The Senate permitting bill holds promise but needs amendments
Utility Dive · Mark Christie ·
Targeted changes can minimize the most negative consequences of the permitting bill’s overreaching provisions, writes former FERC Chairman Mark Christie.
Mark Christie is a former chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and former chairman of the Virginia State Corporation Commission, and is the director of the William & Mary Law School Center for Energy Law and Policy.
Every true compromise in a polarized legislature contains candy for each side, but also requires each side to swallow some hairballs. In the Senate permitting reform bill (SB 5653), the true permitting reforms hold a welcome potential to get needed infrastructure built faster. The transmission provisions, however — which are not permitting reforms at all — contain some provisions that are indigestible if you care about rising consumer costs and respect for historic state authority over utilities.
The bill’s best transmission provisions seek to ensure that large-load customers pay the full costs they impose on the grid. The worst transmission provisions, however, can be fixed with the amendments described below. Before considering these amendments, it is important to understand that the Federal Power Act for nearly a century has recognized a clear and logical division between state and federal authority over the power grid: The states have authority over the siting and permitting of all physical assets within their borders, including generation and transmission. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has authority over the rates for interstate transmission services and wholesale power sales.
Read the full story at Utility Dive · All coverage of this story