...and that's why its shoes don't shine.
Last week, FERC issued a proposed new transmission planning and cost allocation rule. It's a beast of more than 400 pages of FERCenese and I'm not sure anyone has finished reading it yet since all the news stories about it are generalized and not specific, such as this story.
FERC's rule proposes that state regulatory and permitting agencies have a 90-day period to negotiate cost allocation for the transmission project among themselves before the planning agency imposes its own cost allocation rule. FERC believes "...state siting proceedings may proceed more efficiently if states have better information about the costs and benefits of such regional transmission facilities."
The real purpose of this is for the states to indicate that they support the transmission project before it gets added to the regional plan, therefore greasing state siting and permitting approvals. Did Pollyanna write that part? FERC is ginning up a state vs. state battle that is going to guarantee rancor and disapproval before the project is even approved by the planning agency.
There is lots of praise in the media trumpeting that FERC's proposed rule is Shinola, but little substance. Even FERC's Chairman can't tell the difference between Grain Belt Express and Shinola, as evidenced by this delightful little revelation:
FERC's rule proposes that state regulatory and permitting agencies have a 90-day period to negotiate cost allocation for the transmission project among themselves before the planning agency imposes its own cost allocation rule. FERC believes "...state siting proceedings may proceed more efficiently if states have better information about the costs and benefits of such regional transmission facilities."
The real purpose of this is for the states to indicate that they support the transmission project before it gets added to the regional plan, therefore greasing state siting and permitting approvals. Did Pollyanna write that part? FERC is ginning up a state vs. state battle that is going to guarantee rancor and disapproval before the project is even approved by the planning agency.
There is lots of praise in the media trumpeting that FERC's proposed rule is Shinola, but little substance. Even FERC's Chairman can't tell the difference between Grain Belt Express and Shinola, as evidenced by this delightful little revelation:
In a press conference after Thursday’s meeting, Glick said that active state involvement could help forestall state conflicts like those that have arisen in Missouri, where state lawmakers are seeking to pass a law that would threaten the viability of the Grain Belt Express, a massive proposed transmission project that would deliver power from Kansas across Missouri to the Illinois-Indiana border.
The NOPR is “aimed at bringing the states together and hopefully developing their own approach to cost allocation,” Glick said. For example, “it might determine that State A and State C should pay for that line, not State B.”
Why doesn't he know that Grain Belt Express is NOT a cost allocated project? It's a merchant transmission project without captive customers. It may only collect its costs through negotiated rates with voluntary customers. Therefore, FERC's proposed rule would not apply because there is no cost allocation! He also confuses the Missouri Public Service Commission (the state regulatory permitting agency) with the Missouri Legislature, which is pursuing legislation to end eminent domain for transmission projects that do not provide ample benefit to Missouri. Even though the PSC approved Grain Belt Express to use eminent domain under existing laws that do not contemplate merchant transmission "fly over" projects, the Missouri Legislature is in the process of correcting that because it is the will of the people of Missouri. FERC's new rule is completely useless to circumvent the will of the people of Missouri. Even if a state utility commission agreed to a cost allocation method for a new transmission project, and subsequently approved it, the legislature has the final say because it has the power to change the laws under which the utility commission must operate.
It's not going to grease new transmission projects. It may simply develop individual state conflicts and guarantee that nothing ever gets built.
People who oppose the transmission project will still put appropriate pressure on the state legislature, such as they have done in Missouri. The only way to get new transmission built is to prevent the impacts that cause opposition, like burying the project on existing rights of way, such as along highways or rail. Requiring transmission planners to select projects that have no impacts on landowners and communities crossed would have been a better rule, but FERC is all about the politics and propaganda these days, and not about sensible regulation that creates just and reasonable outcomes. Today's FERC seems to know little about transmission in the real world outside the DC political bubble, where its unworkable ideas look like Shinola.
It's not going to grease new transmission projects. It may simply develop individual state conflicts and guarantee that nothing ever gets built.
People who oppose the transmission project will still put appropriate pressure on the state legislature, such as they have done in Missouri. The only way to get new transmission built is to prevent the impacts that cause opposition, like burying the project on existing rights of way, such as along highways or rail. Requiring transmission planners to select projects that have no impacts on landowners and communities crossed would have been a better rule, but FERC is all about the politics and propaganda these days, and not about sensible regulation that creates just and reasonable outcomes. Today's FERC seems to know little about transmission in the real world outside the DC political bubble, where its unworkable ideas look like Shinola.
RSS Feed