AWEA Summary of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 The Energy Policy Act of 2005 contains a number of important provisions that will affect the wind industry. This document provides a summary of these provisions along with AWEA analysis. Specifically, the bill:
The full conference report can be found at the following link, and each provision described below can be found easily using the page numbers in the .PDF document. http://energy.senate.gov/public/_files/ConferenceReport0.pdf Renewable Energy Sec. 201 Assessment of renewable energy resources (page 161) What it says: Within one year of enactment and every six months after, the Secretary of Energy shall produce a report of renewable resource potential, costs, location, and feasibility. $10 million is authorized (but not necessarily appropriated) for this purpose. What it does: We are generally skeptical of the many “homework assignments” in the bill. Unless this is well funded, it will likely consist of little more than assembling existing reports and maps. It is possible that such an assemblage could be a useful and authoritative reference for wind energy sites in state resource procurement proceedings, transmission planning proceedings, and the DOE transmission corridor identification. Sec. 202 Renewable Energy Production Incentive (page 163) What it says: Referred to as REPI, this DOE-administered program provides a federal payment comparable in value to the PTC to non-taxpaying entities including municipalities, tribes, rural co-ops and others. The provision reauthorizes REPI until October 1, 2016 What it does: REPI is subject to annual appropriations by Congress, meaning there is no long-term certainty regarding available funds, and over the past several years the program has been severely under-funded (average is only $4-5 million/year), resulting in an ineffective program. In response, public power advocates have sought other incentives (see tax section below). Sec. 203 Federal Purchase Requirement (page 167) What it says: The President and Energy Secretary “shall seek to ensure that, to the extent economically feasible and technically practicable,” the following amounts of federal electricity purchases are from renewable resources: at least 3 percent in 2007-09, at least 5 percent in 2010-2012, and at least 7.5 percent in 2013 and each year thereafter. The amount of renewable energy calculated is doubled if the energy is produced on federal land for use at a federal facility, or the energy is produced on Indian land. What it does: The key sentence here is “to the extent economically feasible and technically practicable;” this language could limit the effect of the provision if any Administration is looking for loopholes through which to avoid compliance with the targets. Sec. 211 Sense of Congress regarding generation capacity of electricity from renewable resources on public lands (page 192) What it says: “It is the Sense of Congress that the Secretary of the Interior should, before the end of the 10-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, seek to have approved non-hydropower renewable energy projects located on the public lands with a generation capacity of at least 10,000 megawatts of electricity.” What it does: A “Sense of Congress” means that the Congress believes this is an important issue or that something should be done, but the provision has no binding authority. It appears to be aimed at the Bureau of Land Management which forecasts 2,600 MW of wind development on BLM lands in 10 years and 3,200 MW in 20 years as well as significant geothermal and solar resources. It certainly doesn’t hurt to have Congress support BLM in these efforts. Natural Gas Sec. 311. Exportation or importation of NaturalGas (page 270) What it says: FERC shall have exclusive authority to approve an application for the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of an LNG terminal. What it does: This provision is likely to have a significant long term effect on the availability of natural gas, particularly in areas with pipeline capacity to the Gulf of Mexico. This could affect the market for wind in areas like Texas. It also provides an opportunity for LNG to relieve the strain on high gas price markets like New England where siting resistance is strong. Access to Federal land Sec. 368. Energy right-of-way corridors on federal land. Within two years, USDA, DOE, the Departments of Commerce, Interior, and Defense, in consultation with FERC, Tribes, and States shall designate corridors for oil, hydrogen, gas pipelines and electric transmission in the 11 Western states. They are to develop procedures to expedite applications to develop such facilities. Clean Power Projects Sec. 411. Integrated Coal/Renewable Energy System. (page 489) DOE may provide loan guarantees, subject to appropriations, for IGCC plants combined with wind and other renewable sources that sequesters carbon and provides a source of hydrogen in the Upper Great Plains. Sec. 503. Indian energy (page 564) Authorizes a wind and hydro study for the Missouri river basin, with wind from Tribal land and hydro from WAPA. Research and Development Sec 925 Electric Transmission and Distribution Programs (page 842) What it says: The Secretary shall establish a research program addressing various advanced transmission technologies. What it does: Over the long term there are many transmission technologies that could improve grid operations and bring power from distant sources with lower line losses and less need for new rights of way with their associated environmental and landowner impacts. DOE was already working on these so this provision shouldn’t have major impact. Sec. 931 Renewable Energy (page 852) What it says: The Secretary shall conduct programs of renewable energy research to increase its efficiency and diversify our energy supply. Specific language related to wind states that the Secretary shall establish a program of research, development, demonstration and application of low speed wind, off shore wind, testing and verification, and distributed wind generation. It authorizes $631 million in renewable energy R&D for 2007, $743 million in 2008, and $852 million in 2009. What it does: This provision helps move forward with the important wind research by DOE and NREL. AWEA strongly preferred this language over previously offered language that cut funding and moved it to another office with less wind-related expertise. In reality, authorizations have limited direct impact on the annual budgets at DOE and amount to little more than goals set by Congress. Each year, the President submits to Congress a budget with suggested funding levels for government programs which must then be approved by Congress through the annual appropriations process. AWEA works closely with member companies and DOE each year to ensure sufficient funds are allocated to the wind program. “Electricity Modernization Act of 2005” Sec 1211 Electric Reliability Standards (Pages 1080-1096) What it says: The provision creates an Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) to create and enforce reliability standards subject to the review of the governments of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. FERC will oversee the ERO in the U.S. To implement the law, FERC shall issue a final rule within 180 days, or by February 2006. After FERC’s rule is final, “any person” may file an application to be the ERO. The ERO must be independent yet assure fair stakeholder representation and balanced decision-making. The ERO may file proposed reliability standards with FERC which will approve them if they are “just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest.” FERC shall give due weight to the technical expertise of the ERO but shall not defer with respect to the effect on competition. The ERO is to provide some deference to proposals from a regional entity organized on an Interconnection-wide basis. The ERO may impose penalties on a user or owner or operator of the grid. The provision urges the President to negotiate international agreements with Canada and Mexico. The provision explicitly does not provide the ERO with authority to order the construction of new generation or transmission or to set adequacy or safety standards. States retain authority over adequacy and safety. FERC shall establish a regional advisory body of states to advise the ERO or regional entity and may give deference to this body if it is organized on an Interconnection-wide basis. What it does: This provision is the most significant piece of EPAct ’05 for the electric industry. Until now reliability has been voluntary and in the hands of hundreds of different parties all with strong commercial incentives that do not necessarily coincide with reliable operation. After the Northeast blackout of August 2003, pressure for mandatory standards gave many policy makers a good reason to support the energy bill. We believe the wind industry and the rest of the electric industry will benefit by having mandatory reliability standards. No electric industry participant can afford to have one bad actor take down the grid. There are two provisions in particular that we believe will benefit the wind industry. The first is the language that for the first time requires all reliability rules to be non-discriminatory. The language is the same as that found in the Federal Power Act and is the basis for most of FERC’s actions affecting transmission access including open access transmission tariffs and interconnection standards. Discriminatory rules are a clear and present danger for the wind industry: AWEA is concerned right now that in the generator interconnection proceeding at FERC many utilities are advocating a higher hurdle for wind than for other resources. We are engaged in discussions with NERC and FERC to resolve this issue, and we expect this new law will help AWEA in these proceedings. The second provision that helps AWEA is the fact that FERC is given oversight authority over the ERO. FERC has been very supportive of the initiatives of wind and other new technologies in our efforts to attain fair treatment on the grid. While some of the progress at FERC is due to the leadership of former Chairman Pat Wood, we believe any strong enforcer of the Federal Power Act, including new Chairman Kelliher, will be compelled by FERC’s mission to follow a similar course. It also helps to end the divergence between market regulation by FERC and reliability regulation by NERC. EPAct 05 sets up a structure where reliability rules and market rules must be compatible. This will be helpful, for example, in the generator imbalance proceeding at FERC where reliability and economics are inextricably linked. While the language does not identify the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) by name, we expect that it will be anointed as the ERO. NERC has taken the critical step of creating an independent board and this new board has proven in our view to be highly effective and independent. It is still helpful for FERC to retain some leverage over NERC through this application process. The deference to regional organizations organized on an Interconnection-wide basis provides a good opportunity for the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC), a regional reliability council with whom AWEA has worked successfully in the past on issues such as interconnection standards. The provision is a setback for smaller councils like the Southeastern Electric Reliability Council (SERC), which is also a positive in our view because some regional councils suffer from a lack of independence from the utilities they are now being asked to regulate. We are pleased with the role of Interconnection-wide organizations and state advisory bodies because they are more likely to treat wind and other resources in a nondiscriminatory manner. Transmission Infrastructure Modernization Sec. 1221 Siting of interstate electric transmission facilities (page 1096) What it says: DOE in consultation with the affected states shall conduct a study of transmission congestion and issue a report designating “national interest electric transmission corridors.” This classification is based on the need for reasonably priced electricity, the need to access more supply and diversify energy sources, and effects on energy independence, national defense and homeland security. FERC may authorize the taking of private property and issue construction permits if a state does not have authority to approve the facilities. This authority is limited to situations where the state does not have authority to consider interstate benefits, the applicant does not qualify for a state permit because it does not serve end-use customers in the state, or the state does not act on the application within one year. For siting on federal land, DOE shall act as the lead agency for coordinating federal authorizations. DOE shall prepare a single environmental review document which shall be used as the basis for all decisions on the project. Other agencies may appeal to the President who must comply with federal environmental laws. States may form interstate compacts establishing regional transmission siting agencies. FERC has no siting authority over states that are members of a compact unless the states disagree. Within 90 days of enactment DOE shall issue a report designating corridors. What it does: This provision adds significant pressure to relieve interstate transmission bottlenecks. The primary focus is on constraints on the existing grid where cheaper power is blocked from accessing load centers. But we believe it also clearly allows for the designation of corridors between wind-rich areas and load centers even if there are no generators or congestion there currently. The criteria of energy independence and diverse supplies provide us with this opportunity to address important bottleneck facilities blocking the development of vast wind resources. AWEA’s Policy Department has been in touch with the DOE transmission office on this proceeding and we have an opportunity to provide transmission maps and studies to seek designation as national interest transmission corridors which would provide encouragement for states to provide speedy siting approval. Note this provision does not help with cost allocation which is typically the more difficult challenge. It will be helpful to have DOE in a lead role for siting over federal land and for the environmental review to use the same study. These pieces significantly increase the administrative efficiency of siting new facilities. Sec. 1222 Third-party finance (page 1114) What it says: The Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) and the Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA) are authorized to construct and own on their own or with another party a transmission facility located in the WAPA and SWPA service areas if the Department of Energy determines that the proposed project is located in a national interest electric transmission corridor, will reduce transmission congestion or is needed to meet increased demand for transmission capacity, is consistent with transmission needs identified by a RTO or ISO or a regional reliability organization, will constitute efficient and reliable operation of the transmission grid, and would be operated in conformance with prudent utility practices. Outside funds will be permitted to be used for the transmission project. No more than $100 million total per year can be accepted for use between 2006 and 2015. What it does: It could be very helpful to have these entities more actively involved in transmission planning. WAPA in particular serves a 15-state service territory where there are significant wind resources in the West and Upper Midwest. In the West, any significant transmission plans will likely cross some federal land, and this provision along with the lead siting role for DOE will help. Sec. 1223 Advanced transmission technologies (page 1119) What it says: In carrying out the Federal Power Act and the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, FERC shall consider advanced technologies that increase the capacity, efficiency, or reliability of an existing or new transmission facility. What it does: This is likely to lead to incentives for new technology deployment. In the past FERC has remained technology-neutral. When FERC has ventured into transmission incentives, it has had difficulty weighing in on technology because of its statutory limitations. However, this provision makes it the Commission’s job to encourage these new technologies. Look for this to be added to the transmission incentives rulemaking below. Sec 1224 Advanced power system technology incentiveprogram (page 1121). What it says: Authorizes DOE to create an incentive program to support the deployment of advanced fuel cell, turbine, or hybrid power systems to generate or store electric energy. Subject to the availability of funds, a payment of 1.8 cents per kWh would be paid to the owner for the first 10 million kWh produced in any fiscal year. $10 million is authorized but not necessarily appropriated for this program. What it does: Developers of new turbine or storage technologies should consider taking advantage of this opportunity. Its effectiveness will depend on its appropriated funding level. Transmission Operation Improvements Sec. 1231 Open access by unregulated transmitting utilities (page 1124) What it says: FERC may require open, non-discriminatory access on public power systems at comparable rates, terms, and conditions to what the utility provides for its own use of its system. The provision does not give FERC authority to require the transfer of control to an ISO, RTO, or other Transmission Organization. What it does: This provision, known as “FERC-lite,” is a compromise struck between public power systems who did not want to be regulated by FERC, and utilities and other proponents of open access who wanted comparable access to their systems. Most if not all public power systems already have open access tariffs on file with the Commission so this provision mainly solidifies that access. Sec. 1232 Federal utility participation in Transmission Organizations (page 1127) What it says: Federal Power Marketing Agencies including the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) may enter into a contract, agreement, or other arrangement to transfer control to an ISO or RTO. The agreement must allow for withdrawal. What it does: This paves the way for BPA and TVA participation in RTOs. While their legal ability to join in the past was disputed, this provision makes it very clear that they are allowed to join and under what terms. In our view, it would benefit grid operation to have TVA join PJM and BPA join Grid West. Larger control areas and RTOs improve reliability and can more readily utilize larger amounts of a variable resource like wind. Sec. 1233 Native load service obligation (page 1132) What it says: Load-serving entities are entitled to use their transmission facilities or firm transmission rights to meet their service obligation and will not be considered to have engaged in undue discrimination or preference. Most existing RTO/ISO rights allocations are grandfathered by the statement that this section does not affect allocation of transmission rights if authorized prior to January 1, 2005. Load-serving entities in CAISO may not be required to convert firm rights to financial rights. If rights have not been allocated, this provision must be “taken into account.” Requires FERC to undertake a rulemaking on long-term transmission rights in organized markets. What it does: This provision reflects the successful lobbying efforts by large monopoly interests and negatively affects open access. The section will not generally affect PJM, NE ISO, NY ISO, MISO or CAISO. However in CAISO in particular physical rights can be held at the option of the holder and if there are rights that have not been allocated in MISO or other markets, this provision must be taken into account. AWEA supports long term transmission rights in organized markets because such contracts help secure financeable long term power contracts. We plan to participate in the FERC proceeding required by this provision. Sec 1235. Protection of Transmission Contracts in the Pacific Northwest What it says: FERC has no authority to require the conversion of transmission rights to tradable or financial rights. What it does: It provides further protections for those who feared contract conversion in the Northwest. Transmission Rate Reform Sec. 1241 Transmission infrastructure investment (page 1144) What it says: FERC must promulgate a rule that provides incentive transmission rate treatments to promote reliability and reduced transmission congestion. The rule must be designed to promote capital investment in transmission; provide an adequate rate of return to promote investment; encourage the deployment of transmission technologies to improve the capacity, efficiency and operation of existing transmission facilities; and allow recovery of all prudently incurred costs to comply with mandatory reliability standards and the Act’s transmission siting provisions. FERC must provide incentives to each transmitting utility or electric utility that joins a Transmission Organization. FERC must ensure that these transmission incentives are recoverable by the utility. What it does: We expect FERC to issue a rulemaking on incentive rates that allows for higher returns for transmission investment and joining RTOs. This may help in some cases, but in many cases, higher rates create opposition to transmission investments, so adding costs through higher returns on equity can actually reduce the chances of transmission construction. We expect Chairman Kelliher to pursue his interest in performance-based regulation through this proceeding but we think this has limited potential in transmission due to a lack of objective performance metrics. Sec. 1242 Funding new interconnection and transmission upgrades. What it says: The Commission may approve a participant funding plan that allocates costs related to transmission upgrades associated with new generator interconnections, whether or not the transmission company is a member of an RTO. What it does: Thankfully this provision changes nothing. AWEA and a large coalition of market participants actively opposed the participant funding provision in earlier versions which would have required FERC to accept such proposals. Participant funding is a disincentive to transmission investment and often results in excessive costs imposed on interconnecting generators. Amendments to PURPA Sec. 1251 Net metering and additional standards Electric utilities shall make net metering service available to any electric consumer. States must complete rulemakings within three years. Sec. 1253 Cogeneration and small power production purchase and sale requirements (page 1163) What it says: The Act removes the obligation on utilities to purchase from Qualifying Facilities (QFs) that have access to “competitive markets,” that are not existing QFs, or that fail to meet new criteria for QF status. Competitive markets will be determined by FERC based on the existence of non-discriminatory access to what amounts to ISO/RTO markets. PURPA’s obligation to sell to a qualifying facility is also repealed if FERC finds competing retail electric suppliers are willing and able to sell to the QF; and the utility is not required by state law to sell electricity in its service territory. These changes are all prospective and do not abrogate existing contracts. FERC is required to ensure that utilities can recover all prudently incurred costs associated with purchases from a QF under PURPA. The language terminates PURPA’s 50 percent QF ownership limitation. FERC will undertake a rulemaking for new criteria for QF status that mainly affect cogeneration, but could affect small power production facilities. What it does: This is a substantial repeal of PURPA at a time when avoided costs of other resources have risen to a level to make PURPA a significant opportunity for small power production facilities. The competitive market standard is the compromise that was reached between the utilities who sought repeal and supporters of PURPA like AWEA and industrial customers. The theory is that competitive markets give such facilities an opportunity to sell their output, but where such markets do not exist, the protections of PURPA are still necessary. We expect that members of the CAISO, MISO, PJM, NYISO, ISO-NE, and SPP markets will be deemed competitive and utilities who do not participate in ISOs including all utilities in the West outside California, and in the Southeast will not pass this screen for removal of the purchase obligation. Sec 1254 Interconnection (page 1173) What it says: Each electric utility shall make interconnection service for on-site generation available to any consumer the utility serves. The services shall be offered based upon IEEE Standard 1547 for Interconnecting Distributed Resources with Electric Power Systems. Repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA) Sections 1261-1277 (pages 1177 through 1196) What it says: PUHCA is repealed. Utilities must make available books and records FERC determines are appropriate for the protection of utility customers with respect to jurisdictional rates. Authority transfers from the SEC to FERC for these remaining provisions. What it does: Under PUHCA, utility investment in systems that were not interconnected was severely limited. As stated by Fitch Ratings, “repeal paves the way for mergers of utilities that do not operate as a single, integrated system as well as for acquisitions of utilities by companies from outside the industry.” The advertised public policy benefit of this provision was to infuse needed capital into the industry; especially the transmission sector, and we hope that happens. Market Transparency, Enforcement, and Consumer Protection Sec. 1281. Electricity Market Transparency (page 1196) What it says: Directs FERC to facilitate price transparency in markets for the sale and transmission of electric energy. FERC may provide for dissemination of information about the availability and prices of wholesale electric energy and transmission. FERC may obtain any such information from any market participant. What it does: This provision allows FERC to improve Electric Quarterly Reports or even to establish a public database of transactions and prices. This could cause some administrative burden and raise concerns of confidentiality, but it could also provide important price information for market participants to value energy over time and across regions. The provision could also be read broadly to provide carrots and sticks for RTO participation because RTOs provide such energy and transmission information while other regions arguably warrant further transparency requirements. Sec. 1282. False statements (page 1200) No entity shall willingly and knowingly report to any federal agency any information relating to the price of electricity sold at wholesale or the availability of transmission capacity, which the person knew to be false at the time of reporting, with the intent to defraud. Sec. 1283. Prohibition of energy market manipulation (page 1200) It shall be unlawful for any entity to employ any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in the purchase or sale of energy or transmission capacity. Sec 1284. Enforcement (page 1201) FERC is given much stiffer civil and criminal penalty authority up to $1 million. Sec. 1285. Refund effectivedate (page 1203) What it says: Refund effective date is changed from 60 days after the filing of a complaint to the date of such filing. What it does: Sales of energy and transmission have always been subject to refund. The 60 day delay in the effective date was a sore spot during the California energy crisis and was hard to justify in the new market environment. Sec 1286. Refund Authority (page 1204) FERC is given refund authority over public power entities that sell into organized markets. Sec. 1287 Consumer privacy and unfair trade practices (page 1206) The Federal Trade Commission may issues rules on privacy and on abusive practices such as slamming and cramming in electricity markets. Sec. 1288 Authority of court to prohibit individuals from serving as officers, directors, and energy traders (page 1208) Individuals may be banned from serving as officers of electricity trading firms and from trading. Sec. 1289 Merger review reform (page 1209) What it says: Provides for FERC review of the sale or disposition of jurisdictional facilities. The threshold of value of the transaction is increased from $50,000 to $10 million. It extends merger review to the acquisition of generation facilities (in the past, FERC’s “hook” had to be a transmission facility). Requires FERC to act on a merger within 180 days unless the agency decides it needs more time. Does not apply to mergers filed with FERC before date of enactment. What it does: FERC is likely to continue its recent vigilance on mergers of companies with significant amounts of generation (a few thousand MW or more) in the same geographic area. Where the two companies operate 1000 miles or more apart or where the generation controlled by either of the two companies is lower, the approval will likely be easier. We expect FERC’s tried-and-true Delivered Price Test analysis to remain in place. Sec 1298 (and 1832) Economic dispatch (page 1220 and 1712) Section 1298 says FERC shall convene boards on a regional basis to study the issue of security constrained economic dispatch and report to Congress. Section 1832 says DOE in consultation with the States shall conduct a study on the benefits of economic dispatch and ways to better incorporate non-utility generation resources. Energy Policy Tax Incentives Sec. 1301 Extension and Modification of Renewable Electricity Production TaxCredit (PTC) (page 1222) What it says: By simply changing the PTC expiration date to December 31, 2007, the extension leaves in place the PTC’s current 1.9 cent per kilowatt-hour value, the annual inflation adjustment provision, and the 10-year term to generate credits following the installation of a wind turbine. The bill does not contain any restrictions on the use of the PTC based on project location, nor does the bill place any limits on proposed off shore wind projects. The provision includes a technical correction reaffirming that wind turbines are treated as 5-year property for purposes of depreciation. It clears up an ambiguity created by a drafting error included in the bill extending and expanding the PTC in 2004. What it does: This extension marks the first time the PTC has been extended before it expired, thus allowing the wind industry to move steadily forward without an every-other-year period of painful job cuts and stalled production brought on by delays in extending the credit. Passage of the PTC in August allows 29 months of steady project development activity. To put the PTC in context, the energy tax section of the more than 1,700-page bill carries a cost of $14 billion over ten years with renewable energy incentives - at $3.1 billion - accounting for the single largest portion of that total. The coal industry would receive $2.9 billion in tax incentives. The oil & gas industry would gain $1.5 billion, with an additional $1 billion going toward natural gas distribution incentives. Energy efficiency would receive $1.3 billion and clean vehicles and fuels would gain $1.2 billion in incentives. Sec. 1302 Application of section 45 credit to agricultural cooperatives (page 1235) What it says: Provides a one-time pass through of the PTC for farmer-owned cooperatives. What it does: This provision is similar to the ethanol producer pass-through enacted in 2004. The provision allows cooperatives (at least half the project must be owned by agriculture producers) to pass the PTC to entities who can utilize the credit effectively. Sec. 1303 Clean renewable energy bonds. (page 1238) What it says: This provision establishes a new category of tax credit bonds--clean renewable energy bonds (“CREBs”)—that will provide financing for capital expenditures for certain renewable resource facilities. Such bonds may be issued by units of government, municipal utilities, rural electric cooperatives, and Tribal governments. What it does: The total financing available under this program is $800 million. While not a large amount of money, it provides a valuable alternative to the underfunded and ineffective REPI program. Sec. 1305 Dispositions of transmission property to implement FERC restructuring policy (page 1257) Continues the tax relief on the sale of transmission assets which, along with the International Transmission Company’s recent successful Initial Public Offering, bodes well for the development of Independent Transmission Companies. Sec. 1308 Electric transmission property treated as 15-year property (page 1286) What it says: The depreciation period for high voltage transmission investments that go into service after April 11, 2005 will be shortened from 20 to 15 years. What it does: This is a $1.2 billioncost to the Treasury. With the focus on transmission reliability since the 2003 blackout, this provision is intended to encourage more infrastructure investment. In a sector where approximately $6 billion is invested per year, this infusion could help. Unlike the transmission incentives from FERC, the cost of this provision does not create resistance from those who pay transmission rates. Miscellaneous 1833 Renewable energy on federal land. (page 1712) Requires Department of Interior to contract with the National Academy of Sciences for a study on the potential for renewable energy production on federal lands including the Outer Continental Shelf and recommend statutory and regulatory mechanisms for developing those resources. A final report is to be submitted to Congress within two years after date of enactment of the bill.
|
