The Pacific Northwest Economic Region (PNWER) is holding its 19th annual summit in Boise this week. The theme of the conference is Global Challenges, Northwest Imperatives for the Future. Following is an article published by NewWest.net about transmission siting in the West.
For further information about PNWER activities in Boise this week, go to: http://www.pnwer.org/2009summit/Home
Western States To Lose Control Over Transmission Siting?
'We don't know why or where it came from."
By Sharon Fisher, 7-13-09:
Newly added provisions to the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, next slated to be voted on by the U.S. Senate, give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission final say over the siting of electric transmission lines in Western states—but not in any other part of the country, attendees of the Pacific Northwest Economic Region conference in Boise learned today.
There is a “real threat” of the federal government taking over, said Paul Kjellander, administrator of Idaho’s office of energy resources, noting that seven transmission lines are currently slated to crisscross Idaho.
One of the biggest issues is Gateway West, the siting of which is being fought by Parma and Kuna, which found out at recent public meetings that towers up to 180 feet tall along a corridor up to 250 wide were slated to cross the cities’ impact areas.
“Everyone agrees it’s essential,” Kjellander said. “What they can’t agree on is where it goes,” especially since some alternative routes could add up to $1 billion more to the project.
Siting of transmission lines are a major issue in the West; a lawsuit was filed earlier this month regarding the designation of a number of “energy corridors” here.
The Fourth Circuit court overturned a legal decision earlier this year regarding FERC power over site selection. “FERC had argued that the 2005 Energy Policy Act permitted it to order “national interest” transmission projects to go forward, and that Congress’ mandate included implicit authority to overrule state decisions to the contrary,” according to the Marten Law Group. “The Fourth Circuit disagreed, finding that if states turn down transmission projects on reasonable grounds, they cannot be overruled by FERC.” The case may end up going to the U.S. Supreme Court, the law group said.
It was after that, in May, when amendments were added to the The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES), H.R. 2454, commonly known as the Waxman-Markey bill, allowing FERC to pre-empt state decisions on siting, said Janice Adair, Washington liaison to the Western Climate Initiative, which is developing its own cap-and-trade plan.
“We don’t know why or where it came from,” Adair said, noting that the amendment came in a package about 3 am. “We’re going backwards to try to figure out how that happened. The Western states are very much opposed to that position,” she added.
“Under the newest draft, a “high-priority national transmission project"developer must first apply to a state to route transmission facilities,” the Marten Law Group said. “But if the state fails to approve the construction and routing within one year of application, rejects the application, or imposes “unreasonable” conditions on the project, FERC can step in and authorize the transmission line routing. The explicit authority to override a state’s rejection of a project is a direct response to the 4th Circuit decision.”
“The federal government isn’t likely to be as respectful of private lands” as the states are, Kjellander said. On the other hand, “Transmission is that key resource we need to be developing as quickly as we can,” he added. “Let’s not forget what happens if we don’t move forward.”
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
ICIE Update: Legislative Committee Looks at Alternate Funding Sources
The interim legislative task force charged with identifying alternative sources of funding for the Idaho State Police and the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation met last Tuesday. The funding in question was shifted away from the two departments this past legislative session to fund the transportation bill that goes into effect in July of 2010.
Co-Chair Senator Cameron opened the meeting by outlining the scope of the committee: primarily that the committee is not tasked with undoing the work of the 2009 legislature, nor in redefining the scope of the ISP or the IDPR. Finally, Senator Cameron said he will have considered this task force to have failed if the only option they can identify is to shift the responsibility of replacing these funds to the General Fund.
Interestingly enough, it was this point with which Representative Raul Labrador of Eagle took issue. Apparently, Senator Cameron’s statements narrowed the focus of the committee too much for the Representative.
For background, Paul Headlee of the Legislative Services Office provided an overview of how funds from the Highway Distribution Account are distributed. This revenue includes that from gas taxes, vehicle registration, licensing and other fees which are directed to the State Tax Commission administration, railroad crossings, bridge inspections and Parks and Recreation. Beyond that, funds are distribution to the Idaho State Police and ITD’s State Highway account. Subsequent to June 1st of this year, gas tax funds have been siphoned off to go to the ITD/State Highway Account, removing ISP and IDPR from the distribution. Over the past 25 years, the amount distributed to these two departments has increased steadily, until FY 2008, when distributions equaled $4.3 million to IDPR and $16.36 million to ISP. The forecast for 2011 for IDPR is $240,000 in distributions and $0 for ISP.
Jim Alcorn, the Director of the State Insurance Fund described the Idaho Petroleum Clean Water Trust Fund and the $.01 transfer fee required of fuel distributors. The fund was put in place to provide a low cost solution to those who need liability insurance for fuel storage tanks. The fund is strong now, with reserves in place to fund claims against it, but income from investments has declined, while actuaries predict that claims on the fund will increase. Currently, the fund has an unencumbered surplus of $22 million. This will be reduced to an estimated $12 million by 2018.
Sen. Cameron pointed out that at some point, we’re going to have to put money into the fund to keep it afloat, and asked for any commentary from the audience. Suzanne Budge complied. Budge represents the Idaho Petroleum Marketers and convenience store owners. She noted that most states implemented clean-up funds as a result of the EPA requirement. These were funded by a percentage of fuel tax. Budge noted the extraordinary efficiency of Idaho’s insurance fund, which has been a model for other states. Where other states have gone into the red, this fund has been well run.
Another industry expert testified, noting the number of schools, cities, counties and other entities required to have this insurance. There is also private insurance available, but with relatively high premiums. Furthermore, insurance companies tend to cherry-pick those they insure based upon the age of their units. Some private tank holders will go under if this fund ceases to exist.
Richard Burns, Budget & Policy Analyst with the Legislative Services Office gave an overview of Idaho State Police funding, specifically that the department projects a 2010 revenue shortfall of $2.87 million. Originally, ISP requested that General Fund money be used to replace these funds. The shortfall required that personnel costs be shifted onto the Project Choice fund. Project Choice is dedicated to helping ISP personnel develop career ladders – thereby reducing attrition in the department, and supporting recruitment efforts. Within the next year or two, Project Choice funds will no longer be available, forcing a choice between maintaining staff, or reducing a fund, which ultimately impacts the department’s retention.
Lt. Col. Kevin Johnson, Deputy Director of the Idaho State Police addressed how Highway Distribution Account funds are used by ISP. The Department requires a minimum of $18 million from the Highway Distribution Law Enforcement Account. Absorbing this reduction would ultimately mean a loss of more than 200 personnel, and the ability to patrol anything more than county roads. The department submitted a number of suggestions, including raising vehicle registration fees, increasing drivers license fees, implementing a surcharge or dedicated sales tax on transportation-related items, or fee on all new car sales, increase new, transfer and out-of-state title fees, or accessing the general fund.
Ray Houston, Budget & Policy Analyst with the Legislative Services Office presented an overview of Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation Funding, The trend for the past decade and earlier is that a larger and larger portion of IDPR budget is from sources other than the General Fund:
- General funds represent $6.8 million or 17.6% of the department’s total budget
- Dedicated funds represent 27.6 million or 71.7% of total
- Federal funds represent $4.1 or 10.7% of total
A tax on recreational fuels funds $5.3 million or 13.8% of the total fiscal years 2010 appropriation. Prior to 1963, Idahoans submitted vouchers on their gas receipts for a refund. In earlier testimony, recreationists (wearing nametags saying “Hello, my name is _______. We want our gas tax back,”), referred to a voucher system that was given up to fund recreation in Idaho. Recreationists apparently wanted to see gas tax collected on vehicles that didn’t use public roads used instead for trail, boat and snowmobile access. Representative Labrador, noted that he heard that it costs $100 per refund to process such refunds, although Houston could not confirm this.
Co-Chair Senator Cameron opened the meeting by outlining the scope of the committee: primarily that the committee is not tasked with undoing the work of the 2009 legislature, nor in redefining the scope of the ISP or the IDPR. Finally, Senator Cameron said he will have considered this task force to have failed if the only option they can identify is to shift the responsibility of replacing these funds to the General Fund.
Interestingly enough, it was this point with which Representative Raul Labrador of Eagle took issue. Apparently, Senator Cameron’s statements narrowed the focus of the committee too much for the Representative.
For background, Paul Headlee of the Legislative Services Office provided an overview of how funds from the Highway Distribution Account are distributed. This revenue includes that from gas taxes, vehicle registration, licensing and other fees which are directed to the State Tax Commission administration, railroad crossings, bridge inspections and Parks and Recreation. Beyond that, funds are distribution to the Idaho State Police and ITD’s State Highway account. Subsequent to June 1st of this year, gas tax funds have been siphoned off to go to the ITD/State Highway Account, removing ISP and IDPR from the distribution. Over the past 25 years, the amount distributed to these two departments has increased steadily, until FY 2008, when distributions equaled $4.3 million to IDPR and $16.36 million to ISP. The forecast for 2011 for IDPR is $240,000 in distributions and $0 for ISP.
Jim Alcorn, the Director of the State Insurance Fund described the Idaho Petroleum Clean Water Trust Fund and the $.01 transfer fee required of fuel distributors. The fund was put in place to provide a low cost solution to those who need liability insurance for fuel storage tanks. The fund is strong now, with reserves in place to fund claims against it, but income from investments has declined, while actuaries predict that claims on the fund will increase. Currently, the fund has an unencumbered surplus of $22 million. This will be reduced to an estimated $12 million by 2018.
Sen. Cameron pointed out that at some point, we’re going to have to put money into the fund to keep it afloat, and asked for any commentary from the audience. Suzanne Budge complied. Budge represents the Idaho Petroleum Marketers and convenience store owners. She noted that most states implemented clean-up funds as a result of the EPA requirement. These were funded by a percentage of fuel tax. Budge noted the extraordinary efficiency of Idaho’s insurance fund, which has been a model for other states. Where other states have gone into the red, this fund has been well run.
Another industry expert testified, noting the number of schools, cities, counties and other entities required to have this insurance. There is also private insurance available, but with relatively high premiums. Furthermore, insurance companies tend to cherry-pick those they insure based upon the age of their units. Some private tank holders will go under if this fund ceases to exist.
Richard Burns, Budget & Policy Analyst with the Legislative Services Office gave an overview of Idaho State Police funding, specifically that the department projects a 2010 revenue shortfall of $2.87 million. Originally, ISP requested that General Fund money be used to replace these funds. The shortfall required that personnel costs be shifted onto the Project Choice fund. Project Choice is dedicated to helping ISP personnel develop career ladders – thereby reducing attrition in the department, and supporting recruitment efforts. Within the next year or two, Project Choice funds will no longer be available, forcing a choice between maintaining staff, or reducing a fund, which ultimately impacts the department’s retention.
Lt. Col. Kevin Johnson, Deputy Director of the Idaho State Police addressed how Highway Distribution Account funds are used by ISP. The Department requires a minimum of $18 million from the Highway Distribution Law Enforcement Account. Absorbing this reduction would ultimately mean a loss of more than 200 personnel, and the ability to patrol anything more than county roads. The department submitted a number of suggestions, including raising vehicle registration fees, increasing drivers license fees, implementing a surcharge or dedicated sales tax on transportation-related items, or fee on all new car sales, increase new, transfer and out-of-state title fees, or accessing the general fund.
Ray Houston, Budget & Policy Analyst with the Legislative Services Office presented an overview of Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation Funding, The trend for the past decade and earlier is that a larger and larger portion of IDPR budget is from sources other than the General Fund:
- General funds represent $6.8 million or 17.6% of the department’s total budget
- Dedicated funds represent 27.6 million or 71.7% of total
- Federal funds represent $4.1 or 10.7% of total
A tax on recreational fuels funds $5.3 million or 13.8% of the total fiscal years 2010 appropriation. Prior to 1963, Idahoans submitted vouchers on their gas receipts for a refund. In earlier testimony, recreationists (wearing nametags saying “Hello, my name is _______. We want our gas tax back,”), referred to a voucher system that was given up to fund recreation in Idaho. Recreationists apparently wanted to see gas tax collected on vehicles that didn’t use public roads used instead for trail, boat and snowmobile access. Representative Labrador, noted that he heard that it costs $100 per refund to process such refunds, although Houston could not confirm this.
“At the risk of sounding callous,” Co-chair Cameron said “why were these recreationists entitled to a refund?”
Co-Chair Cameron added that a number of states are in dire financial situations currently, some even needing to close state parks and recreational facilities. He asked IDPR to gather information on how Idaho is doing compared to other states in this regard.
David Ricks, Acting Director of the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation, outlined specifically how gas taxes are used by his department:
- 28% to off road motor vehicle fund – the staff gives about $600k every year in grants to maintain trail access, develop mapping and signs, educate the public on proper use, and on grooming 5,600 miles of snowmobile trails every year.
- 28% Waterways improvement fund – this fund supports the use of 91,000 recreational motorboats including launch facilities, navigational aids and enforcement/education. This is a highly competitive program, with only one in five grants approved every year.
- Search and Rescue
- Capital Improvement Fund – this is allocated to state park maintenance and improvement such as to restrooms, playground equipment, roadways, bridge inspection and maintenance and infrastructure. Ricks noted that surveys show that families visiting a park with a shabby restroom facility are unlikely to visit again.
Ricks noted that most of the funds go to local government entities that make repairs and improvements to more than 30 state parks. Tourism is Idaho’s third largest industry, bringing in $3 billion into the state’s rural economies annually. Earlier in the day, during public testimony, Sandra Mitchell of the Idaho State Snowmobile Association emphasized the degree to which Idaho tourism supports the state economy.
“After they did away with the extraction industries, what was left was recreation.” She said, noting that recreationists “pay their own way” in this state.
The committee voted to meet again in mid August, to hear reports from the Tax Commission. Rep. Labrador noted that he would still like to see a broader scope for the committee, including the opportunity to revisit the laws passed during the recent legislative session, but Co-chair Cameron remained steadfast.
“It’s not that I am objectionable to un-ringing the bell,” he said. “I just don’t think it’s doable.”
Senator Patty Ann Lodge and others asked for more information that she said was based on suggestions from her constituents, such as increasing fees for nonresident recreationists, or increasing fines for infractions or DUIs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)