Opinion ID: 184033
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Congestion Study

Text: Following the enactment of § 216, DOE gave presentations at a number of conferences regarding the new law. Its first request for comments or assistance from others was a February 2, 2006 Notice of inquiry requesting comment and providing notice of a technical conference (the February 2 Notice). 71 Fed.Reg. 5660-64 (Feb. 2, 2006). The notice sought comment and information from the public concerning its plans for an electricity transmission congestion study and possible designation of [NIET Corridors]. [2] Id. at 5660. The February 2 Notice stated that work on the Congestion Study was well underway and that DOE intended to publish the study by August 8, 2006. Id. at 5661. The Notice also stated that a technical conference would be held in Chicago, Illinois, on March 29, 2006. Id. at 5660. The technical conference was held in March 2006, and a number of State entities attended and some participated in various panels. A separate invitation-only meeting was held in May 2006 to review and evaluate the congestion analyses performed by DOE's contractors, but no states were invited. [3] DOE asserts that it reached out to affected States through meetings with the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) and through other meetings and correspondence with individual State entities. DOE issued its Congestion Study in August 2006. The notice in the Federal Register requested comments on the study and on the possible designation of national interest electric transmission corridors. 71 Fed.Reg. 45,047 (Aug. 8, 2006). DOE received over 400 comments on the Congestion Study. On May 7, 2007, DOE responded to the comments and sought additional comments on draft National Corridor designations for the two Critical Congestion Areas identified in the Congestion Study: the draft Mid-Atlantic Area National Corridor; and the draft Southwest Area National Corridor. 72 Fed. Reg. 25,840 (May 7, 2007) (the May 7 Notice). A major objection set forth in the comments was the assertion that DOE had failed to consult with affected States. Id. at 25,850. DOE responded that it was committed to fulfilling its obligation to consult with States but asserted that there are practical difficulties in conducting the level of consultation that some may prefer in the context of a study of this magnitude, and that it is difficult to know which States are `affected' until the conclusions of the congestion study are known. Id. DOE claimed to have met its obligation because it: (1) had provided States with numerous opportunities for input and [] held meetings with officials representing individual States and groups of States; (2) had made the Congestion Study available on August 8, 2006; and (3) had, in addition to [having made] the draft National Corridor designations described in this notice available for comment,... simultaneously contact[ed] the Governors of each State in which the draft National Corridors would be located to arrange consultation meetings. Id. The May 7 Notice also described a number of other comments that DOE received that may be divided into four groups. A first group of comments are objections to DOE's interpretation of the scope of its authority to designate National Corridors, its definitions of congestion and constraint, and the need for the Congestion Study to accommodate state laws and policies on renewable portfolio standards. Id. at 25,842. In responding to, and rejecting these objections, DOE stressed its discretion under § 216. Id. at 25,843. It noted that there is no generally accepted understanding of what constitutes `constraints or congestion that adversely affects consumers' and defended the definition adopted in the Congestion Study. Id. at 25,843-45. A second group of comments concerned the relationship between regional planning processes and the designation of national corridors. Id. at 25,846. For example, NARUC argued that DOE should grant deference to the results of adequate regional planning processes, and the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California (CPUC) argued that designation is unwarranted unless there is evidence that State and regional processes are not addressing the problem in a timely manner. Id. DOE indicated that it supports and encourages regional planning efforts but nonetheless had decided not to defer to regional planning processes. Id. at 25,846-47. A third group raised comments concerning the drawing of boundaries. Some comments advocated the use of specific transmission projects to define national corridor boundaries, others suggested that boundaries should be tailored to aid in the construction of specific viable transmission projects, and numerous commenters argued that DOE should draw National Corridor boundaries to exclude parks and other environmentally protected areas. Id. at 25,847. In response, DOE first noted that the statute provided little direction on how the Department should draw the boundaries of a National Corridor. Id. at 25,848. DOE observed that the selection of source areas will necessarily involve discretion and is not suited to a formulaic approach. Id. In declining to make any changes in response to the comments, DOE noted: The Department acknowledges that determining the exact perimeters for a National Corridor under a source-and-sink approach is more an art than a science, and there will rarely be a dispositive reason to draw a boundary in one place as opposed to some number of miles to the right or the left. The drawing of the boundary is ultimately a judgment the Secretary must make based on all relevant considerations, including the considerations identified in FPA section 216(a)(4), as appropriate, and available, relevant data. There is no single boundary line that can be determined based solely upon analysis of the data. Id. at 25,849. The fourth group of comments asserted that DOE was required to prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to NEPA before designating any National Corridor. Id. at 25,850. DOE responded that although NEPA requires environmental impact statements for major Federal actions, [t]he designation of a National Corridor ... does not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and accordingly a National Corridor designation is not a `proposal for a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment' that falls within the purview of NEPA. [4] Id. at 25,851.