Siting

1
(No Transcript)
2
Siting Permitting in CO

• Electric Transmission Reliability Task Force
  Meeting
• September 18, 2006

3
Colorado Construct

• SB 05-160 passed in 2004 amended 2005 (CRS
  29-20-108)
• Appeal process through CPUC
• Some help, but stops short
• SB 05-160 is unlikely to expedite permitting for
  projects that span multiple local jurisdictions

4
Timeframes in Colorado

• Hypothetical project traversing 4 Counties
• State permitting authority would consolidate
  Steps 1 and 3 and eliminate Step 4, reducing
  overall timeframe to 18 42 months from 30 72
  months.

5
Need for Predictability
Low predictability development risk increased
cost time
6
Industry and Regulatory Drivers

• The way we plan and develop GT infrastructure
  has changed over past 5-10 years.
• CO LCRP Rules
• Merchant power industry
• Independent transmission companies
• Federal renewable energy tax policies
• Planning and development processes that were once
  coordinated, now occur at arms-length with
  limited communication between generation and
  transmission planners.

7
Shortcomings of Local Permitting

• Local jurisdictions arent always best equipped
  to evaluate statewide or regional reliability and
  economic benefits
• Local permitting processes are all very different
  in terms of permit types, application
  requirements, review criteria, and
  decision-making. 
• Some local jurisdictions have no land use
  regulations pertaining to energy facilities.
  Others are extremely ambiguous.
• Seams issues with routing alternatives at
  jurisdictional boundaries
• Multiple processes with multiple jurisdictions
  for one project is inefficient and costly for
  both the applicant / developer and the local
  jurisdictions

8
Merits of State Permitting Model

• State permitting frees local government
  decision-makers from having to make local
  decisions about projects with regional benefits /
  impacts
• Provides energy planners and developers with a
  measure of predictability and consistency about
  permitting timelines and costs
•  
• Provides for ample local input on decision-making
  and also for mitigating local impacts.
•  
• Focus is on impartial decision-making about
  statewide benefits to the economy, environment
  and system reliability

9
Conclusions

• Industry and regulatory changes have resulted in
  quicker, market-driven development of generation
  (both fossil and wind)
•  
• Siting and permitting generation facilities is
  generally less controversial than transmission
  because impacts are site-specific and economic
  benefits are greater
• A mismatch exists today between transmission and
  generation development processes and timeframes.
  State siting authorities can help address this
  mismatch by reviewing proposals for both types of
  energy facilities

10
Recommendation

• PSCo favors an eventual move to a state
  permitting authority to ensure more
  predictability in the statewide planning and
  developing of transmission and generation
  facilities and in coordinating the efficient and
  shared use of other linear facilities of regional
  interest such as railroads, highways, waterways
  and pipelines.