State Approaches to Transmission Siting

1. State Approaches to Transmission Siting Presentation to the Colorado Governor�s Task Force September 18, 2006

3. Demand Drivers $27.4 billion in planned new transmission driven by need to: Relieve congestion Improve reliability Anticipate economic growth Access to renewable, coal and other generation resources remote from load Difficulties in siting non-gas generating assets near load centers

4. State Approaches to Siting No surprise: Across the 50 states, the process for siting transmission facilities varies significantly and can be idiosyncratic. Resource Materials: EEI State Generation and Transmission Siting Directory, 2004 (updated and expanded from the state level Electric Transmission Line Siting Regulations Directory from 2001) Survey of Transmission Siting Practices in the Midwest, prepared by the Brattle Group for EEI and the Organization of MISO States, November 2004. Issues that can affect variability of approach: including length and voltage of the facility, ownership of the facility (merchant, shareholder-owned, municipal or rural cooperative, the boundaries crossed (service franchise, municipal), whether located within or along an existing right-of-way.

5. Minimalist Permitting Approach Some states appear to exercise no or very limited regulatory authority over the siting of new transmission facilities. No certificate of public convenience and necessity or its equivalent. No approval for siting route but project proponent may be required to hold a public hearing. Permits required for special circumstances from Department of Natural Resources or its equivalent (river crossings, wetlands, crossing of state lands. Federal permits where federal land crossings are an issue. Local governments do not appear to play substitute role of primary siting agency Minimalist States include: Indiana, Georgia, Louisiana, Delaware, Oklahoma

6. One-Stop Shop What is one-stop shop? Ohio Model: Ohio Siting Board is an independent agency within the state PUC, with staff drawn from the spectrum of relevant state agencies (OH Departments of EPA, Agriculture, Development, Health and Natural Resources) as well one rep from the public and two each from the House and Senate. Issues the Certificate of Environmental Compliance and Public Need. Extensive review, public participation, and pre-filing requirements. Minor projects: 2-3 months. Major projects: 6-12 months from filing. Lead Agency Model: State PUC issues the Certificate of Public Convenience and Need and functions as lead agency, but other permit applications must be filed and acted on elsewhere. Varies as to whether other permits have to be in place prior to the PUC acting on a siting application.

7. Other Examples Idaho � PUC issues Certificate of Public Convenience and Need. Actual siting depends on arrangements reached between landowners and the utility. OR � Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council issues a site certificate greater than 230 kV and > 1) miles. The Site Certificate is a comprehensive permit, appealable to the OR Supreme Court. Public hearing only is required for lines of lesser voltage and length. Some states streamline for short lines and for lines located within an existing right-of-way. Maryland � Example of split responsibility: PUC issues certificate, The Department of Natural Resources is responsible for coordinating all other review.

8. Conclusion Many states � but by no means all -- require a certificate of public need. For some states, the certificate is a comprehensive permit issued with the involvement of other agencies. For others, the certificate is only one of the filings that must be completed at the state level. States vary as to whether such other permits technically must be received before the state certificate can issue. Others, the certificate can clearly issue before other permits are in place. Colorado appears to be the only state that substitutes local government as the principal siting agency. This appears to be true even in those states where state control is not exercised.