Plans to build the nation’s first green infrastructure highway, dubbed The Green Power Express, were unveiled last month and we marveled at the possibility of how the ambitious project -- which cuts through the Prairie State -- could expand wind power development and ultimately wean the Midwest off non-renewable energy sources.

In the comments section of that post, however, Springfield environmental blogger Will Reynolds responded warily. “Similar projects proposed in the past were designed to transport power from coal plants located near the coal-rich areas of the west,” he wrote. “I’m a little skeptical about whether this is really a renewable energy project, or just the same old thing they’ve wanted to do for years with a green-washing marketing gimmick added on to sell it to the public.”

That concern is now being echoed by activists in Minnesota -- the country's fourth largest source of wind power. The Twin Cities’ Pioneer Press reports that certain environmental groups are speaking out against these high-voltage transmission lines.  From the article:

The Citizens Energy Task Force was created to fight CapX 2020 [another transmission project], and it also opposes the Green Power Express, fearing both will act as Trojan horses to bring in power from coal plants in the Dakotas instead of wind power. Coal generates about half the country’s power, but it also produces greenhouse gases that speed up global warming, environmentalists say.

Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) introduced the Clean Renewable Energy and Economic Development Act, which could offer some assurance for those concerned about what type of energy will ultimately travel on these transmission lines. Specifically, Reid has proposed granting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the power to trump local governments’ authority and approve permits for these new transmission lines -- but only if at least 75 percent of the electricity they carry is guaranteed to come from renewable sources.

The debate over the Green Power Express -- which will span the Dakotas, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana -- is part of a larger discussion regarding whether these types of large-scale projects represent smart growth. The counter-argument is that state and federal governments should be encouraging the development of local power sources -- rather than creating an infrastructure meant to transmit energy over long distances. For instance, a recent report (PDF), the Minneapolis-based Institute for Local Self-Reliance broke down the availability of renewable energy resources on a state-by-state basis and found that twenty-one of them could satisfy 100 percent of their electricity needs. Here’s how they describe the benefit of staying local:

Homegrown energy is almost always cheaper than imports, especially when you factor in social, environmental and economic benefits. Policies that encourage energy self-reliance at a state and even in many cases a local level could enable communities and regions to achieve economic and environmental goals simultaneously. It’s a win-win situation.

But this local focus only raises further questions: What about those states in which local energy production exceeds in-state demand? Shouldn’t they be able to send their excess energy to states with larger populations and less renewable resources?

Image used under a Creative Commons license by Flickr user Paul Excoff.