Overview
Title
To amend the Federal Power Act to prohibit the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from issuing permits for the construction or modification of electric transmission facilities in a State over the objection of the State, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 9603 is like a rule that says if a state doesn't want new electricity towers and wires, then the people in charge can't build them there. It also wants to make sure farmers and people who own the land are treated fairly if these projects need to happen.
Summary AI
H.R. 9603, introduced in the House of Representatives, proposes changes to the Federal Power Act to stop the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) from issuing permits for electric transmission facilities in a state if the state objects. The bill aims to protect farmers and landowners by ensuring that any proposed electric transmission projects minimize harm to agriculture and provide more benefits than harm. It prevents FERC from considering permits for projects similar to ones already denied or under current state review. Additionally, the bill requires FERC to submit annual public reports on their actions related to such projects, focusing on impacts to landowners and efforts to mitigate any negative effects.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
House Bill 9603 aims to amend the Federal Power Act by limiting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) ability to issue permits for the construction or modification of interstate electric transmission facilities if a state objects. Dubbed the “Protecting Our Farmers from the Green New Deal Act,” it seeks to safeguard the interests of farmers and landowners by ensuring local state regulators have the final say. The bill highlights that before transmission projects can go forward, they must not only avoid adverse effects on landowners but also demonstrate that they provide more benefits than harms.
Summary of Significant Issues
One significant issue with this bill is the potential delay in crucial energy infrastructure development due to the stipulation in Section 3 that prevents FERC from reviewing applications that states have denied or are actively reviewing. Additionally, the bill's terms like "adequately compensates" and "substantially similar application" are vague, which could lead to legal and interpretative disputes. Likewise, the definition of adverse effects and how they are to be calculated is not clarified, which might lead to inconsistent application of the bill's provisions. Furthermore, there might be challenges related to jurisdictional disputes due to the undefined term "committees of jurisdiction."
Impact on the Public
Broadly, this bill could slow down the advancement of necessary energy infrastructure, potentially impacting energy supply and economic progress negatively. With states having the authority to veto such projects, there might be regional disparities in the development of renewable energy infrastructure based on local legislative priorities.
On the positive side, the bill reflects a commitment to local autonomy and ensures that large projects consider the interests of state residents and landowners. This could strengthen the relationship between state governments and constituents by ensuring local voices are heard in decision-making processes regarding land use and development.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For farmers and landowners, this bill appears designed to protect their rights by ensuring their land isn't used for national projects without adequate consultation and compensation. However, the bill's ambiguities might leave room for disputes on what constitutes "adequate" compensation, thus creating financial uncertainties for landowners.
For energy developers and companies, this bill introduces an increased complexity in project siting. It could heighten the risk of project delays and increased costs as they navigate both state and federal regulatory landscapes, potentially impacting investment in renewable energy projects.
State governments would gain more control over energy projects within their borders, potentially enhancing their strategic energy planning and ensuring projects align better with state environmental goals and land use plans.
In conclusion, while the bill prioritizes local control and attempts to align large infrastructure projects with local interests, its ambiguous language and potential for delaying critical energy developments pose challenges that could affect its successful implementation and the broader transition to renewable energy infrastructure.
Issues
The prohibition in SEC. 3(a)(5)(2)(B) that prevents the Commission from reviewing applications if a State entity is currently reviewing a similar application could delay important infrastructure developments, potentially impacting energy supply and economic progress adversely.
The phrase 'adequately compensates landowners and agricultural producers for any harms' in SEC. 3(a)(4)(C) lacks specific criteria, leading to potential legal disputes over what constitutes adequate compensation, thereby creating financial and ethical concerns.
The section 2 Purpose statement is broad and lacks specificity, potentially leading to vague policy guidance, especially regarding how farmers and landowners will be protected, which could raise political concerns over effectiveness.
In SEC. 3(a)(2), the language regarding what constitutes an 'identical or substantially similar' application is ambiguous, leading to possible legal disputes or interpretation issues that could affect the implementation of the bill.
The report requirement in SEC. 4 lacks a clear methodology for assessing adverse effects and the terms used like 'minimize,' 'compensate,' and 'benefit' are broad, leading to potential inconsistent application and political debate over the protection of stakeholders.
The term 'committees of jurisdiction' in SEC. 4 could lead to jurisdictional disputes, impacting legislative processes and oversight effectiveness, creating political conflicts.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the bill is about its title, allowing it to be referred to as the “Protecting Our Farmers from the Green New Deal Act.”
2. Purpose Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The purpose of this section is to protect farmers and landowners by making sure electric transmission lines can't be built on their land without the approval of State regulators. This aims to prevent national projects from overriding local objections.
3. Siting of interstate electric transmission facilities Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The proposed changes to the Federal Power Act focus on the process of approving sites for interstate electric transmission facilities. They clarify that if a state doesn't have the authority to approve the siting, certain requirements must be met, such as minimizing impacts on landowners and ensuring benefits exceed harms. Additionally, the federal commission cannot review applications if a state has already denied or is reviewing a similar application.
4. Report Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
In this section, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is required to submit an annual report to specific Congressional committees, detailing its actions under the Federal Power Act. The report must explain any negative impacts on private landowners and farmers, how those impacts were considered, and the steps FERC has taken to minimize them, provide compensation, and ensure affected people benefit from related projects.