be developed to facilitate coordination among States. Federal involvement is certainly warranted because of the interstate and international aspects of electricity transmission and since any justifiable safeguards ought to apply equally no matter where people live. Since it is currently unclear how various agencies25 should be involved, priority must be given to establishing and clarifying the Federal role, in both research and regulation, regarding EMFs and public health.
A context for transmission planning Transmission planning should take place as part of a process that considers the consequences for society as a whole of decisions regarding energy systems. The environmental impacts discussed in the previous sections of this paper should be fully considered in this process. It is essential that the planning for possible expansions of electric power transmission capability start at such a general level, beyond the geographic and financial confines of an interested utility company, regional power pool, or power producer. While some power planners may assert that this goal is routinely met, it is also an ideal of which the planning process sometimes falls short. As such, it is worth the special emphasis it is given here. Historically, the objectives in transmission planning have been the needs for power delivery and system reliability. In the context of integrated planning, however, the objectives are: first, minimizing the cost of services for customers; second, maintaining reliability; third, minimizing local environmental (including health) impacts; and, last, minimizing external environmental impacts on regional to global
ENERGY POLICY January 1992
Environmental concerns and electricity transmission in North America
scales. Economic returns to stakeholders as well as transmission design and operating requirements are constraints to be considered in the planning process. The standard of comparison in planning should be the social, economic and environmental benefit of improving electric end-use efficiency.
Reasons for building new transmission: good and bad Transmission system expansion - both within utility systems and power pools, and between regions - can provide economies in power production and maintenance of reliability. By permitting greater interutility power transactions, building transmission may be more economical than building new power plants or even continuing to operate certain existing facilities. The existence of power pools is a reflection of these facts. There are, however, a few potentially misleading generalizations that sometimes arise in discussions of transmission. We note these clarifying distinctions:
•
•
•
Needs for reliability differ from opportunities for lower cost power. Although both are related to transmission planning, to first order, these two considerations are distinct. Transmission for reliability improvement (avoidance of load loss risks) is most properly compared with peaking facilities, which have a relatively low capital cost. Transmission for economic reasons should be compared with relatively higher cost cycling and baseload generating resources. For example, when a reliability issue is addressed through a proposed enhancement of inter-regional transfer capability, the transmission line should not be posed as an alternative to costly new baseload capacity. Transmission is not an alternative to generation. While it may be an alternative to building or operating generating facilities in one region, transmission does not replace the operation of power plants altogether. Rather, it substitutes generation in one place for generation in another. While transmission losses within a region are generally small (3% or less), such losses increase with distance and can exceed 5% for long distance transmission. 26 Therefore, transmission into a region implies that generating capacity, of at least the same amount as displaced locally, is utilized elsewhere. This remote generation has its attendant environmental impacts, which may be of a different nature than those that would occur in the importing region. Transmission is not conservation. It has been suggested that, by replacing generation in one
ENERGY POLICY January 1992
place by another form of generation elsewhere, transmission projects are instruments of 'conservation'. This reflects a misleadingly narrow perspective. The primary purpose of such exchanges is generally economic, rather than either fuel efficiency or pollution reduction, and environmental externalities are rarely considered. Bona fide electricity conservation results in a decrease in electricity consumption and must be generally accomplished by enduse efficiency. Regarding the last two points we acknowledge that fuel conservation can be accomplished through transmission. This is valuable when it promotes the use of cleaner and more efficient generating facilities. However, conserving one fuel (eg, oil or coal) by replacing it with a different supply resource (eg, hydro or nuclear) is not the same as electricity conservation. Certain such replacements - with renewable, efficient, and relatively clean resources can play an important role in an integrated electric system. If transmission is used to move power produced by more efficient and environmentally benign resources or freed up through end-use efficiency, then it can aid in lessening environmental damage overall.
Justifying new transmission Potentially valid reasons for building new electric transmission lines can be classified under three headings. First, there may be transmission capacity limitations that result in lowered reliability in a service area or region. Second, adverse impacts of local power production can be reduced by utilizing power generated remotely. Third, economy transfers can take advantage of geographic variations in supply and demand, allowing for a more efficient allocation of resources. We will discuss these rationales in turn, introducing the environmental issues that need to be addressed before a compelling case for new transmission is made. In some areas, electricity shortages are apparently due to insufficient transmission capabilities, rather than insufficient generation capabilities. Indeed, the operating record reveals that loss of load occurs primarily from transmission, sub-transmission and distribution failures rather than from generation insufficiency. In such cases, the demands for movement of power in the electrical system exceed, or may soon exceed, the limitations of transmission 'capital stock', an infrastructure which was set up in the past but which may be insufficient for some scenarios of system growth. The implications are more frequent outages or higher costs of service, as
35
Environmental concerns and electricity transmission in North America
the most efficient deployment of existing supplies goes unrealized owing to such transmission constraints. However, an alleged transmission capacity limitation may really be a problem of insufficient attention to conservation, as we will elaborate below. Exapansions of transmission capacity are sometimes justified because a region cannot bear added environmental impacts of power production. A related reason may be constraints on conventional fuel supplies (eg, gas or oil). Examples of this are transmitting coal-fired power ('coal-by-wire') from central States to parts of the south and from the southwest to southern California, and transmitting hydroelectric power from Canada to New York and New England. However, the environmental impact analyses used to evaluate such proposals must not be too narrowly framed. In fact, environmental problems are not solved by exporting them to a different region under guise of importing power, as we have previously pointed out. The apparent economies of bulk power transfers can only be fully evaluated when all environmental costs are fully considered. While remotely generated power may seem to have a lower cost, it may also imply greater overall pollutant loadings (eg, substituting high sulphur coal for low, or coal for oil and gas). Although it is possible that the cost advantage of imported power arises from its generation at a more efficient and cleaner plant, this will often not be the primary basis for the transfer. Rather, the price differential between fuels will often be the primary factor. In fact, disregarding environmental externalities, it could happen that importing power from a dirtier, inefficient plant using a lower cost fuel would appear to be more economical than generating power locally at a clean, higher efficiency facility.
Transmission v end-use efficiency As suggested above, problems due to capacity limitations in both generation and transmission and the potential environmental impacts of both can also be the result of insufficient attention to end-use efficiency, or electricity conservation. In the electric industry, conservation is one of several strategies for demand-side management (DSM), which the industry often broadly defines to include any strategy that effects demand, including load shaping and load growth. 27 However, the approaches having the greatest potential for reducing adverse environmental impacts are those which improve the efficiency of electricity use and reduce peak loads. Successful electricity conservation programmes result in re36
duced overall energy consumption, lower peak power demand, or both. The utility industry and regulators have put increasing emphasis on DSM in recent years. In a number of regions, improving end-use efficiency and managing peak loads have become economic means of maintaining service without the need to add generating capacity as rapidly as was once projected. 28 The commitment to the conservation aspects of DSM is not uniform throughout the industry, however, and investments in conservation generally remain a small fraction of system-wide investments. 29 Just as the need for new generation can be reduced by reducing demand, so too can transmission requirements be reduced. Studies have shown that there is sufficient room for efficiency improvement to drastically reduce and even eliminate load growth over the next decade. 3° Electricity conservation can have a lower cost, particularly from a social perspective and if e n v i r o n m e n t a l impacts are fully accounted, than transmission and generation. While transmission system enhancement may sometimes meet supply or reliability needs at lower cost than generation, DSM can be even more attractive economically. This option would involve improving load management to meet reliability requirements and improving end-use efficiency to enhance both reliability and overall economy. When addressing the barriers that may inhibit transmission expansions, therefore, ways to overcome the regulatory and institutional barriers that currently inhibit greater demand-side investments should also be addressed. The subsequent planning efforts will then be more likely to result in an environmentally sound combination of end-use efficiency, transmission, and generation.
Regulatory considerations Local utilities as well as the producers of power at the remote source may benefit from inter-regional power transfers; so may consumers of the transmitted power. But for consumers, is adding transmission capacity less costly than load management or energy conservation? This question should always be asked, and answered, when considering the addition of new transmission lines. There have been regulatory developments that permit DSM to compete with supply options. Such approaches provide a promising way to answering the foregoing question, particularly when an accounting of environmental costs is incorporated into the procedures. Quantifying the cost of environmental impacts is a current c h a l l e n g e for the r e g u l a t o r y c o m m u n i t y . 31 Approaches inctude directly estimating damage ENERGY POLICY January 1992
Environmental concerns and electricity transmission in North America
costs or using control costs as a surrogate for actual damages (to health, amenity, ecosystems, or economic systems). Procedures for incorporating environmental externalities are being developed in some States. 32 When such protocols are established, it is important that the environmental costs of imported (purchased) power are also taken into account. Environmental organizations and citizens' groups have a key role to play in encouraging the internalization of environmental costs and participating in public review processes in order to insure that the methods proposed adequately address the impacts of concern. It is importanat to examine how changes in transmission networks might help or hurt the economics of facilities, such as cogenerators, which qualify for connection under the Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act of 1978 (PURPA). Looking ahead, similar considerations apply to power from photovoltaic cells, wind turbines, or other potentially renewable energy sources. These supply alternatives will all have their own environmental impacts, of course. Nevertheless, they do offer hope in addressing the current problems of air and water pollution, regional ecosystem damage (acidification), habitat destruction, and global warming which are caused largely by fossil-fuel use. In the future, the electrical system should emphasize overall efficiency and include efficient and dual-purpose energy production facilities, the use of renewable and minimally polluting fuels, as well as advanced energy conversion technologies. An expanded reliance on diverse and more dispersed sets of electricity supply and demand resources may have different transmission requirements than reliance on imports based on conventional coal or hydroelectric generation expansions in other regions. Therefore, transmission might affect the relative economics of different energy policy options. The supply options considered might also change the optimal timing and nature of transmission expansions. For example, what are the economic differences between a near-term expansion of AC transmission that facilitates electricity generation using western coal, and a near-term aggressive end-use efficiency programme with future highvoltage DC transmission expansion for southwestern photovoltaic generation? It is not too soon to carefully examine such tradeoffs, because transmission decisions we make now will affect the future economics and environmental impacts of the national electrical system.
Conclusion Even without explicit consideration of environmen-
ENERGY POLICY January 1992
tal externalities, it is not clear whether transmission expansion, as a general direction for the US electric system, is either necessary or socially beneficial. 33 Adding the considerations pointed out here, namely, the range of environmental impacts and the potential for end-use efficiency to solve problems traditionally addressed by transmission, the desirability of a concerted expansion of the electric transmission grid in the USA appears even more questionable. Proposed transmission projects must be considered in the context of a planning process which carefully evaluates the full range of supply and demand alternatives on a regional basis. The scope of a 'region' is at least the level of reliability councils and certainly crosses the boundaries of States, which are currently the principal governmental jurisdictions for electric system planning. Whether new transmission entails a net benefit or detriment from an environmental perspective can only be judged if a full accounting is made of impacts in all affected regions: the source of supply, the transmission corridor, and the demand area served. Excessive focus on the transmission of remotely generated electricity, whether for economy or to address environmental and fuel supply constraints in a demand region, can divert attention from achieving end-use efficiency and environmental protection at the local level. Utilities and power pools should focus on conversion, fuel switching, and attractive site-specific opportunities for cogeneration and renewable sources within their local service areas. Not only do these options have the potential for providing electricity without exporting environmental impacts but they can also free up transmission capacity for the transfers that will then make sense. Current regional surpluses and deficiencies of utility system generating capacity are part of the motivation for transmission grid expansion. But these imbalances are an historical artifact of past planning outcomes, particularly rapid capacity expansion in the 1970s intersecting with load growth that was far below expectations. Such a condition should not be used as a basis for long-term planning under the more balanced conditions that may arise as regional surpluses diminish. Certainly there will still be regional diversity - eg, different daily and seasonal load patterns - that will justify some level of economy transfers and bulk power support which should be rationally exploited. It is not clear, however, that a major expansion of transmission capability is necessary. As discussed previously, the environmental externalities associated with electric transmission lines
37
Environmental concerns and electricity transmission in North America
can be both direct and indirect. Direct external costs are those due to ecologic, land use, aesthetic, and potential human health impacts associated with the construction and operation of a line and the management of its right-of-way. Indirect costs include generation-related environmental impacts 'exported' to regions outside of the load areas served by the transmission lines. Regarding the possible risks due to EMFs from transmission lines, we recommend a concerted and ongoing research effort to clarify scientific understanding, a Federal role in coordinating this work and in providing a clearinghouse for results on effects and exposures, prudent avoidance34 of exposures from transmission lines and other sources, and the d e v e l o p m e n t of a nationwide regulatory framework for addressing the issue as better knowledge develops. We emphasize that in recommending an improved regulatory framework for addressing transmission related EMF effects, we are not calling for standards based on particular field strengths at this time. While the current scientific understanding of EMF health effects is inadequate for developing such specific technical standards, the prudent avoidance rationale can provide a basis for guidelines regarding power transmission as well as other EMF sources. The concerns raised here are addressed differently in different States. Some States, and regions covered by major Federal power authorities, have well developed procedures that address many of the issues, with the notable exception of international and global impacts. From an environmental perspective the adequacy of the transmission planning process is certainly not uniform across the USA, however, and our greatest worries are for those areas for which the process is poorly developed and poorly documented. The implication is a need for greater Federal involvement in the integrated aspects of the planning process. The interstate nature of much transmission and the universality of many environmental and health concerns make State boundaries an anachronistic impediment to good planning. The likely increasing role of independent power producers and transmission providers only serves to bolster the need for a regulatory process that is more comprehensive in addressing all of the issues raised here and which has broader horizons, both temporally and geographically. States will nevertheless need to retain jurisdiction for local transmission siting decisions, once the need for transmission has been clearly established during the broader stages of system planning. At every jurisdictional level, participation by the
38
public and environmentally concerned organizations is needed to insure that the concerns raised here are fully addressed. Such involvement will help to put in place meaningful mechanisms for taking environmental impacts of power transmission into account. Ongoing participation is needed to insure that the methods for internalizing environmental costs (points systems, fees, mitigation costs, etc) are properly carried out, that cumulative impacts are assessed, and that all alternatives are fully considered. Utilities and regulatory entities should encourage and facilitate such full participation. As is the case in many other environmental issues, the guidance provided by the concerned public - non-experts who are often more directly touched by the technologies of concern - is critical for truly achieving environmental protection and equitable social benefit. This paper grew out of our participation in the Consumer Energy Council of America/Research Foundation (CECA/RF) study on transmission line planning and siting, and we are grateful to Ellen Berman of CECA/RF and the members of the transmission task force for discussions which contributed to our formulation of this paper as well as comments on our first draft. In particular, for giving us written critiques of the paper, we thank M. Amy, T. Chancy, D. Driscoll, K. Florig, G. Hester, M.G. Morgan, M. Klinger, G. Rifakes, B. Palk, as well as A. Strauss for coordinating comments from several members of the Council of Large Public Power Authorities.
1Consumer Energy Council of America/Research Foundation,
Transmission Planning, Siting, and Certification in the 1990s: Problems, Prospects and Policies, Washington, DC, August 1990. The authors participated as members of the advisory committee which prepared this report. 2See, for example, US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Electric Power Wheeling and Dealing: Technological Considerations for Increasing Competition, Report OTA-E-409, Washington, DC, May 1989; Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Electricity Transmission: Realities, Theory, and Policy Alternatives, Washington, DC, October 1989. 3OTA, op cit, Ref 2, p 201ft. 4j. Rosenthal and J. Beyea, Long-term Threats to Canada's James Bay from Human Development, Environmental Policy Department Report No 29, National Audubon Society, New York, July 1989, p 32. SM. Arny, Summary of Wisconsin Transmission Planning and Siting Process, Public Service Commission, State of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA, January 1990. 6R. VanBossuyt, New England Electric System Companies Selective Right-of-way Vegetation Management Program, New England Power Service Company, Westborough, MA, USA, 1987. 7S.D. West, Nitrogen Fertilization and the Suppression of Tree Establishment on Western Washington Rights-of-Way, College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA, 1987. 8Other multiple uses for right-of-way areas might include biking or jogging trails, etc; in Finland, some right-of-way areas are used to grow Christmas trees, with the annual tree harvest helping on the maintenance. However, such uses raise questions regarding liability, damage to the facilities, and EMF effects. For example, a matching grants policy that encouraged multiple uses for transmission right-of-way areas was suspended by the New York State Public Service Commission to avoid unnecessary human
ENERGY POLICY January 1992
Environmental concerns and electricity transmission in North America exposures to EMFs. D. Driscoll et al, Evaluation of the New York State Power Lines Project Scientific Advisory Panel's Final Report, and Recommendations for the NYS Public Service Commission, Memorandum, State of New York, Department of Public Service, Albany, New York, 11 January 1988. 9Edison Electric Institute, R.S. Thorsell, Compatibility of Fish, Wildlife, and Floral Resources with Electric Power Facilities and Lands: An Industry Survey Analysis, EEl report, Washington, DC, USA, 1980; J.M. Lee et al, Electrical and Biological Effects of Transmission Lines: A Review, US Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR, USA, June 1989. ~°Ibid. EEI report has a fairly extensive bibliography, although it is now 10 years old. See also proceedings from the periodic Symposium on Environmental Concerns in Rights-of-Way Management and the newsletter Biocurrents (published by EEl) which addresses general biological issues of the utility industry. nUS Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Biological Effects of Power Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields, background paper OTA-BP-E-53, Washington, DC, USA, May 1989; D.A. Savitz, H. Wachtel, F.A. Barnes, E.M. John and J.G. Tvrdik. 'Case-control study of childhood cancer and exposure to 60 Hz magnetic fields', American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol 128, No 1, pp 21-38. 12M.G. Morgan, Electric and Magnetic Fields from 60 Hertz Electric Power: What Do We Know About the Health Risks?, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegic Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 1989. 13See OTA, op cit, Ref 11, and Lee et al, op cit, Ref 9. A broad survey of biological effects is given by G.J. Beers, 'Biological effects of weak electromagnetic fields from 0 Hz to 200 MHz: a survey of the literature with special emphasis on possible magnetic resonance effects', Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Vol 7, 1989, pp 309-331, A discussion of recent human health studies and their limitations is given by D.A. Savitz, N.E. Pearce and C. Poole, 'Methodological issues in the epidemiology of electromagnetic fields and cancer', Epidemiologic Reviews, Vol 11, 1989, pp 59-78. 14Morgan, op cit, Ref 12, p 4; Electric Power Research Institute, Electric and Magnetic Field Fundamentals: An EMF Health Effects Resource Paper, EPRI brochure EN 3012.9.89, Palo Alto, CA, USA, September 1989. 15Electric Power Research Institute, 'Pursuing the science of EMF', EPRI Journal, Vol 15, No 1, January 1990, pp 4-17. 16OTA, op cit, Ref 11, p 23. 17precedents are national data bases of air pollutions emissions, such for the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program US Environmental Protection Agency, The 1985 N A P A P Emissions Inventory [Version 2], Report EPA-600/7-89-012a, Washington, DC, USA, 1989. lsUS Environmental Protection Agency, Evaluation of the Potential Carcinogenicity of Electromagnetic Fields, external review draft, Report EPA/600/6-90/005B, Office of Research and Development, US EPA, Washington, DC, USA, October 1990. 19M.G. Morgan et al, 'Power-frequency fields: the regulatory dilemma', Issues in Science and Technology, Vol 3, No 4, 1987, pp 81-91; Morgan, op cit, Ref 12; OTA, op cit, Ref 11. 2°M.G. Morgan, Alternative Responses that Utilities Might Take to the Possible Risks of 60 Hz Electromagnetic Fields, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University,
ENERGY POLICY January 1992
Pittsburgh, PA, USA, (undated, ca 1989). 21Morgan, op cit, Ref 12. 22Morgan, et al, op cit, Ref 19, p 88. 23Such as the procedures for public participation developed by the Bonneville Power Administration (CECA/RF, op cit, Ref 1, Chapter VII). 24A separate issue is protection from shock, contact current, or induced voltage hazards, for which standards already exist (see Lee et al, op cit, Ref 9, pp 16if, 63, 85ff). 25In the USA, the Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, and National Institutes of Health all have potential roles in the EMF issue. 26OTA, op cit, Ref 2. 27D. Cogan and S. Williams, Generating Energy Alternatives, Investor Responsibility Research Center, Washington, DC, USA, 1987, p 9. 28H.S. Geller and S.M. Nadel, Electricity Conservation: Potential vs. Achievement, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC), Least Cost Utility Planning Conference, October 1989. 29C.J. Calwell and R.C. Cavanagb, The Decline of Conservation at California Utilities: Causes, Costs, and Remedies, NRDC Energy Program Special Report, Natural Resources Defense Council San Francisco, CA, USA, July 1989; C. Goldman and E. Kahn, 'Comparative assessment of the demand-side management plans of four New York utilities', Energy, Vol 14, No 10, 1989, pp 615-628. 3°New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, The Potential for Electricity Conservation in New York State, Energy Authority Report 8%12, Albany, NY, USA, March 1990; B.D. Hunn, M.L. Baughman, S.C. Silver, A.H. Rosenfeld and H. Akbari, Technical Potential for Electrical Energy Conservation and Peak Demand Reduction in Texas Buildings, Report to the Public Utility Commssion of Texas, Center for Energy Studies, University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA, 1986. 31S. Bernow, B. Biewald and D. Marron, Environmental Externalities Measurement: Quantification, Valuation, and Monetization, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, National Regulatory Research Institute, Seventh Biennial Regulatory Information Conference, September 1990; R.L. Ottinger, 'Consideration of environmental externality costs in electric utility resource selection and regulation', Proceedings of A C E E E 1990 Summer Study on Energy Efficien¢ T in Buildings, Vol 4, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Washington, DC, August 1990; ?? Ottinger et al, Environmental Costs of Electricity, Oceana Publications, New York, 1990, provides a comprehensive discussion of this issue. 32For example, New York is developing bidding procedures that account from environmental costs; see W. Mills, An Overview of Demand-Side Management Bidding Programs in New York State, staff paper, New York State Department of Public Service, Albany, NY, USA, (undated ca 1989), and S.N. Putta, Competition in Electric Generation-Environmental Externalities, staff paper, New York State Department of Public Service, Albany, NY, USA, October 1989. The Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities recently issued an order (Docket No. 89-239) requiring that monetized values of certain emissions be added to the costs of facilities evaluated in a utility's resource acquisition process. 33As pointed out by OTA, op cit, Ref 2. 34As proposed by Morgan, op cit, Ref 12.
39