6.1. ERMUSR 03-09-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

lion is that state regulators often do not share a sense of immediacy about approving transmission petitions in a timely fashion. A case in point is the certificate of need proceeding before the Minnesota PUC for the high volt- age transmission line in Minnesota providing an outlet for the Big Stone II coal plant in South Dakota. That proceeding took more than three years, even though Minnesota state law al- lows aone-year time frame for such a decision. Minnesota is not alone; there are other cases across the country in which state authorities are block- ing transmission projects for various reasons. Support for the construction of new transmission has resulted from a desire to bring renewable energy from remote locations to population centers. In fact, there are those who would like to see new rules for trans- mission capacity built exclusively for renewable resources. But transmission doesn't work that way. While bring- ing renewable energy to market is one reason for supporting new transmis- sion, it is not the only reason. The "renewable transmission" concept fails to recognize the interconnected nature of the transmission grid that does not distinguish the types of electrons (coal vs. solar, natural gas vs. wind) being transmitted at any given moment. A nondiscriminatory, robust, and reliable transmission system is the best means of promoting renewable energy. Financing new transmission is another important issue for public power. Mu- nicipal electric utilities are anxious to participate in joint projects with other sectors of the industry. However, an onerous provision included in the 1986 omnibus tax legislation currently pro- hibits public power utilities from using tax-exempt financing (the traditional method of raising capital for units of local government) in certain instances, including imposing a cap of X15 mil- lion on new transmission built jointly with a private entity, which represents the majority of such projects. Given the high capital costs of transmission projects and their use by multiple enti- ties, this restriction has stifled public power investment in needed new fa- cilities both on a stand-alone basis and through joint ownership arrangements that could have widespread benefits. Congressional Action As mentioned, federal "back-stop" siting authority was granted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct05) in Section 1221, which added new language to the Federal Power Act. But this provision has been challenged in court. Many parties contested the final rule and later brought a court case contesting FERC's right to approve certain transmission projects, even if they had been rejected at the state level. Also, some in Congress continue to work for the repeal of this section. On another issue, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) intro- duced a bIll in the previous Congress that attempts to designate bulk trans- mission lines for the nearly exclusive use of renewable generation. The bill would also mandate that the federal Power Marketing Administrations build these transmission lines if the investor-owned utilities fail to do so after three years. In addition, Senator Reid developed language authorizing X2.5 billion in loans for the Western Area Power Administration to build transmission to non-hydropower re- newables.This requirement is incon- sistent with basic utility operations and reliability requirements and could guarantee that the line is uneconomic by preventing unused capacity from being utilized. MMUA Position MMUA urges Congress to: oppose repeal of the federal "backstop" siting authority and support expansion of this concept to include interstate transmission that meets national policy goals under the banner of "regional transmission"; • oppose the financing and construction of limited, one- dimensional renewable transmission; and • support the repeal of the 1986 "private use" tax restrictions for new transmission projects that include both public power and investor owed utilities.