For Immediate Release
Bob Lazaro
PEC Director of Communications
571.225.0198

PEC President Christopher Miller Testifies Before Congress Regarding Federal Electric Transmission Policy

Chris Miller, PEC President testifies before Congress regarding Federal Electric Transmission Policy.

(Warrenton, VA -- June 15, 2009) Piedmont Environmental Council President Christopher G. Miller testified before the House Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment on Friday, June 12, regarding Federal electric transmission policy. Miller was the only representative of the environmental community to participate in the hearing. Miller presented testimony aptly entitled: "Transmission Myth v. Reality".

The following is a synopsis of Miller's testimony. Read a full copy of the testimony.

Myth 1: The current regulatory scheme discourages transmission from being built

Not true, interstate transmission line proposals are being pursued and approved throughout the country. Lines are rarely turned down by State Utility Commissions, and such denials are exceptions, not the norm. Indeed, new transmission lines are being approved with scant attention to alternatives such as improved efficiency and better generation alternatives.

Myth 2: Future renewable generation will be located far from the load and require massive transmission investment.

According to a number of the bills pending before Congress, future generation sources, particularly renewable generation sources, will be located "distant from load centers", in "rural areas," or be "location-constrained." This assumes a continued reliance on distant generation sources, and ignores the significant potential for off-shore wind, roof-top solar, geothermal, natural gas peaking plants, and other forms of generation that could be more easily located near the load.

Myth 3: Transmission can be easily targeted toward renewables.

Operators cannot control which electrons flow along a given transmission line. That flow is determined by the laws of physics. Once a transmission line is built, it will fill with whatever electrons are produced by the available generators.

Myth 4: All proposals for new transmission have been fully vetted and alternatives have been examined.

Operation of the electric transmission grid has been expressly delegated to the Independent System Operators and Regional Transmission Organizations. The continued availability of electricity on demand day after day is ample testimony to the skill of those operations. However in PEC's experience, the RTOs' single-minded focus on transmission does not translate well when it comes to planning.

Myth 5: More transmission means better reliability and national security.

From a technical standpoint, building more transmission to allow for greater inter-regional power transfers will make the power system less reliable, not more reliable.

Myth 6: Transmission needs additional incentives.

In 2006 FERC adopted regulations that promote transmission investment through the allowance of generous financial incentives. Since adopting these new regulations, FERC has approved twenty-seven of the thirty three transmission projects that have sought enhanced rates of return. Those twenty seven projects are valued at $27 billion dollars and if constructed, would cover 8,000 miles. Only three projects have been turned down for these enhanced returns.

Myth 7: Demand Growth dictates investment in new transmission.

According to the Energy Information Administration, in 2008 electric demand actually fell by 1.6% and in 2009 it is expected to fall by another 1.8%. Over the next two decades, EIA expects average residential demand growth per capita to slow further, with overall growth increasing at a rate of around 1% per year.

Myth 8: FERC sites gas lines, transmission is a natural evolution.

The comparison between gas transmission lines and electric transmission lines is inapposite. Transmission lines, which are strung on towers that range in height from 10-18 stories (compared to a 6ft high or buried gas line) are visually intrusive, particularly in areas that aren't highly developed or industrialized. The 200 ft rights-of-way required by most transmission companies require regular maintenance and clearing, helicopter servicing (for painting or visual inspection), and access roads. In addition, transmission conductors emit an electric field that crackle and pop during most months of the year.

Myth 9: Environmentalists agree we need more transmission, fast.

Not everyone thinks transmission is the answer - and to the extent that environmental groups do support new transmission policy, that support is limited to lines that would enable the rapid deployment of renewable energy generation.

Miller in his testimony concluded:

Instead of new FERC siting authority, what we really need is federal policy that directs Integrated Resource Planning approach to energy planning at a state, regional and federal level. We should look at demand, supply and transmission in concert, without being limited to or predisposed toward investments in transmission.

If Congress chooses a federal approach to transmission siting, it should require:

1) An Integrated Resource Planning approach --Energy solutions, be they new generation, transmission or demand side options should be reviewed together. The solution that best solves an identified problem, with the lowest environmental and rate impact should be chosen.

2) An open and inclusive process - This process should include a thorough review of alternatives, and not be RTO-driven. Stakeholders should include state utility commissions, environmental organizations and interested localities. And participants should have access to data resources to fully participate.

3) Limited federal siting authority that targets transmission projects that directly enhance access to renewable generation -If the problem is getting renewables on to the grid, then having strong carbon controls in place and requiring a greenhouse gas interconnection standard prior to implementation of federal transmission authority is critical.

4) Genuine land and environmental protections - Damages to private and public values from development of existing and new rights of way should be minimized and appropriately