Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability; Draft National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor Designations, 25838-25923 [07-2115]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 87 (Monday, May 7, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25838-25923]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2115]



[[Page 25837]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Department of Energy





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability; Draft National 
Interest Electric Transmission Corridor Designations; Notice

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 87 / Monday, May 7, 2007 / Notices

[[Page 25838]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability; Draft 
National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor Designations

[Docket No. 2007-OE-01, Draft Mid-Atlantic Area National Corridor; 
Docket No. 2007-OE-02, Draft Southwest Area National Corridor]

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice and opportunity for written and oral comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Having issued the first National Electric Transmission 
Congestion Study under section 216 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), and 
having evaluated public comments on the Study, the Department of Energy 
(Department or DOE) today begins two proceedings that may lead to one 
or more orders designating one or more national interest electric 
transmission corridors (National Corridors). The Department believes 
that, although the FPA does not require it, allowing an opportunity for 
comment on draft National Corridor designations prior to the Department 
issuing its FPA section 216(a) report will aid both the public and the 
Department. Interested persons may file written comments in one or both 
of these proceedings in the manner indicated in the ADDRESSES portion 
of this notice. Only those persons who file such comments by the date 
listed in the DATES portion of this notice will become parties to the 
proceedings and, thus, eligible to file a request for rehearing under 
FPA section 313 of any final order issued in these proceedings.

DATES: Written comments on the draft National Corridors must be 
received on or before July 6, 2007.
    The Department has scheduled public meetings on Docket No. 2007-OE-
01 (the draft Mid-Atlantic Area National Corridor) for the following 
dates:
    May 15, 2007, 10 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Arlington, VA; and
    May 23, 2007, 10 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., New York, NY.
    The Department has scheduled a public meeting on Docket No. 2007-
OE-02 (the draft Southwest Area National Corridor) for May 17, 2007, 10 
a.m. to 3:30 p.m., San Diego, CA.

ADDRESSES: Color versions of the figures included in today's notice as 
well as other supporting documents are available at https://
nietc.anl.gov.
    You may submit written comments on one or both of the draft 
National Corridors electronically at https://nietc.anl.gov, or by mail 
to the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, OE-20, 
U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 
20585. If you are commenting on Docket No. 2007-OE-01 (the draft Mid-
Atlantic Area National Corridor), your comments must be marked ``Attn: 
Docket No. 2007-OE-01.'' If you are commenting on Docket No. 2007-OE-02 
(the draft Southwest Area National Corridor), your comments must be 
marked ``Attn: Docket No. 2007-OE-02.'' The following electronic file 
formats are acceptable: Microsoft Word (.doc), Microsoft Works (.wps), 
Corel Word Perfect (.wpd), Adobe Acrobat (.pdf), Rich Text Format 
(.rtf), plain text (.txt), Microsoft Excel (.xls), and Microsoft 
PowerPoint (.ppt). If you submit information that you believe to be 
exempt by law from public disclosure, you may only submit your comments 
by mail, and you must submit one complete copy, as well as one copy 
from which the information claimed to be exempt by law from public 
disclosure has been deleted. DOE is responsible for the final 
determination concerning disclosure or nondisclosure of the information 
and for treating it in accordance with the DOE's Freedom of Information 
regulations (10 CFR 1004.11).

    Note: Delivery of U.S. Postal Service mail to DOE continues to 
be delayed by several weeks due to security screening. DOE therefore 
encourages commenters to submit comments electronically by e-mail. 
If comments are submitted by mail, the Department requests that they 
be accompanied by a CD or diskette containing the electronic files 
of the submission.

    The locations for the public meetings are:

Arlington--Doubletree Hotel Crystal City--National Airport, 300 Army 
Navy Drive, Arlington, VA 22202-2891;
New York--Park Central New York Hotel, 870 Seventh Avenue at 56th 
Street, New York, NY 10019-4038; and
San Diego--Manchester Grand Hyatt San Diego Hotel, One Market Place, 
San Diego, CA 92101.

    If you are interested in speaking at one of these meetings, please 
sign up at https://www.energetics.com/NIETCpublicmeetings or call 410-
953-6250.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information, David 
Meyer, DOE Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, (202) 
586-1411. david.meyer@hq.doe.gov. For legal information, Mary Morton, 
DOE Office of the General Counsel, (202) 586-1221, 
mary.morton@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

A. Statutory Framework

    Section 1221(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-58) 
(EPAct) added a new section 216 to the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 
824p) (FPA). New FPA section 216(a) requires the Secretary of Energy 
(Secretary) \1\ to conduct a nationwide study of electric transmission 
congestion \2\ within one year from the date of enactment of EPAct and 
every three years thereafter. FPA section 216(a)(1) requires the 
Secretary to consult with ``affected States'' when conducting the 
study. 16 U.S.C. 824p(a)(1). FPA section 216(a)(2) provides 
``interested parties'' with an opportunity to offer ``alternatives and 
recommendations.'' 16 U.S.C. 824p(a)(2). Following consideration of 
such alternatives and recommendations, the Secretary is required to 
issue a report on the study ``which may designate any geographic area 
experiencing electric energy transmission capacity constraints or 
congestion that adversely affects consumers as a national interest 
electric transmission corridor.'' 16 U.S.C. 824p(a)(2). FPA section 
216(a)(4) states that in determining whether to designate a corridor, 
the Secretary may consider whether:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This notice uses the terms ``Secretary'' and ``Department'' 
interchangeably.
    \2\ Electric transmission congestion (congestion) is the 
condition that occurs when transmission capacity is not sufficient 
to enable safe delivery of all scheduled or desired wholesale 
electricity transfers simultaneously. Congestion results from a 
transmission capacity constraint (constraint). See Section II.A of 
this notice for further discussion of these terms.

    (A) the economic vitality and development of the corridor, or 
the end markets served by the corridor, may be constrained by lack 
of adequate or reasonably priced electricity;
    (B)(i) economic growth in the corridor, or the end markets 
served by the corridor, may be jeopardized by reliance on limited 
sources of energy; and (ii) a diversification of supply is 
warranted;
    (C) the energy independence of the United States would be served 
by the designation;
    (D) the designation would be in the interest of national energy 
policy; and
    (E) the designation would enhance national defense and homeland 
security.

16 U.S.C. 824p(a)(4).
    The effect of a National Corridor designation is to delineate 
geographic areas within which, under certain circumstances, the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) may authorize ``the construction or 
modification of electric transmission facilities.'' FPA section 216(b); 
16 U.S.C. 824p(b). The statute imposes several conditions on the 
exercise of FERC's

[[Page 25839]]

permitting authority within a National Corridor.
    Under FPA section 216(b)(1), FERC jurisdiction is triggered only 
when either: the State does not have authority to site the project; the 
State lacks the authority to consider the interstate benefits of the 
project; the applicant does not qualify for a State permit because it 
does not serve end-use customers in the State; the State has withheld 
approval for more than one year; or the State has conditioned its 
approval in such a manner that the project will not significantly 
reduce congestion or is not economically feasible. 16 U.S.C. 
824p(b)(1).\3\ Further, FPA section 216(g) states, ``Nothing in this 
section precludes any person from constructing or modifying any 
transmission facility in accordance with State law.'' 16 U.S.C. 
824p(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See also Regulations for Filing Applications for Permits to 
Site Interstate Electric Transmission Facilities, Order No. 689, 71 
FR 69,440, 69,468 (Dec. 1, 2006), 117 FERC ] 61,202 at pp. 128-29 
(2006) (to be codified at 18 CFR parts 50 and 380), reh'g pending 
(FERC Order No. 689) (Sec.  50.6(e) requires applicants to 
demonstrate that the conditions of FPA sec. 216(b)(1) are met).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under FPA section 216(b)(2)-(6), FERC may issue a permit only if 
all of the following conditions are met: the facilities will be used 
for the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce; the 
project is consistent with the public interest; the project will 
significantly reduce congestion and protect or benefit consumers; the 
project is consistent with national energy policy and will enhance 
energy independence; and the project maximizes, to the extent 
reasonable and economical, the transmission capabilities of existing 
towers or structures. 16 U.S.C. 824p(b)(2)-(6).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See also id. (Sec.  50.6(f) requires applicants to 
demonstrate that the conditions of FPA sec. 216(b)(2)-(6) are met).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, a National Corridor designation itself does not 
preempt State authority or any State actions. A National Corridor 
designation is not a determination that transmission must, or even 
should, be built; it is not a proposal to build a transmission facility 
and it does not direct anyone to make a proposal. Transmission 
expansion is but one possible solution to a congestion or constraint 
problem; increased demand response, improved energy efficiency, and 
conservation, as well as siting of additional generation close to load 
centers are also potential solutions. Whether a particular transmission 
project, some other transmission project, or a non-transmission project 
is an appropriate solution to a congestion or constraint problem 
identified by a National Corridor designation is a matter that market 
participants, applicable regional planning entities, and State 
authorities, among others, will consider and decide before any project 
is built. In the event that FERC jurisdiction under FPA section 216(b) 
is triggered, the designation of a National Corridor by the Secretary 
does not control FERC's substantive decision on the merits as to 
whether to grant or deny a permit application, specifically where any 
facilities covered by a permit should be located, or what conditions 
should be placed on a permit.
    A National Corridor designation is not a siting decision; it does 
not dictate the route of any transmission project. If a transmission 
project is proposed in a National Corridor, it will be the State siting 
authorities, and potentially FERC if certain conditions are met, that 
will determine the specific route of that project.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See id. 71 FR 69,440, 69,446, 117 FERC ] 61,202 at PP 41-42 
(``The Commission will conduct an independent environmental analysis 
of the project and determine if there is no significant impact as 
required by [the National Environmental Policy Act]. It will look at 
alternatives, including, as appropriate, alternatives other than 
transmission lines. * * * It will review the alternatives for their 
respective impacts on the environment and will determine mitigation 
measures to lessen the adverse impacts. * * * The Commission will 
also consider the adverse effects the proposed facilities will have 
on land owners and local communities.''); and 71 FR 69,440, 69,470, 
117 FERC ] 61,202 at p. 142-43 (Sec. Sec.  380.5(b)(14) and 
380.6(a)(5) require either an environmental assessment or an 
environmental impact statement for projects seeking permits under 
sec. 216(b)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, FPA section 216(a) does not shift to the Department any of 
the traditional roles of transmission planners and siting authorities 
in evaluating solutions to congestion and constraint problems and 
designing routes for transmission facilities. Instead, FPA section 
216(a) assigns to the Department the role of identifying transmission 
congestion and constraint problems, and the geographic areas in which 
these problems exist.

B. Congestion Study

    On August 8, 2006, DOE issued its initial congestion study (the 
Congestion Study) for comment by interested members of the public and 
affected States (71 FR 45,047 (Aug. 8, 2006)). The Congestion Study 
gathered historical congestion data obtained from existing studies 
prepared by the regional reliability councils, regional transmission 
organizations (RTOs) and independent system operators (ISOs),\6\ and 
regional planning groups. The Congestion Study also modeled future 
congestion: the years 2008 and 2011 for the Eastern Interconnection; 
and the years 2008 and 2015 for the Western Interconnection. The 
modeling focused on five metrics: binding hours (the number of hours 
per year that a path is loaded to its limit and, thus, unable to 
accommodate all desired power transactions), U90 (the number of hours 
per year that a path is loaded above 90 percent of its limit), all-
hours shadow price (the marginal cost of generation redispatch required 
to accommodate a given constraint averaged across all hours in the 
year), binding hours shadow price (average shadow price over only those 
hours during which the constraint is binding), and congestion rent 
(shadow price multiplied by flow, summed over all hours the constraint 
is binding).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ RTOs and ISOs are Federally regulated entities charged with 
operating a regional transmission system in a manner that is non-
discriminatory and ensures safety and reliability. The existing RTOs 
and ISOs do not own any transmission or generation and are run by 
independent boards of directors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the historical data and the modeling results, the 
Congestion Study classified the most significant congestion areas in 
the country. Two ``Critical Congestion Areas'' (i.e. areas where the 
current and/or projected effects of congestion are especially broad and 
severe) were identified: the Atlantic coastal area from metropolitan 
New York through northern Virginia (the Mid-Atlantic Critical 
Congestion Area); and southern California (the Southern California 
Critical Congestion Area). Four ``Congestion Areas of Concern'' (i.e. 
areas where a large-scale congestion problem exists or may be emerging 
but more information and analysis appear to be needed to determine the 
magnitude of the problem) were identified: New England; the Phoenix-
Tucson area; the San Francisco Bay area; and the Seattle-Portland area. 
Also, a number of ``Conditional Congestion Areas'' (i.e. areas where 
future congestion would result if large amounts of new generation were 
to be developed without simultaneous development of associated 
transmission capacity) were identified, such as: Montana-Wyoming; 
Dakotas-Minnesota; Kansas-Oklahoma; Illinois, Indiana and upper 
Appalachia; and the Southeast.
    DOE has received over 400 comments on the Congestion Study. DOE has 
made all of these comments available at https://nietc.anl.gov. The 
Department is no longer accepting comments on the Congestion Study. All 
comments filed in response to today's notice should be limited to the 
draft National Corridors set forth in this notice.

[[Page 25840]]

C. Purpose of Today's Notice

    This notice summarizes and responds to the comments received in 
response to the Congestion Study that are relevant to the designation 
of National Corridors. This notice also issues and solicits comment 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. See 
Figure I-1 for the location of these draft National Corridors.\7\ 
Further, the Department has scheduled three public meetings to discuss 
these draft National Corridor designations. If, after consideration of 
all comments on these draft designations, the Secretary decides that 
one or more National Corridor designations are appropriate, he will 
issue one or more orders making such designations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ A detailed explanation of the location of these draft 
National Corridors is provided in Sections VIII.D and IX.D of this 
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 25841]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07MY07.000

    This notice is also intended to notify interested persons how to 
obtain party status for the proceeding in Docket No. 2007-OE-01 or the 
proceeding in Docket No. 2007-OE-02. Review of any final order 
designating a National Corridor in one of these proceedings will be 
governed by section 313 of the FPA (16 U.S.C. 8251). Thus, only those

[[Page 25842]]

persons who have obtained party status in the proceeding may file a 
request for rehearing of a final order with the Department. Further, to 
the extent that any person has standing to obtain judicial review, the 
filing of a rehearing request within 30 days of issuance of the final 
order is a prerequisite to such potential judicial review. In order to 
become a party to one or both of these proceedings, you must file 
comments in response to this notice in the manner indicated in the 
ADDRESSES portion of this notice by the deadline date identified in the 
DATES portion of this notice.
    The proceedings being started today focus on the two geographic 
areas of the Nation experiencing the most acute and urgent electric 
transmission congestion problems. This notice takes no action with 
regard to the other geographic areas discussed in the Congestion Study. 
Thus, today's notice does not address comments received on the 
Congestion Study that relate solely to areas outside the two Critical 
Congestion Areas. Also, today's notice does not address those comments 
that relate to the conduct of future congestion studies. The Department 
will address the subject of how it intends to conduct future congestion 
studies in a later notice.

II. Deciding When a National Corridor Designation Is Warranted

    The Congestion Study solicited comment on the criteria the 
Secretary should use when determining when a National Corridor 
designation is warranted. In this section, the Department summarizes 
and responds to these comments.

A. General Scope of the Secretary's Authority

Summary of Comments
    The Department received numerous comments that relate to the 
general scope of the Secretary's authority to designate National 
Corridors, including comments on the meaning of key terms used in FPA 
section 216(a). The Department received a few comments on the 
appropriate definition of ``congestion'' and ``constraint.'' 
FirstEnergy Service Company (FirstEnergy) supported the definition of 
``congestion'' used in the Congestion Study. National Grid USA 
(National Grid) argued that the Congestion Study's definition of 
``constraint'' should be expanded to include not just limitations due 
to a piece of equipment, but also due to the absence of equipment 
between two or more nodes. Similarly, the California Energy Commission 
(CEC) argued that the focus of the Congestion Study is too narrow to 
accommodate State laws and policies on renewable portfolio standards. 
The CEC stated that the Department's criteria for identifying 
congestion should incorporate consideration of constraints that pose 
obstacles to reasonably priced power, diversity of supply, and energy 
independence, regardless of whether those constraints currently produce 
congestion.\8\ Upper Great Plains Transmission Coalition argued that 
the lack of evidence of curtailments and congestion costs does not 
necessarily mean that a critical constraint is absent; for example, 
sophisticated management tools in place in the upper Great Plains have 
avoided the need for transmission loading relief (TLR) actions,\9\ 
nevertheless, export capacity is constrained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See also comments of BP Alternative Energy North America 
Inc.
    \9\ TLR is a procedure used in the Eastern Interconnection, 
usually outside of organized markets, to deal with situations when a 
transmission path has reach its operating limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department received comments on the level of adverse effects on 
consumers needed to justify a National Corridor designation. The 
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PAPUC) argued that National 
Corridors should be designated only where it is demonstrated that there 
is chronic physical congestion that has potential for substantially 
impairing existing or future grid reliability. The Attorney General for 
the State of Connecticut (Connecticut Attorney General) argued that the 
Department has no authority to designate a corridor in an area that the 
Congestion Study acknowledges does not rise to the level of a Critical 
Congestion Area. The Connecticut Attorney General argued that the 
statute was not intended to empower the Department to ``act as a sort 
of roving commission that oversees transmission planning and 
construction nationwide,'' and thus designations should be limited to 
``those limited and extraordinary circumstances in which transmission 
constraints so severely impact the national interest that Federal 
intervention'' may be warranted.
    On the other hand, LS Power Development, LLC (LS Power) argued that 
the statutory standard for designating a corridor ``appears to be 
relatively low'' and that this is understandable given the limited 
purpose of a National Corridor designation. LS Power further argued 
that the Department should apply the standard for designation 
liberally, instead of ranking different areas of congestion and only 
addressing some of those areas. LS Power asserted that if an area is 
congested, consumers are therefore adversely affected by higher costs, 
and consumers should be afforded the potential relief available through 
a National Corridor designation. Similarly, the Edison Electric 
Institute (EEI) argued that the Department should not wait until a 
major problem emerges before designating a National Corridor, given the 
long-term, capital-intensive nature of electricity infrastructure 
development. EEI urged the Department to maintain a high-level view and 
not dwell on the unachievable goal of technical precision in the 
congestion study process before making designations. The Electric Power 
Supply Association (EPSA) argued that National Corridor designation is 
warranted wherever the grid is constrained to the point of only being 
available to accommodate power flows of incumbent utilities to serve 
their native load, because in all such circumstances consumers are 
adversely affected by the existence of a barrier to entry of 
potentially lower-cost competitors.
    The Department received comments on the use of projections of 
future congestion to support a National Corridor designation. The 
Organization of MISO States (OMS) argued that the statute makes clear 
that designations may only be made for areas actually experiencing 
congestion adversely affecting consumers, and does not provide for 
designations in areas that may experience congestion in the future or 
under certain circumstances. Therefore, OMS was not persuaded that 
National Corridor designation is warranted in the Congestion Areas of 
Concern or the Conditional Congestion Areas. OMS stated that rather 
than attempting to forecast the need for future National Corridors, 
designations should be in response to existing, persistent, and well-
documented problems. Some Western commenters, including Northern Wasco 
County Peoples Utility District (NWPUD) and Seattle City Light (SCL), 
argued there is a need to examine historical data and not rely solely 
on simulated congestion metrics. Public Service Electric and Gas 
Company, PSEG Power LLC, and PSEG Energy Resources and Trade LLC 
(collectively PSEG) argued that forecasts of future congestion, driven 
by long-range projections of fuel costs, are inherently questionable. 
ABB, on the other hand, said National Corridor designation should not 
be based solely on analysis of historic congestion but rather should be 
made after a comprehensive analysis of future resource mix and resource 
adequacy.

[[Page 25843]]

The American Wind Energy Association, Wind on the Wires, Interwest 
Energy Alliance, the Wind Coalition, and the Renewable Northwest 
Project (collectively Wind Associations) expressed concern that the 
Department may approach Conditional Congestion Areas in a manner that 
``continues the `chicken and egg' problem of wind development, in which 
no generators are constructed until transmission capacity is built, but 
no transmission capacity is expanded until there are generators 
requesting service.'' Thus, the Wind Associations sought clarification 
that National Corridors can be designated in a Conditional Congestion 
Area before all the expected generation has been developed in that 
area.
    Some commenters called for clarification of the criteria the 
Department would use in deciding whether to designate a National 
Corridor and made recommendations about criteria they considered most 
important. For example, the Committee on Regional Electric Power 
Cooperation (CREPC) stated that the Department should develop metrics 
for the criteria used to designate National Corridors and document how 
it has applied the criteria. CREPC argued that priority should be given 
to designating National Corridors that enable the achievement of State 
energy policy objectives or that address location-constrained 
generation resource areas; low priority should be given to areas with 
contractual congestion but little physical congestion, or areas where 
findings of congestion are based on studies with a high level of 
uncertainty. The American Public Power Association (APPA) suggested 
that the Department focus on the effect that a designation will have on 
the plans of load-serving entities to meet their long-term service 
obligations to their retail customers; in particular, the effect on 
deliverability of new base-load and renewable resources to the load-
serving entities that intend to purchase power from those resources. 
The Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (Midwest 
ISO) \10\ supported the reduction in electricity supply costs as a 
criterion for National Corridor designation; however, only if there is 
sufficient evidence that such cost reductions would occur and that the 
amount of the reductions would be significant enough to warrant 
national attention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Midwest ISO is the RTO serving all or parts of Illinois, 
Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, 
Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and 
Wisconsin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE Response
    FPA section 216(a)(2) gives the Secretary the discretion to 
designate as a National Corridor ``any geographic area experiencing 
electric energy transmission capacity constraints or congestion that 
adversely affects consumers.'' The statute does not define any of the 
terms in this phrase.
    The Congestion Study defined ``congestion'' as the condition that 
occurs when transmission capacity is not sufficient to enable safe 
delivery of all scheduled or desired wholesale electricity transfers 
simultaneously. This definition generated little debate among 
commenters.\11\ The Congestion Study defined ``transmission 
constraint'' as a limitation on one or more transmission elements that 
may be reached during normal or contingency system operations. The 
Congestion Study also defined ``constrained facility'' as a 
transmission facility (line, transformer, breaker, etc.) that is 
approaching, at, or beyond a System Operating Limit or Interconnection 
Reliability Operating Limit.\12\ ``Congestion,'' then, refers to the 
denial of desired transmission service over a transmission path, while 
``constraint'' refers to the chokepoint on the transmission system that 
causes such denial of desired transmission service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Other sources use similar definitions. See, e.g., 
California Independent System Operator, Conformed Simplified and 
Reorganized Tariff, App. A, Master Definitions Supplement (April 6, 
2007) (``Congestion--A condition that occurs when there is 
insufficient Available Transfer Capacity to implement all Preferred 
Schedules simultaneously or, in real time, to serve all Generation 
and Demand.''); and Southwest Power Pool, Glossary and Acronyms, 
https://www.spp.org/glossary.asp?letter=C (``Congestion is a 
condition that occurs when insufficient transfer capacity is 
available to implement all of the preferred schedules for 
electricity transmission simultaneously.'').
    \12\ One aspect of the constraint-related definitions used in 
the Congestion Study did generate debate among commenters, which is 
addressed later in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast, there is no generally accepted understanding of what 
constitutes ``constraints or congestion that adversely affects 
consumers,'' as the debate among the commenters amply demonstrates. The 
term is ambiguous, and the statute attaches no modifiers to the term to 
specify the particular type or magnitude of adverse effect intended. 
While the Congestion Study identified and applied various metrics 
``related to the magnitude and impact of congestion,'' the Congestion 
Study did not attempt to define when constraints or congestion 
``adversely affects consumers.'' In the following discussion, the 
Department will first address congestion that adversely affects 
consumers and then constraints that adversely affect consumers.
    With regard to congestion that adversely affects consumers, the 
Department notes that any congestion, by definition, thwarts customer 
choice, because it prevents users of the transmission grid from 
completing their preferred power transactions. These users include 
wholesale industrial consumers of power as well as load-serving 
entities buying power on behalf of retail consumers, all of whom are 
prevented by congestion from obtaining delivery of desired quantities 
of electricity from desired sources. In other words, any congestion on 
a line necessarily interferes with the choices of those who wish to use 
that line on their own or their customers' behalf. Whenever there is 
congestion on a transmission path, there simply is not enough 
transmission capacity to accommodate all the desired power 
transactions, and some sort of rationing of available capacity is 
needed. In areas with organized electricity markets, this rationing 
generally occurs through a pre-established economic mechanism, such as 
a congestion management system based on locational marginal prices 
(LMPs),\13\ which is designed to allocate the limited capacity to the 
users who value it the most. In areas of the country without organized 
markets, the rationing may involve the transmission provider denying 
requests for transmission service, adjusting schedules, or in some 
cases making pro rata curtailments in real time. Regardless of how the 
rationing is resolved, however, one thing remains true: congestion 
results in some users of the transmission system being denied the 
benefit of their preferred transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In general terms, an LMP-based congestion management system 
entails an RTO or ISO operating a bid-based energy market in which 
those generators and loads who have not fully committed themselves 
through bilateral power contracts can participate. As the operator 
of the transmission system, the RTO or ISO also analyzes whether 
transmission of all the desired energy transactions is 
simultaneously feasible. When there are no binding constraints, the 
energy market clears at a single price throughout the system. When a 
constraint is binding, separate prices result on either side of the 
constraint. Market participants can then see and respond to these 
different LMPs. Those customers who choose to have power transmitted 
over the binding constraint are assessed a transactional congestion 
charge based on the difference between the LMPs on either side of 
the constraint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, electricity buyers generally seek power from the most 
economic source. Arranging for delivery of power from less preferred 
sources is referred to as ``redispatching'' power. When congestion 
occurs, resulting in the need

[[Page 25844]]

for buyers to accept power from less-preferred generating sources in 
order to meet their power needs, redispatch is required and typically 
results in the use of more expensive power. Congestion also usually 
reduces competition and diversity, by limiting the range of generators 
from which buyers can obtain power. Finally, congestion means that 
parts of the transmission system are so heavily loaded that grid 
operators have fewer options for dealing with adverse circumstances or 
unanticipated events, thus increasing the risk of blackouts, forced 
interruptions of service, or other grid-related disruptions.
    Therefore, any congestion can adversely affect at least some 
consumers. Nevertheless, congestion remedies are not free; therefore, 
not all congestion is worth fixing. Under certain circumstances, 
congestion can arise on any transmission path. But the appearance of 
isolated or transient instances of congestion usually does not warrant 
consideration of transmission expansion. While the Department is not 
attempting in this notice to define the complete scope of the term 
``congestion that adversely affects consumers'' as used in FPA section 
216(a)(2), the Department concludes that the term includes congestion 
that is persistent. Thus, the Department believes that FPA section 
216(a) gives the Secretary the discretion to designate a National 
Corridor upon a showing of the existence of persistent congestion, 
without any additional demonstration of adverse effects on consumers. 
However, as discussed below, whether the Secretary should exercise his 
discretion to designate a National Corridor in a given instance of 
congestion is a separate question.
    With regard to constraints that adversely affect consumers, one way 
in which a constraint can adversely affect consumers is by causing 
persistent congestion that in turn, as discussed above, adversely 
affects consumers. However, the Department agrees with those commenters 
who argue that the Secretary's authority is not limited to areas where 
congestion presently exists. If Congress had intended to limit the 
Secretary's designation authority over constraints to cases where 
constraints are currently causing congestion, then there would have 
been no need for the statutory language to refer to ``any geographic 
area experiencing electric energy transmission constraints or 
congestion that adversely affects consumers.'' See 16 U.S.C. 824p(a)(2) 
(emphasis added). Further, the Department agrees with those commenters 
who argued that the total absence of a line connecting two nodes can be 
just as, if not more, limiting to consumers than the presence of a line 
that is operating at capacity and, therefore, constraints include the 
absence of transmission equipment between two or more nodes.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ A node is the physical location on the transmission system 
where energy is, or will be, injected by generators or withdrawn by 
loads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Constraints limit access to power sources. Further, the existence 
of a constraint can hinder the development of new power sources, since 
project sponsors may not be able to obtain the financing they need if 
there is uncertainty over the degree to which their electricity could 
be delivered to consumers. Again, the Department is not attempting in 
this notice to define the complete scope of the term ``constraints that 
adversely affect consumers'' as used in FPA section 216(a)(2). However, 
the Department concludes that the term includes not only constraints 
that cause persistent congestion, but also constraints that hinder the 
development or delivery of a generation source that is in the public 
interest. Thus, the Department believes that FPA section 216(a) gives 
the Secretary the discretion to designate a National Corridor upon a 
showing of the existence of a constraint, including the total absence 
of a transmission line, that is hindering the development or delivery 
of one or more generation sources that is in the public interest, 
regardless of whether there is congestion and without the need for any 
additional demonstration of adverse effects on consumers.\15\ This 
interpretation of the term ``constraints or congestion that adversely 
affects consumers,'' which allows for a National Corridor designation 
when there is a constraint that adversely affects consumers even though 
there is no present congestion, is appropriate because it gives meaning 
to all of the terms used in the statutory provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ As the Department is not issuing any draft National 
Corridors today based on the existence of constraints in the absence 
of persistent congestion, it is unnecessary in this notice to reach 
the question of the type of information that would be required to 
demonstrate that a constraint is hindering the development or 
delivery of a generation source that is in the public interest. 
However, the Department notes that the considerations identified in 
FPA section 216(a)(4) provide some examples of generation sources 
the development of which would be in the public interest, including 
sources that are needed to ensure adequate or reasonably priced 
electricity, sources that are needed for diversification of supply, 
sources that would promote energy independence, sources that would 
further national energy policy, or sources that would enhance 
national defense and homeland security. There may, however, be other 
generation sources the development of which would be in the public 
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, this interpretation of the statute answers the 
concerns of those commenters who question whether the statute 
authorizes designation of National Corridors in the Conditional Areas 
of Concern based solely on projections of future congestion. The 
Congestion Study identified several Conditional Areas of Concern 
``where future congestion would result if large amounts of new 
generation were to be developed without simultaneous development of 
associated transmission capacity.'' The Secretary is taking no action 
with respect to those areas at this time. Nevertheless, were the 
Secretary to designate a National Corridor for one of those areas, the 
Secretary would need only to demonstrate the existence of a constraint 
that was hindering the development or delivery of a generation source 
that is in the public interest, and would not need to rely on 
demonstrations of future, or even present, congestion.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Because the Department is not issuing any draft National 
Corridor designations based solely on projections of future 
congestion (without any showing of a constraint that adversely 
affects consumers), it is not necessary to determine now the extent 
of its authority to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department's interpretation of the scope of the Secretary's 
authority is consistent with the objective and structure of the 
statute. FPA section 216(a), as well as other provisions of EPAct,\17\ 
evince concern about the need to strengthen transmission infrastructure 
throughout the Nation. The Department concludes that a broad 
interpretation of the Secretary's discretion to designate National 
Corridors is consistent with that concern, particularly given the 
effect of a National Corridor designation, as discussed in Section I.A 
above. Given the statutory limitations on the exercise of FERC's 
permitting authority, there is no need to interpret narrowly the 
Secretary's National Corridor designation authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See, e.g., EPAct sec. 1241 (requiring FERC to establish 
rules to promote capital investment in transmission); EPAct sec. 
1233 (requiring FERC to exercise its authority in a manner that 
facilitates planning and expansion of transmission to meet the needs 
of load-serving entities); EPAct sec. 368 (requiring the designation 
of energy right-of-way corridors across Federal lands for electric 
transmission and other energy projects); FPA sec. 216(h) 
(establishing procedures to ensure timely and efficient review of 
proposed transmission projects by Federal agencies); and EPAct sec. 
1222 (giving additional authority for Western Area Power 
Administration and Southwestern Power Administration to participate 
with other entities in the development of transmission).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the Department concludes that the Secretary has broad 
authority to designate National Corridors, FPA

[[Page 25845]]

section 216(a) does not require the Secretary, under any circumstances, 
to make a National Corridor designation. Rather, in recognition of the 
Department's expertise, the statute leaves to the Secretary's judgment 
which geographic areas experiencing constraints or congestion adversely 
affecting consumers to designate as National Corridors. The Department 
recognizes that FPA section 216(a) adopted a novel approach to 
addressing the need for new transmission infrastructure, an approach 
that poses challenges to all stakeholders as we collectively work to 
address this problem. Therefore, the Secretary intends to proceed 
carefully in the exercise of his discretion to designate National 
Corridors. As evidenced by the specific draft designations set forth 
below, the Department is not starting the process of designating 
National Corridors at the outer limits of its authority. The Congestion 
Study identified two Critical Congestion Areas, and today's notice 
issues two draft National Corridors to address them. These draft 
National Corridors are based on the existence of well-known, persistent 
congestion that adversely affects large numbers of consumers.
    Finally, the Department does not believe it is necessary to develop 
a specific and finite set of criteria to guide the exercise of the 
Secretary's discretion. Instead, the most reasonable interpretation of 
FPA section 216 is that the Secretary may make National Corridor 
designations based on the totality of the information developed, taking 
into account relevant considerations, including the considerations 
identified in FPA section 216(a)(4), as appropriate.

B. Analysis of Potential Solutions

Summary of Comments
    The Department received comments on whether a National Corridor 
designation should be based on an analysis of potential solutions to an 
identified congestion problem. Many commenters, including the National 
Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC), the New York 
Public Service Commission (NYPSC), and the New Jersey Board of Public 
Utilities (NJBPU), argued that the Department should conduct a cost/
benefit analysis of transmission solutions as well as non-transmission 
solutions to relieving congestion before designating a National 
Corridor; otherwise, they contend, the designation would unfairly skew 
the playing field in favor of transmission solutions.\18\ For example, 
the NJBPU and PSEG argued that without such an analysis, National 
Corridor designation may lead to preemptive siting of long-haul rate-
based transmission projects intended to move power from remote 
generating sources to load centers, and thus distort or destroy market 
signals for local developers of generation, demand response resources, 
and improvements to local distribution systems. NYPSC and the New York 
Independent System Operator (NYISO)\19\ urged the Department to analyze 
the potential market impact of a National Corridor designation, because 
the very act of designating a National Corridor could cause downstream 
project developers to abandon already-planned facilities. Consolidated 
Edison Company of New York, Inc., and Orange and Rockland Utilities, 
Inc. (collectively ConEd) and NJBPU expressed concern about whether a 
National Corridor would disadvantage local generation to the detriment 
of reliability, noting that remote generation cannot provide the same 
level of voltage support and other ancillary services that local 
generation can. Numerous individuals who commented in opposition to 
specific transmission projects asserted that the Department has an 
obligation under FPA section 216 to consider alternatives to building 
new transmission lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See also comments of EPSA, Northern Indiana Public Service 
Company, Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (ODEC), OMS, Piedmont 
Environmental Council (PEC), PSEG, The Wilderness Society 
(Wilderness), and many individuals.
    \19\ NYISO is the ISO serving New York State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the other hand, numerous commenters argued that the Department 
should not engage in analysis of possible solutions to congestion. 
These commenters noted that the Department's role is to identify areas 
where congestion and constraints exist, whereas other entities, 
including State siting authorities, regional planning entities, market 
participants, and under some circumstances FERC will consider the 
relevant solutions. These commenters cautioned that any such analysis 
by the Department would unnecessarily delay the designation 
process.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See, e.g., comments of FirstEnergy, National Grid, and 
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE Response
    The Department disagrees with those commenters who argue that a 
National Corridor designation is warranted only if the Department has 
demonstrated that transmission is the best, or at least a cost-
effective, solution to an identified congestion problem. Nothing in FPA 
section 216 requires or envisions that the Department make such a 
demonstration. In fact, the preparation of a transmission cost-benefit 
analysis by the Department would be inconsistent with the very role 
that the statute assigns to the Department. As discussed in Section I.A 
above, the Department's role under FPA section 216 is to identify 
constraint or congestion problems and their geographic locations; the 
statute does not call for the Department to analyze and decide upon 
solutions. While FPA section 216(a)(2) does call for the Secretary to 
consider ``alternatives and recommendations from interested parties'' 
before making a National Corridor designation, the reference to 
``alternatives and recommendations from interested parties'' in this 
provision is ambiguous. In light of the statutory framework, the 
Department concludes that the term ``alternatives and recommendations 
from interested parties'' is intended to refer to comments suggesting 
National Corridor designations for different congestion or constraint 
problems, comments suggesting alternative boundaries for specific 
National Corridors, as well as comments suggesting that the Department 
refrain from designating a National Corridor.
    The Department acknowledges that transmission expansion is but one 
possible solution to a congestion or constraint problem; increased 
demand response, improved energy efficiency, and conservation, as well 
as siting of additional generation close to load centers are also 
potential solutions. However, given the effect of a National Corridor 
designation and the existing obligations of State and Federal siting 
authorities as discussed in Section I.A above, there is no need for the 
Department to undertake an analysis of transmission solutions and non-
transmission solutions or to speculate about any theoretical indirect 
effects a National Corridor designation would have on the market. 
Indeed, the Department believes that expanding its role to include 
making findings on the optimal remedy for congestion could supplant or 
otherwise duplicate the traditional roles of States and other entities.

C. Cost Allocation

Summary of Comments
    The Congestion Study solicited comment on how the costs of proposed 
transmission should be allocated. A few commenters argued that the 
Department

[[Page 25846]]

should consider cost allocation when deciding whether to make a 
National Corridor designation, and offered recommendations on specific 
cost allocation structures.\21\ For example, Montana-Dakota Utilities 
Co. argued that the Department should only designate National Corridors 
where the resulting transmission facilities would be paid for on a 
beneficiary-pays, rather than a postage-stamp, basis. NRECA supported 
rolled-in rate treatment for projects that serve native load network 
customers. However, the majority of those who provided comment on cost 
allocation issues urged against the Department considering those issues 
in the FPA section 216(a) process.\22\ These commenters noted that 
FERC, rather than the Department, has jurisdiction over cost allocation 
for transmission projects, and argued that cost allocation was not 
relevant to National Corridor designation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See comments of PSEG, ODEC, and J. Hayden.
    \22\ See, e.g., comments of Allegheny Power, American Electric 
Power (AEP), Arizona Public Service Company (APS), ConEd, Duke 
Energy Corporation (Duke), EEI, FirstEnergy, LS Power, National 
Commission on Energy Policy (NCEP), National Grid, and OMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE Response
    The Department agrees with those commenters who argue that the 
analysis of whether to designate a National Corridor should not include 
consideration of how the costs for new transmission facilities will be 
allocated. While cost allocation issues can be critically important to 
determining whether, when, and where specific transmission projects are 
developed, those issues are not relevant to the Secretary's role under 
FPA section 216(a) of identifying geographic areas where congestion or 
constraints are adversely affecting consumers.

D. Regional Planning and Local Siting

Summary of Comments
    The Department received comments on the relevance of regional 
planning processes to National Corridor designation. FirstEnergy argued 
that in general, in RTO regions, National Corridors should be 
designated when a transmission facility would relieve congestion in an 
identified congestion area and the facility has been recognized as 
needed for reliability in an RTO's transmission planning and expansion 
process. The Midwest ISO argued that the Department should wait to 
designate a National Corridor until a suitable planning solution is 
proposed within an identified congestion area. NARUC argued that the 
Department should grant deference to the results of adequate regional 
planning processes. Other commenters, for example NYPSC, also 
recommended that the Department should coordinate its designations with 
regional planning processes.
    On the other hand, some commenters expressed concern about the 
Department relying too much on RTO input regarding designation of 
National Corridors. For example, ODEC argued that while RTOs provide a 
forum within which public and well-vetted transmission planning could 
occur, at this time they lack procedures needed to ensure that such 
planning would actually occur. ABB expressed concern about the 
fragmented nature of the studies performed by RTOs.
    OMS argued that any designation must be based on the existence of 
siting barriers. For example, OMS asserted that if needed transmission 
is not being constructed due to cost recovery or other non-siting 
uncertainties, then a designation is inappropriate. According to OMS, 
designation is only appropriate when a National Corridor is truly 
necessary to solve a congestion problem of national significance, when 
the congestion problem is persistent, and when the prior failure to 
develop a solution is the result of siting problems. 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. 
CPUC argued that it is, first of all, up to the States and the regions 
to solve their transmission planning and siting problems, and Federal 
agencies should not intervene unless and until there is a demonstrated 
need for them to do so. CPUC further asserted that designation of a 
National Corridor in connection with any large multi-state project is 
likely to delay project siting, because of litigation and conflict it 
would produce. CEC commented that Federal back-stop siting would be 
beneficial where the State has been unable to make progress in 
approving vital transmission projects.
    PAPUC argued that the Department should not make any designation 
that does not clearly identify the national interests requiring 
protection and without making findings of fact that those interests are 
better served by a National Corridor designation than by another 
approach that would be less intrusive of State laws and policies. NYISO 
urged the Department to designate National Corridors with care so as 
not to usurp arbitrarily State siting authority. On the other hand, the 
Midwest ISO argued that the Department should not wait until local 
siting has become problematic, given the effect of a National Corridor 
designation.
DOE Response
    The Department disagrees with those commenters who suggest that the 
Department defer making a National Corridor designation either until 
siting problems have already manifested themselves or until a regional 
planning process proposes a solution to the congestion or constraint 
problem. Nothing in FPA section 216 requires or envisions that the 
Department adopt a wait-and-see approach to National Corridor 
designation. FPA section 216 empowers the Department to make 
designations when it finds constraints or congestion adversely 
affecting consumers, a finding that is not dependent on actions that 
others (e.g., transmission owners, regional planners, or States) may 
take to remedy those constraints or congestion. The Department fully 
supports such entities taking aggressive action to remedy congestion 
and nothing in a National Corridor designation conflicts with their 
ability to do so. Moreover, acting in parallel with the efforts of 
other entities is consistent with Congressional intent in enacting 
EPAct, which emphasizes the immediate need for new investment in 
transmission. Delaying action by the Department until action by all 
others is exhausted would not be consistent with this intent, nor with 
the Nation's pressing need for new transmission.
    Moreover, the statute provides a specific mechanism by which States 
can insulate themselves from the FERC permitting provisions of FPA 
section 216(b). FPA section 216(i)(1) provides that three or more 
contiguous States may enter into interstate compacts establishing 
regional transmission siting agencies. 16 U.S.C. 824p(i)(1). Such 
regional transmission siting agencies would then have authority to site 
transmission facilities in National Corridors. FPA section 216(i)(3); 
16 U.S.C. 824p(i)(3). Further, FERC would have no authority to issue a 
transmission permit within a State that is party to such a compact 
unless the members of the compact were in disagreement and the 
Secretary, after notice and opportunity for hearing, made a finding 
that the conditions of FPA section 216(b)(1)(C) were met. FPA section 
216(i)(4); 16 U.S.C. 824p(i)(4). In light of this mechanism, as well as 
the other statutory limitations on FERC's permitting authority 
discussed in Section I.A above, the Department concludes it would be 
inappropriate for it to limit itself to designating National Corridors 
where States have either

[[Page 25847]]

failed to act or have already developed a preferred solution.
    The Department supports and encourages regional planning efforts. A 
National Corridor designation neither dictates nor bars any solution 
that might be considered in a regional planning process. The Department 
intends to draw the boundaries of any National Corridor so as to 
encompass a range of potential transmission solutions. In the event 
that a regional planning process concludes that a modification to an 
existing National Corridor designation is needed, the Department will 
consider such a request.

III. Defining National Corridor Boundaries

Summary of Comments

    In the Congestion Study, the Department solicited comment on how, 
where, and on what basis to establish the boundaries of a National 
Corridor. One approach identified in the Congestion Study would use 
specific transmission projects to define National Corridor boundaries. 
Under this approach, a proponent of a National Corridor would identify 
a specific project that could serve as a solution to the underlying 
congestion or constraint problem, an approximate centerline for the 
project would be identified, and the National Corridor boundary would 
be banded around that centerline. A number of commenters, including 
EEI, AEP, and Allegheny Power (Allegheny), supported this approach.
    Some commenters supported a project-based approach provided that 
there was some sort of independent review of the project. For example, 
ODEC argued that an open stakeholder process should first identify and 
vet conceptual projects and then make National Corridor boundary 
recommendations to the Department for those projects. Southern 
California Edison Company (SCE) argued that National Corridor 
boundaries should be tailored to aid in the construction of specific 
viable transmission projects approved through a regional planning 
process. CREPC stated that the delineation of National Corridor 
boundaries should be informed by a detailed analysis of congestion 
mitigation options.
    Several commenters raised the possibility of an incremental process 
for setting National Corridor boundaries, under which the Secretary 
would first make a designation of a broad area, and then as specific 
transmission proposals are developed and presented for review by 
appropriate authorities, the Secretary would narrow the boundaries.\23\ 
Commenters who supported a project-based approach emphasized that 
National Corridor boundaries drawn in such manner should not dictate a 
particular line route, but rather should be drawn broadly enough to 
allow for consideration of alternative alignments during the siting 
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See, e.g., comments of APS, Wyoming Infrastructure 
Authority, and Great Northern Properties, L.P. and Great Northern 
Power Development, L.P.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the other hand, some commenters opposed the project-centerline 
approach to developing National Corridor boundaries. For example, PAPUC 
argued that such an approach would involve the Secretary in siting 
decisions of the sort that Congress did not intend and for which the 
Department lacks expertise. OMS opposed National Corridor designation 
for particular projects. A number of commenters supported use of a non-
project-based approach either instead of or in addition to a project-
based approach. FirstEnergy suggested that in the absence of a specific 
project, a National Corridor could be drawn by means of a radius around 
the congested area. However, most commenters who supported a non-
project-based approach recommended that the Department use a source-
and-sink approach to setting National Corridor boundaries, in which the 
Department would identify a sink (the congested or constrained load 
area) and a source (an area of potential supply), and then draw a 
National Corridor connecting these two areas.\24\ AEP's version of a 
source-and-sink approach looks at three factors: the area of potential 
generation resources, the critically congested load area, and the 
transmission deficiencies between the two areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See, e.g., comments of PAPUC, OMS, and National Grid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters supported the specification of precise 
boundaries for National Corridors. For example, Allegheny argued that 
specific boundaries are needed so that the project sponsor would know 
whether its project is encompassed within a National Corridor, FERC 
could readily determine the geographic scope of its potential 
jurisdiction, and land owners would know whether their property may be 
subject to the Federal exercise of eminent domain. However, OMS argued 
that instead of setting specific perimeter boundaries, the Department 
should identify source and sink areas, define the goal of the National 
Corridor, and then limit the National Corridor designation to those 
projects that further that goal. OMS expressed concern that delineation 
of specific boundaries could have the effect of establishing Federal 
transmission line corridors within States, and notes that just because 
a proposed project is located within a National Corridor it should not 
be assumed to address the concerns that lead to the designation of the 
National Corridor.
    With regard to drawing the specific perimeters of a National 
Corridor, Allegheny argued for using existing or proposed originating, 
intermediate, and terminating substations for proposed lines identified 
by planning studies. Numerous commenters argued that the Secretary 
should draw National Corridor boundaries to exclude parks and other 
environmentally protected areas.\25\ Some commenters, including CEC, 
Imperial Irrigation District (IID) and the Appalachian