Wind-energy plan draws opposition
Jan 24 - McClatchy-Tribune Regional News - Kevin Welch Amarillo
Globe-News, Texas
A variety of groups interested in wind energy weren't shy about telling
regulators on Tuesday how much they don't like a proposed rule.
Of 19 responses to the Public Utilities Commission of Texas, none supported
a rule some say will make getting wind power from West Texas to the state's
population centers take up to a year longer. The latest schedule puts
construction starting after August 2009.
The proposed rule would control how the PUC chooses and oversees companies
to build, maintain and operate transmission lines serving wind farms yet to
be built.
The Texas Coalition of Cities for Utility Issues said it is concerned the
result would be prolonged regulatory reviews, increased costs for consumers
and a potentially less reliable grid if companies cut corners to try to win
construction performance awards or avoid performance penalties.
The group echoed a collection of companies, several with Panhandle projects
planned, that filed a joint statement asking for little or no change.
"The existing system works. It works well. Accordingly, before the
commission commences down a path that would lead to a partial or complete
restructuring of the methodology for designating transmission providers, it
should review again the capability of the existing process," according to
the joint filing.
Transmission company Oncor agreed and added a caution.
"In particular, several aspects of the proposed rule could be subject to
legal challenge on appeal, which would substantially delay implementation of
the rule and dramatically impede the development of necessary transmission,"
Oncor said in its filing.
A farm group worried about how transmission companies rushing to meet
performance deadlines might affect its members.
"The rule as initially proposed provides an implicit reward ... to disregard
landowner interests and to proceed immediately to a condemnation proceeding
in order for no time to be wasted," the Texas Farm Bureau wrote. |