Western states to lose control over transmission siting?

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.”