1 / 10

Siting & Permitting in CO

Siting & Permitting in CO. Electric Transmission Reliability Task Force Meeting September 18, 2006. Colorado Construct. SB 05-160 passed in 2004; amended 2005 (CRS 29-20-108) Appeal process through CPUC Some help, but stops short

cheung
Download Presentation

Siting & Permitting in CO

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Siting & Permitting in CO Electric Transmission Reliability Task Force Meeting September 18, 2006

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  4. Need for Predictability Low predictability = development risk = increased cost & time

  5. Industry and Regulatory Drivers • The way we plan and develop G&T 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.

  6. Shortcomings of Local Permitting • Local jurisdictions aren’t 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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.

More Related