The Coalition for Fair Transmission Policy Emphasizes Consumer Benefits, Challenges Proposals for Broad Cost Allocation of High-Voltage Power Lines

WASHINGTON, Nov. 17, 2010 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Coalition for Fair Transmission Policy has filed reply comments on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on transmission planning and cost allocation, reiterating its support for regulatory policies that will lead to cost-effective, customer-focused development of the nation's power grid and clean energy sources. Cost-effective transmission investments will be made only when costs are borne by customers in proportion to the economic and reliability benefits they receive, the Coalition said.  

"The FERC NOPR addresses many Coalition principles, including transmission planning and cost allocation. However, the devil remains in the details. We remain concerned that defining transmission benefits broadly or spreading costs widely would translate into higher electricity prices for consumers," Coalition President and Chief Counsel Sue Sheridan said.

"We urge FERC to avoid policy making that exposes ratepayers to any costs for transmission that delivers neither economic nor reliability benefits to them. In these difficult economic times, consumers are focused on the bottom line and should not be made to share the costs of new transmission without receiving any benefits," Sheridan said. "Nor should consumers pay more for power from clean energy sources transmitted over hundreds of miles of new power lines when cheaper supplies of electricity from renewable sources are located much closer to home," Sheridan added.

In its reply comments, the Coalition expanded on statements about transmission planning and cost allocation made in earlier FERC submissions. The Coalition also noted that the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and several state commissions addressed many of these concerns in their comments on the FERC NOPR.

The Coalition also addressed proposals by energy developers and merchant transmission companies that transmission projects 345 kV or larger be presumed to create benefits across an entire region and therefore the costs of such projects should be broadly allocated among consumers. The effort to force consumers to bear part of the costs of transmission when they may not receive commensurate benefits is not appropriate, the Coalition said. "We believe these proposals are unlawful, ignore the fact that EHV (Extra High Voltage) lines can have broad impacts that are both positive and negative and could skew the economic decision making by transmission owners and developers," the Coalition said.

FERC "should reject suggestions that all transmission projects above certain voltages should be presumed to have broad benefits and thus the costs should be socialized within regions" unless evidence can demonstrate the benefits of specific projects are broad and evenly distributed within or between regions, the Coalition concluded in its comments.  

The Coalition's 10 members are CMS Energy Corporation, Consolidated Edison, Inc., DTE Energy Company, Northeast Utilities, PPL Corporation, Progress Energy Inc., Public Service Enterprise Group, SCANA Corporation, Southern Company and United Illuminating Company. More than 28 percent of U.S. electric customers, representing 26 states, are served by utilities and companies which are either formal members of the Coalition or are on record supporting the group's goals.

For more information, visit the Coalition's Web site, www.fairtransmission.org.

SOURCE Coalition for Fair Transmission Policy