QUESTIONS FOR STATE TRANSMISSION SITING REGULATORS
TO BE MAILED OUT PRIOR TO THE OCT. 31 CREPC/WGA WORKSHOP
Most of the questions below relate to whether or not and how closely your state transmission siting process corresponds to the federal process under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The goal is to align and coordinate multiple state processes and the federal NEPA process to minimize duplication and the time required to approve projects.
Major transmission projects by federal power marketing agencies (e.g. the Bonneville Power Administration and the Western Area Power Administration) or projects that impact federal lands generally require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). If so, the federal agency must publish a Notice of Intent (NOI) and hold a scoping hearing. The scoping hearings define the alternatives to be considered and the research and studies to be conducted to prepare the draft EIS. Then, the agency prepares the draft EIS, solicits comments from affected parties and various governmental entities, and drafts the final EIS after considering the comments received.
The contents of the final EIS must be considered when making a federal decision on the proposed action. The agency must prepare a record of decision (ROD): a concise statement of its decision, discussing its choice among alternatives and how it will mitigate or minimize environmental harm.
1.
Is the information on the WGA
web site on your state process accurate?
2.
What process or filing in your
state siting process most closely corresponds to the federal scoping hearing?
3.
What process or filing in your
state siting process most closely corresponds to the filing of the draft EIS?
4.
What process or filing in your
state siting process most closely corresponds to the filing of the final EIS?
5.
What process or filing in your
state siting process most closely corresponds to the filing of the federal
record of decision?
For example in the Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council (EFSC) process the NEPA scoping hearing corresponds closely to the Oregon hearing on the applicant’s notice of intent to file an application. Many of the elements of the draft EIS correspond closely to the requirements of an EFSC application. The final EIS corresponds closely to the EFSC hearing officer’s recommendations after the contested case (if any). Finally, the federal ROD corresponds to the decision by the EFSC members.
In general, different documents are used in the parallel Oregon and Federal processes. The relevant contents of the Federal documents, such as the draft EIS, are submitted to the EFSC along with other elements required for the EFSC process, but not needed for the EIS process.
It would also be helpful to have flow charts of your state process (if available).
6.
Do timelines in the NEPA process lineup with your process or are there
major divergences? If so, please
explain.
7.
Are there minimum and maximum timelines you follow and can these be made
sufficienty flexible for decisions to be made correlated with the draft EIS, the
final EIS, and the NEPA process?
8.
What finding must your state make to determine if a project is needed in
order to exercise eminent domain?
9.
Can a project be found to be needed if it is being built to appropriately
enhance or upgrade the western grid?
10.