pnwer 2009
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.”
[End of article]At 1,500 pages the cap and trade bill is just too complicated, with too many moving parts. Why? There were 770 lobbyists registered to lobby on the bill and their fingerprints are all over the it.
And the kicker? We'll never know if cap and trade even worked.
-- Robert Moen, http://www.energyplanUSA.com
A power grab by the feds in the name of the environment? Say it's not true!!!
/<sarcasm>
Justin,
I could say its not true, but I would be lying. This is just one more step in the Feds taking over everything. I just hope enough people wake up before it is too late.
Yeah, It shouldn't be FERC that ultimately decides where transmission lines are located, it should be up to the power companies, in conjunction with the states, heck, lets just say counties, and local landowners!
I mean, come on, if I don't want a power transmission line crossing my property, I'm going to say NO, and if the power companies have to zigzag transmission lines all over the place to accomodate, then so be it- its not my problem. I still have electricity at my house, as do we all in the NW- let the rest of the country figure out their own electricity problems, right?
/ < sarcasm>
Actually this would be *bad* for the environment.
Comment By Stan Sanders, 7-21-09More than half of the west is owned by the federal government and the agencies enpowered by the enviornmentilists to "protect" this land will not approve transmission lines across their turf. We in SW Idaho have seen the BLM refuse lines across the Birds of Prey area. What's left? Private property. We, as individuals, are the lowest on the totem pole, so get ready to be able to run your hair dryer without a cord from the 5000kv line crossing your back yard.
Comment By Talia, 7-22-09There are plenty of BLM lands where power lines do not threaten birds of prey (or at least minimally).
Comment By James Boldebuck, 7-23-09I am not sure that anyone has proven that power lines are a threat to any birds.
The Feds as Stan said are trying to control everything. Washington is populated (our government) by a bunch of power hungry dummies. Lets let loca and state governments control their own for the folks who elect them
By "birds" I assume you mean birds of prey. Currently Rocky Mountain Power (PacifiCorp) is paying the state of Wyoming back for all the golden eagles they electrocuted by not putting the right technology on their power lines.
Comment By Talia, 7-23-09But if you mean birds in general, the sage grouse is a great example. They abandon any habitat with tall structures.
Comment By James Boldebuck, 7-23-09I love birds of all types, animals both domestic and wild with the exception of reptiles and spiders. Even they serve a purpose.
However I don't think the people putting in these power lines are out to kill anything or anybody. If there is an alternative and it doesn't triple the cost, lets do it.
Bottom line is if it comes down to me or the birds, its bye bye birdie.
Well for now it doesn't seem to be a choice between you and birds. It's not that people in industry are bad, it's just that they're not wildlife biologists, for the most part, and going across public land means they're benefiting from the public trust and they should treat it well. There are all kinds of alternatives out there and ways to pay for them, too. Stimulus $ is being funneled that way.
Comment By James Boldebuck, 7-24-09With all due respect for your politics Talia, I don't believe this is the place for stimilus money. Both G Bush and Obama tried to convince the taxpayers that that money had to be made available on an emergency basis for work that was in progress or was ready to start that would employ people now. We now know that we were duped by some folks that do not know what they are doing. Its all about power and they are using OUR money to play the game.
Comment By Stan Sanders, 7-24-09The latest "maybe" good news is that the BLM has now moved the EIS due date on the "gateway project" from November to the spring of 2010 giving local communities more time to suggest alternate routing for the power transmission corridor. However, whether this is a public relations ploy or really an effort to listen to local authorities is yet to be seen, and could all be for naught if the government takes over the routing for "national security" reasons. Stay tuned America.
Comment By Sharon Fisher, 7-24-09I was at the public meeting in Kuna with the BLM, and the upshot of that was they said, essentially, we didn't know that people would be upset. Now we know. We're open to other suggestions; just do us a favor and work together with your elected officials so we can get two or three other suggestions, not 48, ok? So they did give the impression then that they were actually listening.
However, this FERC thing is something altogether different, and that's what concerns me.
Sharon. I was also at the meeting in Kuna and my impression was that I was hearing a lot of politicalspeak. My concern was why Idaho Power did not question the BLM's routing even though it was going to cost billions more. Do they know something we don't?Like the possibility of the FERC closer that we think? Something to think about, and, by the way, thank you for your insightful articles in "The New West".
This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/western_states_to_lose_control_over_transmission_siting/C564/L564/