WE NEED YOUR FINANCIAL HELP!
PLEASE MAKE YOUR CHECK PAYABLE TO:
WCRE
AND MAIL IT TO:
THE WOODLANDS COALITION
657 Hurst Road
Palm Bay, Florida 32907
*In Memoriam
Larry J. Golden, attorney, February 9, 1947- June 23, 2005
A fund has been established in his name to benefit Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Please give generously so that no one else will have to die from brain cancer.
Send checks made to:
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
127 Brigham Tavern Road
Coventry,
CT 06238
FERC ANNOUNCES LICAP AGREEMENT REACHED
Commission
accepts settlement designed to resolve reliability issues in New
England region
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission today approved a settlement
agreement addressing problems in New England’s generation capacity
market. The settlement attempts to resolve protracted litigation and
“bring a needed measure of stability,” the Commission said.
In today’s order, the Commission found the settlement agreement is
a “just and reasonable outcome consistent with the public
interest” and should “resolve the deficiencies in New
England’s existing capacity market.” The agreement is the
product of a series of more than 30 formal settlement conferences
over a four-month period overseen by a Commission administrative law
judge. Of 115 parties involved in the settlement proceedings, all
but eight parties supported the settlement in whole or part.
“This agreement will allow New England to move forward and enhance
the reliability of its wholesale power markets,” Commission
Chairman Joseph T. Kelliher said. “Reliable and affordable
electricity supplies require infrastructure, and this approach
should provide the right signals to investors to develop that
important infrastructure.”
Under the settlement agreement a forward capacity market (FCM) will
be implemented instead of the contested locational installed
capacity (LICAP) mechanism proposed two years ago by ISO-New
England, the region’s independent power grid system operator.
The Commission has long been concerned about the adequacy of
capacity resources in the New England region. The Commission
initiated these proceedings to address compensation problems
involving generation facilities that are necessary for system
reliability, but unable to secure sufficient revenues in the market.
“Both the FCM and the interim transition mechanism will provide
the revenues needed by generators to keep them in operation to
preserve reliability,” the Commission said. “The forward looking
nature of the FCM will provide appropriate price signals to
investors when new infrastructure resources are necessary with
sufficient lead time to allow that infrastructure to be put in place
before reliability is sacrificed.”
The FCM establishes annual auctions for capacity. Capacity resources
eligible to participate include traditional generating resources as
well as renewable resources and demand-side resources. The capacity
will be sold on a per-megawatt of deliverable capacity basis. The
Forward Capacity Auctions (FCAs) will procure capacity three or more
years ahead, thus allowing for a planning period for new entrants
and allowing potential new capacity to compete in the auctions. The
commitment period is for one year, corresponding to the ISO-New
England power year – a twelve-month period beginning June 1 and
ending the following May 31. FCM includes a locational mechanism to
establish separate zones for capacity when transmission constraints
are found to exist.
The FCAs are designed as “descending clock” auctions. Bidding
will begin at a price which is twice the Cost of New Entry (CONE)
established in the settlement agreement. Following the first
auction, subsequent CONEs will be mathematically determined, based
on the preceding CONEs and the clearing price of the preceding
auction.
FCM allows load-serving entities (LSEs) to self-supply through their
own resources or contracted resources, thus an LSE can meet its
capacity obligations, subject to the same performance obligations as
other resources, without participating in the FCAs.
The settlement also provides for a transition period until June 1,
2010, which marks the start of the first period in which suppliers
would receive payments under the FCA mechanism.
LICAP, proposed in March 2004, was intended to assure sufficient
electric generation capacity to supply system peak load under all
contingencies. LICAP addressed localized scarcity of generation
capacity resources within New England and sought to accommodate
differing needs in the region.
After a September 2005 oral argument in these proceedings, at which
parties where given the opportunity to provide alternatives to
LICAP, the Commission gave the parties an opportunity to hold
settlement talks in an attempt to reach agreement on an alternative
proposal to LICAP. Providing the opportunity to develop a workable
solution was consistent with section 1236 of the Energy Policy Act
of 2005, which encouraged the Commission to “carefully consider”
alternative regional views regarding LICAP.
The Commission noted that although the settlement was a contested
filing, the agreement “resolves all of the outstanding issues in a
difficult, contentious and lengthy matter,” which contributed to
the Commission’s decision that the settlement “is consistent
with the public interest,” today’s order said. “The Settlement
Agreement represents difficult compromises among the diverse parties
that, if found to be just and reasonable, should be honored.”
R-06-39
PPPPPPPPP
Connecticut Attorney General's Office
Press Release
Attorney General Responds To FERC Approval Of LICAP Settlement
June 15, 2006
"I have aggressively advocated for viable alternatives - market rule changes that could save our ratepayers as much as $1 billion, and legislation that would promote new generation and inject real competition into the state's power market. Federal officials should consider these real proposals, and stop chasing mirages of relief."
PPPPPPPPP
CONNECTICUT DELEGATION WILL NOT GIVE UP ITS EFFORTS TO HELP THEIR CONSTITUENTS
Letter to FERC Re: LICAP September 12, 2005
ISO DELAY OF LICAP
PPPPPP
FERC LETTER TO CONGRESSMEN ON DELAYING LICAP IMPLEMENTATION
Re: ISO New England LICAP Proposal, Docket No. ER03-563-030
Dear Member of Congress:
In light of section 1236 of the newly enacted Energy Policy Act of 2005, I would like to assure you the Commission is committed to carefully considering the issues in this proceeding and, in particular, the concerns raised by the states. The Commission today issued an order granting the request for oral argument, to be held September 20, 2005. In addition, the order delays the implementation date of the LICAP mechanism, if it proceeds, to no earlier than October 1, 2006. The oral argument will provide the parties, including the states, an additional opportunity to present their concerns regarding this mechanism.
If I can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Joseph T. Kelliher
Chairman
PPPPPP
FERC RESPONDS TO CONGRESSIONAL REQUEST FOR LICAP IMPLEMENTATION DELAY
FERC
DELAY
PPPPPP
CONNECTICUT CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION LETTER TO ISO REGARDING LICAP
Washington, D.C. - The Connecticut Delegation recently wrote to the President and CEO of New England's power grid operator (ISO New England) asking him to address a number of flaws in ISO-NE's proposal for a capacity pricing scheme that will cost New England ratepayers an estimated additional $13.5 billion over five years. Chief amongst the Delegation's concerns, a market analysis which says that under the proposal, electricity generators could receive the maximum possible payments without adding any new generation capability.
The delegation's letter was copied to the Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which will rule on the proposal.
The
full text of the letter follows:
Mr. Gordon van Welie, President and CEO
ISO New England Inc.
Dear Mr. van Welie:
We are writing in the hope of receiving more specific answers to our concerns than ISO New England has thus far been willing to provide. We bring to your attention the enclosed report from Standard & Poor's which echoes a number of the issues that have been raised by New England's Congressional delegation, Governors, Attorneys General, Public Utility Commissions and consumer advocates.
In your
It is insufficient to imply that the competition envisioned for the system is the pure creation of a free market. The design of LICAP involved countless choices made by ISO-NE, and therefore we would appreciate an explanation of how, exactly, ISO-NE's design for LICAP will address the following deficiencies, as noted in the S&P analysis:
1. Because the LICAP proposal would allocate the capacity payments to all generators, "existing generators will receive increased capacity payments for providing no incremental value or service. To make matters worse, it is not clear why generators would ever want to build enough capacity in any region to receive anything less than the maximum potential capacity revenues."
2. "ISO-NE's methodology will attempt to balance capacity revenues with energy revenues, avoiding duplicate payments. However, this aspect of the LICAP market design may act as a disincentive for merchant generators to build new capacity, in part negating the ISO-NE's efforts."
3. ISO-NE's market design for LICAP sets a minimum reserve margin "that reflects margins used in the days before the industry restructuring, as opposed to the industry standard" which will force "market participants to pay for capacity in excess of their needs ... without providing necessary tangible benefits."
4. "LICAP does
not address various barriers to entry that prevent the development
of new capacity in areas that need it the most."
We believe this is an especially acute problem in
Mr. van Welie, these structural weaknesses of the LICAP proposal must be addressed. It is time for ISO-NE to acknowledge that this market design -- in which generators will receive maximum potential capacity revenues without having to build capacity -- is fatally flawed and should be withdrawn and reworked.
Cc: Hon. Joseph Kelliher, Chairman, FERC
For a copy of the letter and article, please visit:
http://www.house.gov/shays/news/2005/august/vanwelie.pdf
PPPPPP
Christopher shays goes to Energy committee to fight for us!
Shays
Requests One Year Delay of Implementation
of LICAP in Energy Bill
Time
would allow for construction of new high voltage transmission lines
"It
is my understanding the Committee may consider a one year delay in
implementation of this proposal, which would allow for time to work
out ways to link the increase in revenue to improvements in the
plants," Shays said. "Such
a delay would also allow for the initial construction of the new
high voltage transmission lines that
The full text of the letter follows:
July 21, 2005
The Honorable Joe Barton
Chairman
Committee on Energy and Commerce
2125
Dear Joe:
"I am writing to express concern about a proposal by ISO New England to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for approval of its "Locational Installed Capacity Proposal" (LICAP).
"As
you may know, this plan would order New England residential,
commercial and industrial electric customers to pay out up to $13.5
billion over the next five years to companies that own power plants
in the
"This
plan could result in the average
"It
is my understanding the Committee may consider a one year delay in
implementation of this proposal, which would allow for time to work
out ways to link the increase in revenue to improvements in the
plants. Such a delay
would also allow for the initial construction of the new high
voltage transmission lines that
PPPPPP
Connecticut legislators fighting for us!
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT:
July 5, 2005
Stacie
Paxton (Dodd): 202/224-2823
Rob Sawicki (Lieberman): 202/224-4041
Sarah Moore (Shays): 202/225-5541
Brian Schubert (Johnson): 202/225-4476
Todd Mitchell (Simmons): 202/225-2076
Kate Cyrul (DeLauro): 202/225-3661
Liz Hall (Larson): 860/278-8888
Connecticut
Delegation signs letter
to protect against unfair energy Price increases
Letter asks FERC Chairman to reject plan that would increase energy prices
Washington, D.C. - The Connecticut delegation today signed a letter urging the Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to reject a plan that could increase energy costs in Connecticut by $3.5 billion over five years. The delegation signed the letter with 21 of their New England Congressional colleagues in strong opposition to the Locational Installed Capacity (LICAP) proposal which would increase energy costs for residential, commercial, and industrial electric customers to provide additional compensation to power plant owners/generators as an incentive for them to build additional plants. However, New England currently has a surplus of energy that will last until the end of the decade, and the proposal is only an "incentive" to generators without any requirement or commitment from them to build any additional power plants.
"We note that unless FERC rejects the ISO plan, this plan and
its huge rate increases will become effective on January 1, 2006.
We therefore urge the Commission to reject the ISO-NE LICAP plan,
and to instead direct ISO-NE to go back and consult with all
affected stakeholders to come up with alternative mechanisms for
ensuring that our region's wholesale electricity markets function
properly and that rates charged in such markets are just and
reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential - as is
required under the Federal Power Act."
The full text of the letter is
below.
June 5, 2005
The Honorable Pat
Wood , III
Chairman
Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, NE
Washington, D.C.
20426
Dear Mr. Chairman:
As you know, ISO New
England has asked FERC to approve a plan (called "LICAP"
or "Locational Installed
Capacity Proposal")
to provide additional compensation to power plant owners/generators
as an incentive for them to build power plants needed to insure
adequate electricity supplies for New England in the future.
We are writing you to express our opposition to this proposal, and
to urge the Commission to reject it.
At the time that FERC
adopted its landmark Order 888 to promote wholesale competition in
electricity markets, the Commission ordered a functional unbundling
of electricity generation and transmission services, while also
noting that its order would accommodate a full corporate unbundling
of generation and transmission - including divestiture of generation
assets. The Commission's order appears to have been predicated
upon an assumption and belief that opening up competition in
generation by ensuring open and nondiscriminatory transmission
access and approving market based rates for transmission would
result in new competitors entering the generation market and
resulting competition creating lower prices for consumers. In
fact, FERC Order 888 indicated that:
The Commission estimates the potential quantitative benefits from the Final Rule will be approximately $3.8 to $5.4 billion per year of cost savings, in addition to the non-quantifiable benefits that include better use of existing assets and institutions, new market mechanisms, technical innovation, and less rate distortion.
Today, New England has adequate supplies of electricity -- in fact, there is a surplus of generation that will last until the end of the decade. In the face of this surplus, the proposed LICAP rule, if approved by FERC, would result in the largest rate increase in the history of New England, effective January 1, 2006. In contrast to the type of competitive generation market that appeared to be envisioned by the Commission a decade ago, under the proposed LICAP rule, huge financial subsidies would be provided to generators based on complex regulatory formulas. It is hard for us to see how such an approach is consistent with the underlying philosophy behind wholesale competition in the generation market - competition which was supposedly going to move such generation from a regime in which vertically-integrated utilities received a regulated rate of return and consumers paid for investment in new generation, to one in which the costs and risks associated with new generation were to be shifted to generation company investors. Now, it appears that this cost is being shifted back to consumers in the form of LICAP charges.
Essentially, ISO-NE is
asking FERC to order New England residential, commercial and
industrial electric customers to pay out what some estimates have
suggested could be $13.5 billion over the next 5 years to companies
that own power plants in our region, in the hope that these power
plant owners will be "incented" to build new power plants.
The consequences of
this for New England electricity consumers could be serious.
It has been estimated that the typical Boston area residential
customer's electric bill would increase by a projected 21% - 24%
over the next 5 years because of the LICAP payments that would go to
power plant owners under the ISO's proposal. A similar 21%-24%
increase is projected in Connecticut as well. Commercial and
Industrial customers likely will also see very significant price
increases. These rate increases to businesses in our
region will have a devastating impact on our state's and our
region's economy.
Because the LICAP
payments are only "incentives," this money will go to
generators without any requirement or commitment from them to build
any power plants. It is therefore entirely possible that
ratepayers could spend $13.5 billion for nothing.
We would note that the
plan put forth by ISO is radical and experimental. There is no
evidence that it will result in new generation in New England in the
time frames needed. We also note that the ISO LICAP plan has broad
opposition across New England. The ISO attempted but failed to
achieve a 2/3rds vote of the NEPOOL Participants Committee for the
first version of the LICAP plan, which ISO filed at FERC on March 1,
2004. ISO did
not submit the current version of LICAP to the Participants
Committee, and while ISO offered to continue a regional dialogue on
LICAP, the FERC hearing schedule did not leave much of an
opportunity to do so - particularly once the case was in litigation.
All six new England governors are opposed to the LICAP proposal and
have formally registered their concerns to the Commission. In
addition, every state public utility commission in New England and
the New England Conference of Public Utility Commissioners (NECPUC)
has filed strong opposition to this plan at the FERC. The ISO
LICAP Plan has also been broadly opposed by other New England market
participants and stakeholders, including governors, state attorneys
general, state consumer advocates, public utilities, municipal
utilities, and investor-owned utilities.
A broad coalition of
public officials and private parties tried to propose to FERC an
alternative plan that would be both much less costly and more
certain to result in actual power plant construction since it would
target payments to the type of generators needed for reliability and
which had demonstrated that they were failing to earn sufficient
revenues in the markets. Separate reliability option
alternatives were put forth by the Connecticut Municipal Electrical
Energy Cooperative and by a group led by the Connecticut DPUC.
But the Commission refused to consider any alternatives other than
the LICAP plan filed by ISO. The testimony and supporting
evidence offered by the coalition, as well as similar testimony
offered by other parties, were even stricken from the record of
hearings at FERC.
On June 15, FERC
Administrative Law Judge McCartney issued a recommended decision for
FERC's approval. This recommended decision essentially
endorses the ISO-NE LICAP plan, recommending no significant
modifications to address the many objections and concerns raised by
all the above listed parties.
In our view, there has been no showing
that the LICAP mechanism approved by the Judge will result in just
or reasonable rates. In evaluating the implications of
ISO-NE's LICAP proposal, we respectfully request your assistance and
cooperation in providing responses to the attached questions.
We respectfully request that responses to these questions be
provided to us as soon as possible.
We note that unless FERC rejects the
ISO plan, this plan and its huge rate increases will become
effective on January 1, 2006. We therefore urge the Commission
to reject the ISO-NE LICAP plan, and to instead direct ISO-NE to go
back and consult with all affected stakeholders to come up with
alternative mechanisms for ensuring that our region's wholesale
electricity markets function properly and that rates charged in such
markets are just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or
preferential - as is required under the Federal Power Act.
We look forward to receiving your
response.
Sincerely,
PPPPPP
On Thursday, April 21, Congress Passed HR 6, the Federal Energy Bill
Copied and pasted below you will find the wording of the legislation that will now go to the US Senate. it is not too late unless you do not contact your senators and ask they not vote this bill into law.
H.R.6
SEC. 1221. SITING OF INTERSTATE ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION FACILITIES.
-
(a) Amendment of Federal Power Act- Part II
of the Federal Power Act is amended by adding at the end the
following:
`SEC. 216. SITING OF INTERSTATE ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION FACILITIES.
-
`(a) Designation of National Interest
Electric Transmission Corridors-
-
`(1) TRANSMISSION CONGESTION STUDY- Within
1 year after the enactment of this section, and every 3 years
thereafter, the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with
affected States, shall conduct a study of electric transmission
congestion. After considering alternatives and recommendations
from interested parties, including an opportunity for comment
from affected States, the Secretary shall issue a report, based
on such study, which may designate any geographic area
experiencing electric energy transmission capacity constraints
or congestion that adversely affects consumers as a national
interest electric transmission corridor. The Secretary shall
conduct the study and issue the report in consultation with any
appropriate regional entity referenced in section 215 of this
Act.
-
`(2) CONSIDERATIONS- In determining
whether to designate a national interest electric transmission
corridor referred to in paragraph (1) under this section, the
Secretary may consider whether--
-
`(A) the economic vitality and
development of the corridor, or the end markets served by the
corridor, may be constrained by lack of adequate or reasonably
priced electricity;
-
`(B)(i) economic growth in the corridor,
or the end markets served by the corridor, may be jeopardized
by reliance on limited sources of energy; and
-
`(ii) a diversification of supply is
warranted;
-
`(C) the energy independence of the
United States would be served by the designation;
-
`(D) the designation would be in the
interest of national energy policy; and
-
`(E) the designation would enhance
national defense and homeland security.
-
`(1)(A) a State in which the transmission
facilities are to be constructed or modified is without
authority to--
-
`(i) approve the siting of the
facilities; or
-
`(ii) consider the interstate benefits
expected to be achieved by the proposed construction or
modification of transmission facilities in the State;
-
`(B) the applicant for a permit is a
transmitting utility under this Act but does not qualify to
apply for a permit or siting approval for the proposed project
in a State because the applicant does not serve end-use
customers in the State; or
-
`(C) a State commission or other entity
that has authority to approve the siting of the facilities has--
-
`(i) withheld approval for more than 1
year after the filing of an application pursuant to applicable
law seeking approval or 1 year after the designation of the
relevant national interest electric transmission corridor,
whichever is later; or
-
`(ii) conditioned its approval in such a
manner that the proposed construction or modification will not
significantly reduce transmission congestion in interstate
commerce or is not economically feasible;
-
`(2) the facilities to be authorized by
the permit will be used for the transmission of electric energy
in interstate commerce;
-
`(3) the proposed construction or
modification is consistent with the public interest;
-
`(4) the proposed construction or
modification will significantly reduce transmission congestion
in interstate commerce and protects or benefits consumers; and
-
`(5) the proposed construction or
modification is consistent with sound national energy policy and
will enhance energy independence.
`(d) Comments- In any proceeding before the Commission under subsection (b), the Commission shall afford each State in which a transmission facility covered by the permit is or will be located, each affected Federal agency and Indian tribe, private property owners, and other interested persons, a reasonable opportunity to present their views and recommendations with respect to the need for and impact of a facility covered by the permit.
-
`(e) Rights-of-Way- In the case of a permit
under subsection (b) for electric transmission facilities to be
located on property other than property owned by the United States
or a State, if the permit holder cannot acquire by contract, or is
unable to agree with the owner of the property to the compensation
to be paid for, the necessary right-of-way to construct or modify
such transmission facilities, the permit holder may acquire the
right-of-way by the exercise of the right of eminent domain in the
district court of the United States for the district in which the
property concerned is located, or in the appropriate court of the
State in which the property is located. The practice and procedure
in any action or proceeding for that purpose in the district court
of the United States shall conform as nearly as may be with the
practice and procedure in similar action or proceeding in the
courts of the State where the property is situated.
`(f) State Law- Nothing in this section shall preclude any person from constructing or modifying any transmission facility pursuant to State law.
`(g) Compensation- Any exercise of eminent domain authority pursuant to this section shall be considered a taking of private property for which just compensation is due. Just compensation shall be an amount equal to the full fair market value of the property taken on the date of the exercise of eminent domain authority, except that the compensation shall exceed fair market value if necessary to make the landowner whole for decreases in the value of any portion of the land not subject to eminent domain. Any parcel of land acquired by eminent domain under this subsection shall be transferred back to the owner from whom it was acquired (or his heirs or assigns) if the land is not used for the construction or modification of electric transmission facilities within a reasonable period of time after the acquisition. Other than construction, modification, operation, or maintenance of electric transmission facilities and related facilities, property acquired under subsection (e) may not be used for any purpose (including use for any heritage area, recreational trail, or park) without the consent of the owner of the parcel from whom the property was acquired (or the owner's heirs or assigns).
`(h) Coordination of Federal Authorizations for Transmission and Distribution Facilities-
-
`(1) LEAD AGENCY- If an applicant, or
prospective applicant, for a Federal authorization related to an
electric transmission or distribution facility so requests, the
Department of Energy (DOE) shall act as the lead agency for
purposes of coordinating all applicable Federal authorizations
and related environmental reviews of the facility. For purposes
of this subsection, the term `Federal authorization' means any
authorization required under Federal law in order to site a
transmission or distribution facility, including but not limited
to such permits, special use authorizations, certifications,
opinions, or other approvals as may be required, whether issued
by a Federal or a State agency. To the maximum extent
practicable under applicable Federal law, the Secretary of
Energy shall coordinate this Federal authorization and review
process with any Indian tribes, multi-State entities, and State
agencies that are responsible for conducting any separate
permitting and environmental reviews of the facility, to ensure
timely and efficient review and permit decisions.
-
`(2) AUTHORITY TO SET DEADLINES- As lead
agency, the Department of Energy, in consultation with agencies
responsible for Federal authorizations and, as appropriate, with
Indian tribes, multi-State entities, and State agencies that are
willing to coordinate their own separate permitting and
environmental reviews with the Federal authorization and
environmental reviews, shall establish prompt and binding
intermediate milestones and ultimate deadlines for the review
of, and Federal authorization decisions relating to, the
proposed facility. The Secretary of Energy shall ensure that
once an application has been submitted with such data as the
Secretary considers necessary, all permit decisions and related
environmental reviews under all applicable Federal laws shall be
completed within 1 year or, if a requirement of another
provision of Federal law makes this impossible, as soon
thereafter as is practicable. The Secretary of Energy also shall
provide an expeditious pre-application mechanism for prospective
applicants to confer with the agencies involved to have each
such agency determine and communicate to the prospective
applicant within 60 days of when the prospective applicant
submits a request for such information concerning--
-
`(A) the likelihood of approval for a
potential facility; and
-
`(B) key issues of concern to the
agencies and public.
-
`(3) CONSOLIDATED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND
RECORD OF DECISION- As lead agency head, the Secretary of
Energy, in consultation with the affected agencies, shall
prepare a single environmental review document, which shall be
used as the basis for all decisions on the proposed project
under Federal law. The document may be an environmental
assessment or environmental impact statement under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 if warranted, or such other
form of analysis as may be warranted. The Secretary of Energy
and the heads of other agencies shall streamline the review and
permitting of transmission and distribution facilities within
corridors designated under section 503 of the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1763) by fully taking into
account prior analyses and decisions relating to the corridors.
Such document shall include consideration by the relevant
agencies of any applicable criteria or other matters as required
under applicable laws.
-
`(4) APPEALS- In the event that any agency
has denied a Federal authorization required for a transmission
or distribution facility, or has failed to act by the deadline
established by the Secretary pursuant to this section for
deciding whether to issue the authorization, the applicant or
any State in which the facility would be located may file an
appeal with the Secretary, who shall, in consultation with the
affected agency, review the denial or take action on the pending
application. Based on the overall record and in consultation
with the affected agency, the Secretary may then either issue
the necessary authorization with any appropriate conditions, or
deny the application. The Secretary shall issue a decision
within 90 days of the filing of the appeal. In making a decision
under this paragraph, the Secretary shall comply with applicable
requirements of Federal law, including any requirements of the
Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the National Forest
Management Act, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.
-
`(5) CONFORMING REGULATIONS AND MEMORANDA
OF UNDERSTANDING- Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this section, the Secretary of Energy shall issue
any regulations necessary to implement this subsection. Not
later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this section,
the Secretary and the heads of all Federal agencies with
authority to issue Federal authorizations shall enter into
Memoranda of Understanding to ensure the timely and coordinated
review and permitting of electricity transmission and
distribution facilities. The head of each Federal agency with
authority to issue a Federal authorization shall designate a
senior official responsible for, and dedicate sufficient other
staff and resources to ensure, full implementation of the DOE
regulations and any Memoranda. Interested Indian tribes,
multi-State entities, and State agencies may enter such
Memoranda of Understanding.
-
`(6) DURATION AND RENEWAL- Each Federal
land use authorization for an electricity transmission or
distribution facility shall be issued--
-
`(A) for a duration, as determined by
the Secretary of Energy, commensurate with the anticipated use
of the facility, and
-
`(B) with appropriate authority to
manage the right-of-way for reliability and environmental
protection.
-
Upon the expiration of any such
authorization (including an authorization issued prior to
enactment of this section), the authorization shall be reviewed
for renewal taking fully into account reliance on such
electricity infrastructure, recognizing its importance for
public health, safety and economic welfare and as a legitimate
use of Federal lands.
-
`(7) MAINTAINING AND ENHANCING THE
TRANSMISSION INFRASTRUCTURE- In exercising the responsibilities
under this section, the Secretary of Energy shall consult
regularly with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC),
FERC-approved electric reliability organizations (including
related regional entities), and FERC-approved Regional
Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators.
`(j) Savings Clause- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect any requirement of the environmental laws of the United States, including, but not limited to, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Subsection (h)(4) of this section shall not apply to any Congressionally-designated components of the National Wilderness Preservation System, the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or the National Park system (including National Monuments therein).
`(k) ERCOT- This section shall not apply within the area referred to in section 212(k)(2)(A).'.
(b) Reports to Congress on Corridors and Rights of Way on Federal Lands- The Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality shall, within 90 days of the date of enactment of this subsection, submit a joint report to Congress identifying each of the following:
-
(1) All existing designated transmission
and distribution corridors on Federal land and the status of
work related to proposed transmission and distribution corridor
designations under Title V of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1761 et seq.), the schedule for
completing such work, any impediments to completing the work,
and steps that Congress could take to expedite the process.
-
(2) The number of pending applications to
locate transmission and distribution facilities on Federal
lands, key information relating to each such facility, how long
each application has been pending, the schedule for issuing a
timely decision as to each facility, and progress in
incorporating existing and new such rights-of-way into relevant
land use and resource management plans or their equivalent.
-
(3) The number of existing transmission
and distribution rights-of-way on Federal lands that will come
up for renewal within the following 5, 10, and 15 year periods,
and a description of how the Secretaries plan to manage such
renewals.
SEC. 1222. THIRD-PARTY FINANCE.
-
(a) Existing Facilities- The Secretary of
Energy (hereinafter in this section referred to as the
`Secretary'), acting through the Administrator of the Western Area
Power Administration (hereinafter in this section referred to as `WAPA'),
or through the Administrator of the Southwestern Power
Administration (hereinafter in this section referred to as `SWPA'),
or both, may design, develop, construct, operate, maintain, or
own, or participate with other entities in designing, developing,
constructing, operating, maintaining, or owning, an electric power
transmission facility and related facilities (`Project') needed to
upgrade existing transmission facilities owned by SWPA or WAPA if
the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the applicable
Administrator, determines that the proposed Project--
-
(1)(A) is located in a national interest
electric transmission corridor designated under section 216(a)
of the Federal Power Act and will reduce congestion of electric
transmission in interstate commerce; or
-
(B) is necessary to accommodate an actual
or projected increase in demand for electric transmission
capacity;
-
(2) is consistent with--
-
(A) transmission needs identified, in a
transmission expansion plan or otherwise, by the appropriate
Regional Transmission Organization or Independent System
Operator (as defined in the Federal Power Act), if any, or
approved regional reliability organization; and
-
(B) efficient and reliable operation of
the transmission grid; and
-
(3) would be operated in conformance with
prudent utility practice.
PPPPPP
Federal Energy Bill: Legislators Still Fighting For Our Rights
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Sarah Moore
April 20, 2005
Office: 202/225-5541
Cell: 703/599-0038
Shays Opposes Energy Bill
Fights to Increase CAFE Standards, Maintain State and Local Control of Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities,
and Protect ANWR
Washington, D.C. - As Congress debates H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congressman Christopher Shays (R-CT) submitted the following statement in opposition to the bill. Shays cosponsored two amendments to H.R. 6 which were made in order: one which would maintain state and local input into the siting and expansion of liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities, and another which would increase fuel economy standards from today's average of 25 miles/gallon to 33 miles/gallon over 10 years. For more information on the LNG amendment, please visit http://www.house.gov/shays/news/2005/april/aprilenergy.htm.
The following is Shays' statement:
"Protecting our environment and promoting energy independence are two of the most important jobs I have as a Member of Congress. Unfortunately, the bill before us today represents a real missed opportunity to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, promote energy efficiency and conservation, and improve our air, land and water quality.
"For decades, our country has lacked a national energy policy. While I did not agree with the Administration's energy plan, I was grateful President Bush put forward a comprehensive proposal. The President's energy plan was superior to the severely flawed bill before us today.
"We had a chance to devise a forward-looking energy policy that would have increased fuel efficiency, made polluters (including MTBE producers) pay for harming our environment, and advanced a renewable portfolio standard. Instead what we have is quite a bad bill.
"Instead of creating a balanced energy policy that provides incentives to make renewable energy more affordable and widely available, we are making fiscally irresponsible and environmentally-reckless decisions for the benefit of a few profitable industries that don't need this kind of help from taxpayers.
"I fail to understand why the major thrust of the bill's tax provisions involve further subsidizing the fossil fuel industry, rather than providing incentives for conservation and renewable sources of energy. These are enormously profitable industries operating in a time of record energy prices. Clearly, these profits demonstrate the market has already provided the fossil fuel industries with sufficient incentive to increase production.
"I strongly oppose a provision in the bill that allows for the permanent activation of the Cross Sound Cable. In doing so, the bill subverts the regulatory process and ignores sound environmental policy regarding the depth at which the Cable should be buried.
"In addition to its environmental shortsightedness, I also oppose provisions in this bill related to energy transmission. For instance, the Energy Policy Act allows the Federal Electric Regulatory Commission (FERC) to preempt state siting authorities when it is determined that a high-voltage power line is of "national significance," and overrides state authorities when expanding or siting new liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals. In our own Long Island Sound just off Connecticut, this is a very real possibility. While energy security is a national issue, it seems to me the communities who will live with these siting decisions deserve a voice in the process.
"Finally, I strongly oppose opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. We simply won't have a world to live in if we continue our neglectful ways. In my judgment, it would be far better to develop prudent and lasting alternate fuel energies than to risk irreparable damage to the wilderness of one of North America's most beautiful frontiers. Drilling in the Arctic will not fix our energy problems - with so little oil available up there it couldn't possibly, as it will take a decade to get the oil down here. That time would be far better spent developing clean, renewable energy sources that will provide infinite energy without imperiling our last remaining wilderness areas.
"I look forward to the day when we will have an opportunity to vote for a fiscally-prudent, environmentally-responsible national energy policy. Today is not that day."
Renewable Energy Legislation
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
Support a National Renewable Electricity Standard
 Read the Letter:
 |
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
 If you have general questions, comments or concerns about this action, send email to action@ucsusa.org -- replying to this action will send the letter. If this message was forwarded to you, join the UCS Action Network today, it's free and easy. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
We are committed to protecting your privacy, so your email address will NEVER be sold or exchanged. If you would like to unsubscribe from this newsletter, please reply to this message with "Remove" in the subject line. | ||||||||||||||||||
There is much discussion about FERC: who they are and what they do. For a better idea of who FERC is and what their mission statement is you may go to their website:
All About FERC. It is expected that there will soon be a document available to explain all of the complicated ways that FERC, ISO-NE and the transmission upgrade are connected. This is not an easy subject and one that takes a great deal of time to digest. We will work to make it a little easier for you. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please contact us at: info@WoodlandsCoalition.com . Following the letter below to FERC you will find more details about the Technical Session.
LICAP
There is much talk today of LICAP and what it will do to the State of Connecticut. To better understand what LICAP is and what it will mean to the ratepayers of the state, you may go to:
PLATTS: LICAP WHAT IT WILL MEAN
Senator Joseph Lieberman, CT, has issued the following press release in response to the announcement of the institution of LICAP.
In response to the LICAP proposal (locational pricing, in other words, SWCT would be it's own zone) Congressmen DeLauro and Shays sent the following letter to FERC Chairman Pat Woods. We are very fortunate to have the continued support of our federal elected officials, for which we are all thankful.
In May of 2004, many of the Connecticut federal delegation signed a letter asking FERC to reconsider LICAP.
The following information was provided to the Woodlands Coalition from FERC by Congressman Christopher Shays office. It is, as of October 1, 2004 the latest update on the October 13 session. As there is more information available, it will be posted here. it is anticipated that there will be an agenda available soon. It too will be listed here.
- The dais for the session will consist of FERC Commissioners, as well as invited participants.
- The invited participants include: DPUC Commissioners and select members from the Energy and Technology Committee
- Witnesses will include: the CT Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal (invited, not confirmed) Siting Council, ISO-NE, Engineers on issues of infra-structure
- The broad issues to be covered are a focus on the infra-structure, addressing the cost allocation and pricing, socializatoin or not (to al of New England, al of CT or a separate zone in CT
As previously stated, there will be an agenda that will be released soon. As soon as it is available, it will be posted.
The Woodlands Coalition would like to thank the staff of Congressman Christopher Shays for their efforts on all of our behalf to get the correct information and make it available to you.
Stop the Energy Bill!
Congressmen DeLauro and Shays have consistently voted against the Energy Bill. They have voted to protect our State. Congressman Johnson voted FOR it. Thank DeLauro and Shays for their continued efforts on our behalf. Ask Congressman Johnson why she voted to pass a piece of legislation that directly hurts Connecticut.
A sound energy policy would focus on conservation, efficiency and CLEAN renewables (like wind and solar -- no "biomass" incinerators). We need a clean fuels policy that reduces our oil consumption and moves us towards CLEAN hydrogen fuel cells (using hydrogen separated from water with wind and solar electricity).
The National Energy Bill does just the opposite. In November 2003, the bill came dangerously close to passing the Senate -- the last remaining obstacle before going to Bush's desk for a signature. Attempts were made in February 2004 to attach the energy bill to a "must-pass" transportation bill. After that failed, the energy bill was reintroduced as S 2095, a "slimmed down" version of the bill that still retains every bad idea except for the controversial MTBE liability waiver. This bill would allow the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to overstep the Connecticut Siting Council and make decisions about where Connecticut's transmission lines will be placed. We will, effectively lose our State's rights to decide how and where the powerlines would be placed.