Davis Statement on Department of Energy Public Meeting Comments on NIETC Draft Designations

Press Release

Davis Statement on Department of Energy Public Meeting Comments on NIETC Draft Designations

I am here today to raise serious concerns about DOE's designation of draft National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors.

Last summer, DOE designated two Critical Congestion Areas which included the Atlantic Coast area from metropolitan New York southward to Northern Virginia and Southern California. Based on this finding DOE recently designated draft "National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors."

Utility companies in NIET Corridors may apply to FERC, which now has so-called "back-stop" authority, to approve new transmission lines if the state process fails for a number of reasons.

My concerns about this process spring from three sources: 1. Federalism/ State autonomy issues, 2. the mindset with which we approach energy management challenges and 3. adequate time for public comment.

With respect to state autonomy, states have been in charge of the approval process for new transmission lines from the beginning.

State statutes are set up to balance the interests of their citizens who are equally consumers of energy, land owners, and consumers of the environment.

For example, in my home state, when the Virginia State Corporation Commission reviews an application for a new transmission line, they are bound to consider not just need, but also whether the new transmission line will minimize adverse impacts on the scenic assets, historic districts, and the environment of the affected area.

If a utility applies to FERC, will these issues be given due consideration? Statute doesn't mandate it and I am not convinced that they will.

That's why I'm a cosponsor of H.R. 829, the National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor Clarification Act which would require that consideration be given to protected lands, adjacent landowners and protect decisions made by state utility commissions.

With respect to managing the challenges associated with energy generation and distribution, the U.S. Department of Energy states there are three elements involved in solving grid congestion- A.) transmission lines, B.) new generation, and C.) demand-side management. Clearly, there is not one single solution to our nation's energy problems.

New transmission lines are not a silver bullet. In fact, before DOE released their "National Electric Transmission Congestion Study" they released a study on the benefits of "Demand Response in Electricity Markets and Recommendations for Achieving Them." As the title suggests, this study evaluated the benefits of investing in demand side management.

Demand side management refers to the management of consumer demand in response to supply conditions. For example, demand side management solutions work with electricity customers to reduce their consumption at critical times or in response to market prices.

Customers would then shed loads in response to a request by a utility or market price conditions. Under conditions of tight electricity supply, demand response can significantly reduce the peak price and, in general, electricity price volatility. In fact the state of California effectively used demand side mechanisms to cope with last summers heat wave.

The bottom line is that sound energy policy is, and should continue to be, a significant priority of both the States and the Federal Government.

Reliable and affordable energy is a key component of economic development. However, opportunities for innovation and conservation cannot be ignored.

It is appropriate to require that solutions, such as demand side management and conservation be part of the package of alternatives considered when planning for expected energy needs.

If approved, these designations will be in place for 12 years a very significant period of time. It is incumbent upon the Federal Government to ensure that adequate consultation with affected states, communities and landowners has occurred.

This is why I joined Congressman Wolf and over 30 Members of Congress in signing a letter to Secretary Bodman asking that the comment period be extended and that public meetings be held in every affected congressional district.

In conclusion, I believe the Federal Government should not needlessly usurp the longstanding authority and role of the states on this issue and that all resolutions to grid congestion should be explored, not simply new transmission.

Source