Transcript “Transmission Siting and The Federal Landscape” Remarks of James J. Hoecker Husch Blackwell Sanders Former Chairman of the FERC Public Participation In Transmission Siting January 26, 2010 Orlando,

“Transmission Siting and
The Federal Landscape”
Remarks of
James J. Hoecker
Husch Blackwell Sanders
Former Chairman of the FERC
Public Participation In Transmission Siting
January 26, 2010
Orlando, FL
Challenges to The
Transmission System







Aging and deteriorating infrastructure
More dispersed resources of generation
Wholesale competition among generators
Complex bulk power markets
Arrival of the digital economy
Electricity consumption doubled 1980-2007
Shifts of public policy (e.g., RPS, efficiency, demand
response)
 NERC: Transmission additions will triple to 3100
miles/year 2009-2018. On the books now: 90 planned
projects each greater than $100million
2
Transmission Regulation –
It Boils Down to Need
 Siting – Location, Location...and Need
 States consider “need” for facilities when siting them
 Cost allocation – Who Pays? Who Benefits?
 States are influenced by the rate impacts on citizens when considering
need; FERC often defers to states and stakeholders
 Planning – Which Projects Are Needed?
 Stakeholders & regional planners determine whether projects
satisfy reliability, economic, environmental, or public policy needs
3
Challenges to New
Transmission Construction
 “Not in my backyard” or “not in my term of office” or









“hands off my cheap energy”
Conflicts between local, state and regional interests
Inconsistent state and local regulation
Uncoordinated Environmental reviews
Federal land authorization, esp. in the West
Lack of timing coordination among siting entities
Varying GHG restrictions and RPS’s
Difficulty right-sizing for short and long-term needs
Uncoordinated siting between lines and generators
Timing of “need” determinations
4
Stakeholder Participation:
Important but Often Messy
“The uncoordinated participation of this wide spectrum of
interested parties, and the nature of EHV transmission
crossing jurisdictional boundaries, complicates and
impedes the planning, approval, and permitting
processes. This can further delay the already lengthy
siting process, add to the cost of transmission projects,
and increase the financial risk to a transmission
developer.”
DOE Electric Advisory Committee
Keeping the Lights On in a
New World” (2009) (p.49)
5
Status of Federal Siting
 Section 216, Federal Power Act (Sec.1221,
EPAct 2005)
 National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor
 Limited FERC backstop authority within NIETCs
 FERC’s Aggressive Interpretation of Its Authority
 Regional State Compacts
 Enter the Fourth Circuit - Piedmont
Environmental Council v. FERC
 Timely state action is dispositive
 Supreme Court has refused review
6
Piedmont Environmental Council v. FERC
“The result of the Fourth Circuit decision is nullification of the
comprehensive scheme erected by Congress with respect to U.S.
transmission policy. The goal of Congress was to strengthen the
interstate grid to support competitive markets, assure reliability,
and promote development of renewable energy capacity.
Congress recognized that development of larger interstate
transmission projects is necessary to accomplish those policy
goals, and also appreciated that state and local siting is poorly
suited for development of such projects…. [T]he Fourth Circuit
has interpreted Congress’ intent as maintaining each state’s veto
authority over new interstate transmission facilities no matter
how vital to the national interest.”
Amicus Brief By Four
Former FERC Chairmen
7
Now What?
 Pending transmission legislation –
 S.1462 American Clean Energy Leadership Act
 HR 2454 American Clean Energy & Security Act
 Administration initiatives – Interagency MOU on federal
lands; more?
 New Siting Approaches?




Pre-emptive federal backstop
Natural gas pipeline model; federal siting for high priority lines
Interstate siting compacts
Adoption of federal, state and local “best practices” for
 Valuing their viewshed
 Protecting Property values
 Land conservation
 Multi-agency permitting
 Combine siting with regional or interconnection-wide planning
processes
8
James J. Hoecker, JD, Ph.D
Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP
Hoecker Energy Law & Policy PLLC
[email protected]
www.helppllc.com
202-378-2300
www.wiresgroup.com
9