Think globally, act locally?

I know this mantra - "think globally, act locally" - is intended to make people think big and take concrete steps in their community to affect one's notion of positive change.

Yet the contrasts between these two ideas can also be difficult to reconcile.
I'm thinking about this topic because two news items crossed my desk yesterday. Both pertain to smart grid issues in my home state of Colorado. Though on the surface these news items are unrelated, apart from a smart grid tie-in, both seem to require that observers review their preconceived notions. What happens when "thinking globally" and "acting locally" appear to conflict? 

First, we've recently learned that the projected capital cost of Xcel Energy's SmartGridCity in Boulder, Colo., has nearly tripled, from an initial, March 2008 estimate of $15.3 million to $27.9 million a little over a year later to the current $42.1 million estimate.

Xcel has informed the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) that a big chunk of the cost increase is due to difficulties encountered in the field. The underground fiber network needed for the grid's two-way communications must be larger than anticipated. And, to install it, Xcel has had to drill through granite and remove large boulders in Boulder, Colo.

Part of a 6.5 percent rate increase granted to Xcel last year by the CPUC (about $11 million, according to the Boulder Daily Camera), which is paid by Xcel customers statewide, will cover those increased costs. That has led the CPUC to request from Xcel a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, which allows CPUC oversight on project costs. (Xcel's appeal was denied.)
  
I'm certainly not banging on Xcel here, other than to tease the utility that boulders in Boulder should not be a surprise. But folks who wrote to a newspaper forum in 2008 after the project was announced may have grounds to feel as if their (diametrically opposed) views have been vindicated, far short of the project's completion.

"Little by little, we are losing our rights and our freedoms to this coming, socialist, new world order," wrote one.

Another responded: "Wow, the Republican weirdo party is in full effect, concocting insane 'commie' takeovers. Sorry, people, but whether our earth is cooling or warming, CO2 emissions harm our environment. Period."

Another writer intoned: "I am sure you will be proud to pay your carbon footprint taxes to the State without looking deeper into the matter. After Democrats nationalize the auto industry (and it's coming), they will tell you what car you can drive so you don't leave a bigger carbon print."

Will the SmartGridCity news of capital costs tripling, to be covered by statewide taxpayers, change these sentiments? I doubt it. Can I be in favor of the SmartGridCity experiment and yet remain untouched by the alarming increase in capital costs to borne by all? I'm mulling that one over, but the early returns aren't favorable.

The second news item involved a proposed, high-voltage transmission line from the vast, sun-soaked San Luis Valley in southern Colorado to the state's eastern plains to deliver and integrate utility-scale solar energy to the state's main grid - a smart grid action item. The headline: "Battle lines drawn." The lead sentence asked whether the proposed project is "a path to a new energy economy or a scar on the state's spectacular scenery?"

As it happened, I attended a party over the weekend in a house recently equipped with solar panels, which were mentioned as we gathered in the kitchen.

Unprompted, one man told me that the proposed transmission line I just cited would run across his retirement cabin's view of the Sangre de Cristo mountains. "Not in my backyard," he said, with a make-my-day look in his eyes.

I understood. Many years ago I'd spent two years living in a cabin in that country, with a lamp, a typewriter and a wood stove. I also understand that utility-scale renewables are part of the smart grid's promise.

Perhaps, I suggested cautiously, more expensive, underground transmission lines would be possible in some sensitive areas? (As a vendor recently suggested to me.)

The man's eyes narrowed; clearly I had established myself as the enemy.

I moved swiftly to the buffet line with a mental note-to-self: between the Sierra Club's point that "no energy source is without impacts" (which I reported on yesterday) and my new friend's adamant opposition to high-voltage transmission lines crossing his slice of utopia, there's a conflict between "thinking globally" and "acting locally." 
 
In approaching smart grid issues, the tension between the greater good and our own self interest may often resemble a high-wire act. Lean too far to either side and it's a long way down.

Whether you're talking to a neighbor or to yourself, sooner or later you're going to need to have that conversation.

Phil Carson
Editor-in-chief
Intelligent Utility Daily 
pcarson@energycentral.com
303-228-4757