Department of Energy plans to give federal regulators more authority over the siting of electricity transmission lines would delay development, provoke lawsuits, and damage federal-state relations, the utility commissioners’ trade group said.
The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners blasted the proposal to hand more power to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, saying it ignores court rulings and the intent of Congress, and would give the industry, rather than the government, control over the approval process.
If the changes go into effect, “companies seeking to build power lines and evade state approval processes simply have to ask FERC for such a determination, thereby putting the industry, rather than the federal government, in charge,” said NARUC Executive Director Charles Gray in a September 8 statement.
“To the extent that this proposal is motivated by a desire to reduce barriers to transmission, it fails,” Gray said.
Under existing law, FERC can site transmission lines in DOE-designated National Interest Electricity Transmission Corridors only if a state fails to act on an application within a year of it being filed. Courts have ruled that if a state denies a line within a corridor, that decision cannot be overturned by a federal agency.
Under the plans published on September 2, FERC would determine the “corridors” on a project-by-project basis, raising the likelihood that it would approve those plans anywhere in the US, NARUC said.
NARUC called the plans “industry-drafted proposals” and said they would greatly expand FERC’s power to site transmission lines even if the lines were deemed unnecessary by state public utility commissioners.
“If Congress had intended this, they would have simply given this authority to FERC in the first place,” Gray said.
FERC spokeswoman Mary O’Driscoll declined to respond to NARUC’s letter, saying only that the proposal is a “conceptual paper prepared by FERC staff at the request of the Secretary of Energy,” and not an official FERC document.
The paper argues that the plan would not expand federal authority at the expense of the states but would rather “simplify and consolidate” the actions mandated by Congress into a single forum – FERC.
It also rejected any claims that the plan would circumvent two recent appeals court rulings against the federal agencies over transmission siting. In the case of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which this year ruled in favor of the California Wilderness Coalition, FERC would invite state participation on project-specific corridor applications, it said.
“The proposed delegation from DOE to FERC would allow a more rational, expedited federal process for consideration of transmission projects…and would help satisfy the need for a modern and efficient transmission grid in the United States,” the paper said.
But NARUC said the plan would create uncertainty and delays in transmission development.
“To the extent that this proposal is motivated by a desire to reduce barriers to transmission, it fails,” Gray said. He argued that any state reviewing a siting application at the same time as FERC would probably be precluded under procedural rules from participating if the plan is implemented.
The Drama Of Policy Change
In a letter to DOE Secretary Stephen Chu, NARUC’s executive committee said it was unaware of “such a dramatic policy change” until a meeting with DOE and FERC officials on August 19. He said the plan was “vetted” with industry stakeholders long before it was discussed with the commissioners’ group.
“Given that our members remain the primary transmission-siting authorities, we are disappointed that we were not privy to the details or even informal conversations about this proposal,” the committee’s letter said.
The DOE set a deadline of 5pm Friday to receive public comment on the plan, and said Secretary Chu will make a decision “within a few weeks.”
Photo Caption: (Left-Right) Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson visit before a hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Capitol Hill October 27, 2009 in Washington, DC.
