Bert Caldwell: Power planning should remain a regional decision

Folks hate transmission lines.

They are ugly in themselves, and ruin the loveliest of landscapes. Nothing much is allowed to grow along the rights-of-way. Some buzz. And, unlike a lot of other unsightly infrastructure we have to live with every day, they provide no apparent local service.

They just pass by.

In North Spokane, a transmission project completed in 2004 by the Bonneville Power Administration plunked towers 125 feet high just beyond the property lines of many homes in the Indian Trail neighborhood. The line between a BPA substation on East Hawthorne and the Grand Coulee switchyard helps convey electricity from Eastern Montana all the way to Seattle.

Out on the Palouse, an Avista Utilities line provoked opposition from residents not served by the Spokane utility but stuck with the eyesore.

Although those projects proceeded with little delay, the possibility local opposition will tie up critical new transmission projects moved Congress in 2005 to hand more power line-siting authority to the Secretary of Energy and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Last month, the secretary proposed “national interest energy transmission corridors” in the Southwest and the Atlantic States. If state authorities will not approve power line construction within those rights-of-way, FERC can step in and do so, even if the project does not cross state borders.

A study also fingered power line congestion between Seattle and Portland as an area of concern.

That was not news to Northwest officials, who are trying to assure decision-making on transmission line routes remains in the region in at least two ways.

A consortium of public and private utilities, including Bonneville and Avista, has formed ColumbiaGrid, which will assess transmission needs and coordinate construction when more than one utility must be involved. It makes no sense for a single utility to beef up its own system if adjacent utilities cannot handle additional power. Redundant construction would be wasteful.

Before Bonneville and Avista undertook their grid upgrades, the two utilities got into a minor dispute over how best to relieve congestion on the lines through the Spokane area. The disagreement might have been avoided had ColumbiaGrid been in place at the time.

The new organization cannot resolve all transmission issues itself. Members control only about one-half of the lines in the region. And, because deciding who must build what also means allocating costs, internal disputes may arise if one utility balks at its share of financial responsibility.

FERC last month acknowledged ColumbiaGrid’s new role in coordinating grid development.

Meanwhile, the Washington Legislature has also responded to the threat of outside intervention by expanding the oversight powers of the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council regarding transmission corridors, and by authorizing a task force to study formation of an interstate siting agency.

FERC has no authority to resolve transmission corridor disputes where three or more adjacent states have created such an agency with powers similar to those of EFSEC. Oregon’s review process differs from Washington’s. Idaho does not have a comparable agency.

Part of the concern regarding new transmission corridors stems from the potential role of non-traditional players in building new projects. Bonneville’s most recent major transmission upgrade was financed by a third party that is leasing the line to the agency. More leasing is likely. Eventually, private corporations could undertake Northwest transmission projects on their own, as has been done elsewhere in the country.

Officials want to be sure those projects undergo the same scrutiny that proposed utility construction must.

Until we have the solar, wind or other technology that will enable homeowners and businesses to produce their own power, transmission lines will be a necessary evil. The Northwest needs more lines now, and more will be necessary if the region is to make the most of its wind and geothermal resources.

New construction will upset those who have to live with blotted views and degraded property values. Thoughtful planning and rigorous review, especially if done within the region, can minimize the aggravation.