< Back to Current Version

Electricity Transmission Permitting Reform: Issues and Legislative Proposals

Changes from May 24, 2024 to November 19, 2025

This page shows textual changes in the document between the two versions indicated in the dates above. Textual matter removed in the later version is indicated with red strikethrough and textual matter added in the later version is indicated with blue.

Electricity Transmission Permitting Reform
May 24, 2024
Proposals
Ashley J. Lawson
Permitting reform has been a topic of debate in the 118th Congress. One aspect of this debate
Specialist in Energy Policy
addresses

Electricity Transmission Permitting Reform: Issues and Legislative Proposals

Updated November 19, 2025 (R47627) Jump to Main Text of Report

Summary

Permitting reform for energy infrastructure continues to be a topic of interest in Congress. Some Members of Congress are particularly interested in the processes for planning, siting, approving, and paying for electricity transmission the processes for planning, siting, approving, and paying for electricity transmission

lines (lines (broadly referred to as transmission permitting in this report). Proponents of transmission referred to as transmission permitting in this report). Proponents of transmission
permitting reform generally identify two main desired outcomes: (1) increased use of wind and permitting reform generally identify two main desired outcomes: (1) increased use of wind and

solar energy and (2) improved electric reliability and resilience. Debate has focused on perceived solar energy and (2) improved electric reliability and resilience. Debate has focused on perceived
hurdles to the development of largehurdles to the development of large, interstate electricity transmission lines interstate electricity transmission lines, which are broadly viewed as being supportive of which are broadly viewed as being supportive of
these two desired outcomes.these two desired outcomes.
One perceived hurdle is the process for siting electricity transmission lines (i.e., approving their route and authorizing One perceived hurdle is the process for siting electricity transmission lines (i.e., approving their route and authorizing
construction). Currently, most electricity transmission siting authority resides in the states. A transmission line crossing state construction). Currently, most electricity transmission siting authority resides in the states. A transmission line crossing state
lines may require approvals from multiple state governments along the linelines may require approvals from multiple state governments along the line’'s path. Critics argue s path. Critics argue that the current framework adds the current framework adds
time to the transmission development process and can allow a single state to block a transmission project that is supported by time to the transmission development process and can allow a single state to block a transmission project that is supported by
neighboring jurisdictions. In 2005, Congress gave the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)neighboring jurisdictions. In 2005, Congress gave the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), in conjunction with in conjunction with
the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), limited authority to site some transmission lines under certain circumstances, but this limited authority to site some transmission lines under certain circumstances, but this
authority was never used. Congress amended FERCauthority was never used. Congress amended FERC’'s siting authority in 2021. DOE and FERC s siting authority in 2021. DOE and FERC are currently takinghave taken steps to steps to
implement this revised authorityimplement this revised authority, but the process remains unfinalized. Some transmission permitting reform . Some transmission permitting reform legislative proposalsproponents would further amend this would further amend this
authority, for example, by granting siting authority for all large interstate transmission lines to FERC. authority, for example, by granting siting authority for all large interstate transmission lines to FERC. A key point of debate
around these proposals isDebate centers around the appropriate the appropriate role of the roles of federal and state governments over electricity transmission line siting. federal and state governments over electricity transmission line siting.
Some would have the federal government take a larger role, while others would preserve the status quoSome would have the federal government take a larger role, while others would preserve the status quo whereby states have
siting authority in most cases.
. A second perceived hurdle is the allocation of electricity transmission line costs to A second perceived hurdle is the allocation of electricity transmission line costs to customersconsumers. A central tenet for electricity . A central tenet for electricity
regulators is that the regulators is that the beneficiarybeneficiaries of new electricity infrastructure should pay for that infrastructure (sometimes referred to as of new electricity infrastructure should pay for that infrastructure (sometimes referred to as
the the cost causation principle). Under current practice, transmission beneficiaries are typically identified using easily quantified principle). Under current practice, transmission beneficiaries are typically identified using easily quantified
factors such as delivery of lower-cost electricity to a particular utility service territory. Costs for transmission development factors such as delivery of lower-cost electricity to a particular utility service territory. Costs for transmission development
are allocated exclusively to these identified beneficiaries. Some transmission permitting reform are allocated exclusively to these identified beneficiaries. Some transmission permitting reform proposals would allocate
costs to a broader set of customers (based on a broader view of transmission benefits) andproponents would additionally consider would additionally consider
benefits that may be difficult to quantifybenefits that may be difficult to quantify, such as resilience. A key point of debate . A key point of debate around these proposals is the appropriate balance of costs and is the appropriate balance of costs and
benefits for consumers. Some believe that identifying a broader set of benefits and beneficiaries would encourage benefits for consumers. Some believe that identifying a broader set of benefits and beneficiaries would encourage
development of beneficial transmission lines that development of beneficial transmission lines that maymight not be identified using current cost allocation practices. Others believe not be identified using current cost allocation practices. Others believe
that changing cost allocation practices could increase costs for consumers without providing direct benefits.that changing cost allocation practices could increase costs for consumers without providing direct benefits.
A third perceived hurdle is the planning process for multistate electricity transmission lines. Since 2011, FERC has required A third perceived hurdle is the planning process for multistate electricity transmission lines. Since 2011, FERC has required
some planning within transmission planning regionssome planning within transmission planning regions as well as coordination between regions. Some stakeholders believe FERC requirements have been ineffective at . Some stakeholders believe FERC requirements have been ineffective at
encouraging large interstate electricity transmission lines. Some encouraging large interstate electricity transmission lines. Some proposalstransmission permitting reform proponents would strengthen requirements for would strengthen requirements for regional
interregional transmission planning and transmission planning and add requirements for interregional transmission planninginfrastructure development. Some proposals would additionally . Some proposals would additionally
require minimum levels of require minimum levels of electricity sharing (transfer capacity)interregional transfer capacity to allow larger electricity transfers between regions. Key points of debate between regions. Key points of debate around these
proposals are costs and benefits for consumers are costs and benefits for consumers as well asand the appropriate the appropriate roleroles of federal versus state and local governments in of federal versus state and local governments in
determining electricity transmission needs. Some believe a stronger federal policy supporting interregional electricity determining electricity transmission needs. Some believe a stronger federal policy supporting interregional electricity
transmission could potentially lower costs for consumers and improve reliability and resilience. Others believe the current transmission could potentially lower costs for consumers and improve reliability and resilience. Others believe the current
process sufficiently identifies benefits for consumers and allows state regulators greater say in transmission development.process sufficiently identifies benefits for consumers and allows state regulators greater say in transmission development.
This report compares provisions addressing these and other selected electricity transmission topics in 12 permitting reform
proposals in the 118th Congress and the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (P.L. 118-5) which requires a study of interregional
transfer capacity. Separate from legislative proposals, FERC revised its transmission planning regulations in May 2024,
partially addressing some of the topics identified in this report. Congress could consider conducting oversight of the new
FERC regulations, which are expected to take several years to fully implement. Congress also could consider legislation
directing FERC to take specific actions regarding transmission permitting.

Congressional Research Service

link to page 4 link to page 4 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 8 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 15 Electricity Transmission Permitting Reform Proposals

Contents
Current Electricity Transmission Policy Issues ............................................................................... 1
Siting Authority ......................................................................................................................... 1
Cost Allocation .......................................................................................................................... 3
Interregional Transmission Planning ......................................................................................... 3
Other Issues ............................................................................................................................... 4
FERC Activities ............................................................................................................................... 4
Legislative Proposals and FERC Order No. 1920 ........................................................................... 5
Biden Administration Priorities ...................................................................................................... 11
Concluding Observations ............................................................................................................... 11

Tables
Table 1. Selected Electricity Transmission Provisions in Selected Legislative Proposals,
Enacted Legislation, and FERC Order No. 1920 ......................................................................... 7

Contacts
Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 12

Congressional Research Service

Electricity Transmission Permitting Reform Proposals

ultiple proposals for permitting reform have been put forward in the 118th Congress, and
some

This report lists and summarizes bills in the 119th Congress addressing these and other aspects of electricity transmission development and regulation. An appendix compares selected proposals from the 118th Congress.

Permitting reform for energy infrastructure is a topic of interest in the 119th Congress, as it has been for a number of years prior. Multiple proposals were put forward in the 118th Congress, some of which were adopted in the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (P.L. 118-5 were adopted in the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (P.L. 118-5).1).1 In the current In the current
M policy context, the term policy context, the term permit is commonly used in a broad sense to refer to a number is commonly used in a broad sense to refer to a number
of federal permits, approvals, authorizations, or other forms of consent around infrastructure of federal permits, approvals, authorizations, or other forms of consent around infrastructure
development. Likewise, this report uses the development. Likewise, this report uses the term permitterms permit and permitting in a broad sense. Permitting reform in a broad sense. Permitting reform
proposals address electricity transmission in various ways. This report discusses current issues in proposals address electricity transmission in various ways. This report discusses current issues in
the debate around transmission permitting and summarizes the key transmission provisions in
major permitting reform bills introduced to date in the 118th Congress. Additionally, this report
summarizes modifications the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) made to its
transmission permitting rules in May 2024.
the debate around transmission permitting with a focus on legislative proposals and regulatory actions by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Much congressional interest in electricity transmission Much congressional interest in electricity transmission permitting lies in issues other than permitslies in issues other than permits per se. .
Nonetheless, this report uses the term Nonetheless, this report uses the term transmission permitting reform to refer to proposals to to refer to proposals to
change any aspect of transmission planning, siting, approval, cost allocation, and other change any aspect of transmission planning, siting, approval, cost allocation, and other
transmission-related issues and processes. This transmission-related issues and processes. This approach is consistent with the common use of
terms in the current policy discussion. This report focuses on topics in FERCreport focuses on topics in FERC’'s jurisdiction and s jurisdiction and
does not cover topics related to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)does not cover topics related to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or other
environmental protection statutes.
, federal environmental protection statutes, or state policies. Background information on electricity transmission is available in the following CRS resources:Background information on electricity transmission is available in the following CRS resources:
• CRS In Focus IF12253, CRS In Focus IF12253, Introduction to Electricity Transmission
• CRS Report R47862, CRS Report R47862, Electricity Transmission: What Is the Role of the Federal
Government?, by Ashley J. Lawson and Adam Vann, by Ashley J. Lawson and Adam Vann
• CRS Report R47521, CRS Report R47521, Electricity: Overview and Issues for Congress
•
  • CRS Legal Sidebar LSB11296, Federalism and the Electricity Markets: Balancing National and Local Interests, by Adam Vann
    • CRS In Focus IF11257, CRS In Focus IF11257, Variable Renewable Energy: An Introduction
    • CRS Report R45764, CRS Report R45764, Maintaining Electric Reliability with Wind and Solar
    Sources: Background and Issues for Congress
    Current Electricity Transmission Policy Issues
    Proponents of transmission permitting reform generally identify two main desired outcomes: (1) Proponents of transmission permitting reform generally identify two main desired outcomes: (1)
    increased use of wind and solar energy and (2) improved electric reliability and resilience. To increased use of wind and solar energy and (2) improved electric reliability and resilience. To
    achieve these outcomes, a key goal of transmission permitting reform achieve these outcomes, a key goal of transmission permitting reform proponents is to support is to support
    increased development of large transmission lines crossing two or more states. These types of increased development of large transmission lines crossing two or more states. These types of
    transmission lines are widely viewed to be more beneficial than smaller, intrastate transmission transmission lines are widely viewed to be more beneficial than smaller, intrastate transmission
    lines with respect to the desired outcomes noted above.lines with respect to the desired outcomes noted above.
    Some industry participants and observers have identified a number of perceived barriers to the Some industry participants and observers have identified a number of perceived barriers to the
    development of large interstate transmission lines, as discussed below.development of large interstate transmission lines, as discussed below.
    Siting Authority
    Currently, most electricity transmission siting authority (i.e., authority to approve the route and Currently, most electricity transmission siting authority (i.e., authority to approve the route and
    authorize construction) resides in the states. A transmission line crossing state lines may require authorize construction) resides in the states. A transmission line crossing state lines may require
    approvals from multiple state governments along the lineapprovals from multiple state governments along the line’'s path. Transmission line developers s path. Transmission line developers
    may need additional approvals from local or tribal governments, depending on the path of the may need additional approvals from local or tribal governments, depending on the path of the

    1 For an overview of permitting reform provisions adopted in the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (P.L. 118-5) see
    CRS In Focus IF12417, Environmental Reviews and the 118th Congress, by Kristen Hite.
    Congressional Research Service

    1
    link to page 7 Electricity Transmission Permitting Reform Proposals

    line.2 Critics argue the current framework adds timeline.2 Critics of the current framework argue that these multiple approvals add time and uncertainty to the transmission development process and to the transmission development process and
    can allow a single state or other government to block a transmission project that is supported by can allow a single state or other government to block a transmission project that is supported by
    neighboring jurisdictions. Others argue that the current framework protects the ability of states neighboring jurisdictions. Others argue that the current framework protects the ability of states
    and other governments to approve (or disapprove) infrastructure and other governments to approve (or disapprove) infrastructure that is inbased on the best the best interestinterests of their of their
    citizens.citizens.
    The Energy Policy Act of 2005 added Section 216 of the Federal Power Act (FPAThe Energy Policy Act of 2005 added Section 216 of the Federal Power Act (FPA,; 16 U.S.C. 16 U.S.C.
    §824p), which carves out a limited role for FERC and other federal agencies in siting interstate §824p), which carves out a limited role for FERC and other federal agencies in siting interstate
    electric transmission facilities. electric transmission facilities. This sectionSection 216 authorizes the Secretary of Energy, in consultation authorizes the Secretary of Energy, in consultation
    with the affected states, to designate areas experiencing electricity transmission constraints or with the affected states, to designate areas experiencing electricity transmission constraints or
    congestion as National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETCs). The section grants congestion as National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETCs). The section grants
    FERC authority to issue permits for constructing interstate electricity transmission facilities in FERC authority to issue permits for constructing interstate electricity transmission facilities in
    designated NIETCs (commonly referred to as FERCdesignated NIETCs (commonly referred to as FERC’'s s backstop siting authority). As originally ). As originally
    enacted, this authority could be exercised only if the state that has authority to approve the enacted, this authority could be exercised only if the state that has authority to approve the
    facilities had facilities had “"withheld approval for more than one year.withheld approval for more than one year.”
    " Two judicial decisions hamstrung the exercise of the Section 216 authority granted in 2005 to the Two judicial decisions hamstrung the exercise of the Section 216 authority granted in 2005 to the
    agencies. In agencies. In Piedmont Environmental Council v. FERC (558 F.3d 304 ( (558 F.3d 304 (4th4th Cir. 2009)), the U.S. Cir. 2009)), the U.S.
    Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that FERC may not permit transmission facilities if a Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that FERC may not permit transmission facilities if a
    state has denied the applicantstate has denied the applicant’'s request to site transmission facilities; FERC may permit the s request to site transmission facilities; FERC may permit the
    transmission facilities only in the event the state has not acted on the applicanttransmission facilities only in the event the state has not acted on the applicant’'s request. And in s request. And in
    California Wilderness Coalition v. U.S. Dep’tartment of Energy (631 F.3d 1072 ( (631 F.3d 1072 (9th9th Cir. 2011)), the U.S. Cir. 2011)), the U.S.
    Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the Department of EnergyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the Department of Energy’'s first two NIETC s first two NIETC
    designations, finding that the agency had failed to consult adequately with the states as required designations, finding that the agency had failed to consult adequately with the states as required
    by the FPA. Since the Ninth Circuitby the FPA. Since the Ninth Circuit’'s 2011 decision, s 2011 decision, theno Secretary of Energy has made Secretary of Energy has made no further further
    NIETC designations.NIETC designations.
    In 2021, Congress amended FERCIn 2021, Congress amended FERC’'s backstop siting authority in the Infrastructure Investment s backstop siting authority in the Infrastructure Investment
    and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58) to address, among other things, the issues identified by the and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58) to address, among other things, the issues identified by the
    lawsuits.lawsuits.33 Under its amended authority, DOE released a guidance document for applicants in Under its amended authority, DOE released a guidance document for applicants in
    December 2023 and a preliminary list of December 2023 and a preliminary list of 10 potential NIETCs in May 2024.4 In December 2024, DOE narrowed the list of potential NIETCs to three: the Tribal Energy Access Corridor in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska; the Southwestern Grid Connector Corridor in Colorado, New Mexico, and Oklahoma; and the Lake Erie-Canada Corridor in Pennsylvania.5

    Also in May 2024, FERC revised its regulations implementing its backstop siting authority in response to IIJA.6 The extent to which FERC's revised backstop siting authority could affect transmission development remains unclear. IIJA does not require FERC to approve projects that states have denied. Instead, the backstop siting authority provides a "second chance" for projects that meet specified criteria if the projects do not receive approval from the applicable state governments. Potentially, transmission project developers and states will be encouraged to come to agreements about siting in order to avoid the federal process. Alternatively, transmission project developers may focus on project designs that are likely to be approved by FERC, regardless of state regulators' preferences. As of this report's publication date, DOE has not designated any NIETCs, so FERC's backstop siting authority is not in effect.

    Some transmission reform proponents want FERC to have primary siting authority for large interstate transmission lines (similar to FERC's siting authority for interstate natural gas pipelines under the Natural Gas Act), while preserving state siting authority for small transmission lines and lines that do not cross state borders.7 Proponents of this approach say that having a single federal approval process would speed the development of large interstate transmission lines compared to the status quo. Opponents say that states are better positioned to identify the best path for all transmission line development and to consider the interests of affected landowners.

    Cost Allocation A central tenet for electricity regulators is that the beneficiaries    potential NIETCs in May 2024.4 DOE expects to make
    final designations of NIETCs after additional public engagement and completion of any necessary
    environmental reviews.5 Similarly, FERC revised its regulations related to the backstop siting
    authority, as discussed in the section “FERC Activities.”
    Some transmission reform proposals would give FERC siting authority for large interstate
    transmission lines (in contrast to the status quo whereby states generally site such lines), while
    preserving state siting authority for small transmission lines and lines that do not cross state
    borders. Proponents of this approach say that having a single federal approval process would
    speed the development of large interstate transmission lines compared to the status quo.

    2 Siting approval is one of multiple permits that a transmission line may require. Some federal agencies may have
    authority to issue some of these permits, depending on the path of the line. Additional information about the role of
    federal agencies is in CRS Report R47862, Electricity Transmission: What Is the Role of the Federal Government?, by
    Ashley J. Lawson and Adam Vann.
    3 For a summary of changes made to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC’s) backstop siting authority,
    see CRS Report R47034, Energy and Minerals Provisions in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58),
    coordinated by Brent D. Yacobucci.
    4 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), “National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor Designation Process,”
    https://www.energy.gov/gdo/national-interest-electric-transmission-corridor-designation-process.
    5 DOE Guidance on Implementing Section 216(a) of the Federal Power Act to Designate National Interest Electric
    Transmission Corridors, December 19, 2023, pp. 35-43, https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-12/2023-12-
    15%20GDO%20NIETC%20Final%20Guidance%20Document.pdf.
    Congressional Research Service

    2
    link to page 7 Electricity Transmission Permitting Reform Proposals

    Opponents say that states are better positioned to identify the best path for all transmission line
    development. Another proposal would remove DOE’s role in determining NIETCs and leave
    FERC as the sole federal agency involved in federal backstop siting authority.
    Cost Allocation
    A central tenet for electricity regulators is that the beneficiary of new electricity infrastructure of new electricity infrastructure
    should pay for that infrastructure (should pay for that infrastructure (this is sometimes referred to as the sometimes referred to as the cost causation principle). FERC principle). FERC
    enforces this principle in its transmission cost allocation policies laid out in its enforces this principle in its transmission cost allocation policies laid out in its 2011 Order No. Order No.
    10001000, issued in 2011. The order specifies that costs must be allocated . The order specifies that costs must be allocated “"in a manner that is at least roughly in a manner that is at least roughly
    commensurate with estimated benefits.commensurate with estimated benefits.”6"8 A related principle (stated explicitly in Order No. 1000) A related principle (stated explicitly in Order No. 1000)
    is that customers is that customers thatwho do not benefit from transmission investments should not be required to do not benefit from transmission investments should not be required to
    cover those costs. Under current practice, transmission beneficiaries are typically identified using cover those costs. Under current practice, transmission beneficiaries are typically identified using
    easily quantified factors such as delivery of lower-cost electricity to a particular utility service easily quantified factors such as delivery of lower-cost electricity to a particular utility service
    territory. Costs for transmission development are allocated exclusively to these identified territory. Costs for transmission development are allocated exclusively to these identified
    beneficiaries.beneficiaries.
    Some transmission reform proponents want FERC policies to recognize broader categories of benefits, including some Some transmission reform proposals would shift some transmission cost allocation to less direct
    beneficiaries, either by considering a broader geographic spread of benefits or including benefits
    that are more difficult to quantify (e.g., resilience). Proponents of this approach say it would that are more difficult to quantify (e.g., resilience). Proponents of this approach say it would
    incentivize incentivize development of transmission projects with multiple values that might be overlooked in the current transmission projects with multiple values that might be overlooked in the current
    framework. Opponents say this could increase costs for some consumers without providing direct framework. Opponents say this could increase costs for some consumers without providing direct
    benefits.benefits.
    Interregional Transmission Planning
    Transmission planning—identifying needed upgrades or expansions to the transmission system—
    happens at the state level (for local projects) and at a multistate level (for regional projects).
    Transmission planning affects the kinds of transmission projects that are built in the future. Order
    No.1000 also addresses transmission planning, and aims in part to encourage Interregional Transmission

    FERC Order No. 1000 also required utilities to participate in regional transmission planning in multistate regions.9 Additionally, the order required transmission providers in neighboring regions to coordinate their planning processes, including planning for interregional transmission projects (i.e., transmission projects spanning more than one transmission planning region). Despite this requirement, few interregional transmission projects have been constructed since 2011. Numerous studies have found that increased interregional transmission could achieve the goals of transmission permitting reform, namely increased use of wind and solar energy and improved reliability and resilience.10

    The Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (P.L. 118-5) directed the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) to (1) identify current interregional transfer capability; (2) recommend "prudent additions to total transfer capability" that would "demonstrably strengthen reliability"; and (3) recommend ways to meet and maintain the identified additional levels of interregional transfer capability.11

    NERC finalized the required study in November 2024.12 NERC found that existing interregional transfer capability varies geographically and throughout the year and "cannot be represented by a single number."13 The analysis found that an additional 35 gigawatts (GW) of interregional transfer capacity would improve reliability under the studied conditions, but this capacity is not evenly distributed across the country.14 The largest need (14 GW total) was found between ERCOT (the region serving most of Texas) and its neighboring regions. Thirteen of the 23 studied U.S. regions required no additional interregional transfer capacity. NERC noted that the prudent additions it identified "represent directional guidance for strengthening reliability under extreme conditions and should not be misconstrued as mandatory construction directives but rather as directional insights for supporting system resilience."15

    One key point is that NERC's analysis was based solely on reliability needs, as required by Congress. The analysis did not evaluate the costs of building new interregional transmission infrastructure. NERC identified non-transmission options that could also address reliability needs, such as building more power plants or increasing the use of demand response (a type of energy conservation). To achieve the recommended levels of interregional transfer capability, NERC recommended that "policymakers consider implementing mechanisms to address current challenges with siting and permit approval processes, cost allocation methods, and multi-party operating and maintenance agreements."16

    Some proponents of transmission permitting reform want FERC to establish new interregional transmission planning requirements. Some proposals     increased
    development of regional projects. In Order No. 1000, FERC required utilities to participate in
    regional transmission planning in multistate regions.7 Order No. 1000 also addresses interregional
    transmission by requiring transmission providers in neighboring regions to coordinate their
    planning processes. Some stakeholders argue Order No. 1000 has been ineffective at encouraging
    a large build-out of regional and interregional transmission. In May 2024, FERC issued Order
    No. 1920 which adds to the Order No. 1000 requirements for regional planning, as discussed in
    the section “FERC Activities.”
    Transmission permitting reform proposals reviewed by CRS do not address regional transmission
    planning, but some do address interregional transmission planning. Some transmission permitting
    reform proposals would direct FERC to establish new interregional transmission planning

    6 FERC, Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation by Transmission Owning and Operating Public Utilities,
    https://www.ferc.gov/electric-transmission/order-no-1000-transmission-planning-and-cost-allocation. FERC issued
    Order No. 1000 in 2011 to revise its policies for transmission planning and cost allocation. Order No. 1000, and two
    related clarifying orders, are currently in force.
    7 Not all entities that own transmission lines are covered by Order No. 1000. For example, federal power marketing
    administrations (e.g., the Bonneville Power Administration) are outside of FERC’s jurisdiction for transmission
    planning. Such entities are not required by FERC to participate in regional transmission planning, though they may
    choose to do so in a manner consistent with their statutory obligations. For a discussion of federal power marketing
    administrations, see CRS Report R45548, The Power Marketing Administrations: Background and Current Issues, by
    Richard J. Campbell. For additional information, congressional offices may contact Ashley J. Lawson.
    Congressional Research Service

    3
    link to page 10 link to page 4 Electricity Transmission Permitting Reform Proposals

    requirements. Some would require FERC to enforce minimum levels of interregional transfer
    capacitywould require FERC to enforce minimum levels of interregional transfer capability. Proponents of these approaches . Proponents of these approaches sayassert this would encourage more long-distance this would encourage more long-distance
    transmission development that could potentially lower costs for consumers and improve transmission development that could potentially lower costs for consumers and improve
    reliability and resilience. Opponents reliability and resilience. Opponents saycounter that the current process is sufficient and the current process is sufficient and allowsprovides state state
    regulators regulators greater saythe appropriate role in transmission development. in transmission development.
    Other Issues
    Various other topics have been Various other topics have been included in somepart of the transmission permitting reform debate in recent years, though with less emphasis than the topics identified above. These include
  • FERC's organizational structure for regulating transmission;
    • consumer protection, such as an independent transmission monitor to     transmission permitting reform proposals. These
    include
    • FERC’s organizational structure for regulating transmission;
    • Consumer protection, for example, an Independent Transmission Monitor to
    ensure transmission development is efficient and cost-effective;ensure transmission development is efficient and cost-effective;
    • Presidential presidential authority for approving international transmission lines (i.e., those authority for approving international transmission lines (i.e., those
    connecting the United States with Canada or Mexico);connecting the United States with Canada or Mexico);8
    • Reliability17 reliability and resilience; and and resilience; and
    • Incentives
  • incentives for new technology deployment, such as grid-enhancing technologies (GETs) and non-transmission alternatives.
    • Legislative Proposals in the 119th Congress

    The following list identifies bills introduced in the 119th Congress that would address one or more of the topics discussed in this report.18 Relevant bills are listed below in chronological order of introduction, along with a brief summary of the relevant provision(s). Selected actions beyond introduction are included where relevant. This list does not provide a full analysis of each bill, nor does it necessarily identify all electricity-related provisions within the bill.

  • The Reinforcing the Grid Against Extreme Weather Act of 2025 (H.R. 603), introduced by Representative Casten on January 22, 2025, would direct FERC to determine a minimum transfer capability between neighboring transmission planning regions and would require transmission planning entities to develop plans to achieve minimum interregional transfer capability.
  • The Advancing GETs Act of 2025 (H.R. 2703 / S. 1327), introduced by Representative Castor and Senator Welch on April 8, 2025, would direct FERC and DOE to implement policies aimed at increasing the use of GETs.
  • The North American Energy Act (S. 1485), introduced by Senator Hoeven on April 10, 2025, would modify the process for approving international electricity transmission lines.
  • The Promoting Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act (H.R. 3062), introduced by Representative Fedorchak on April 29, 2025, would modify the process for approving international electricity transmission lines. This bill was passed by the House on September 18, 2025.
    • The SPEED and Reliability Act of 2025 (H.R. 5600), introduced by Representative Peters on September 26, 2025, would repeal DOE's authority to designate NIETCs and would grant FERC siting authority over certain interstate transmission lines.Appendix. Selected Legislative Proposals in the 118th Congress This appendix contains a table (Table A-1) summarizing selected transmission permitting reform bills introduced in the 118th Congress. This appendix does not provide a comprehensive list of such bills. The table provides a summary of the provisions in each bill addressing the issues identified in this report. The table is not a full analysis of each bill, nor does it     for new technology deployment, such as Grid Enhancing Technologies
    (GETs) and Non-Transmission Alternatives.
    FERC Activities
    In May 2024, FERC issued Order No. 1920, the first major revision to FERC’s transmission
    policies since Order No. 1000.9 The new order adds to the requirements of Order No. 1000,
    primarily by requiring regional planning processes to consider transmission needs at least 20
    years in the future. The order requires transmission planners to consider specific factors driving
    long-term transmission needs, including policies that affect the generation resource mix,
    decarbonization and electrification policies, trends in fuel and technology costs, plans for
    generator retirements and new construction, and corporate commitments (e.g., renewable energy
    procurement goals). The order further requires the use of scenarios for long-term transmission
    needs and the estimation of specific benefits of transmission over a 20-year horizon.
    Order No. 1920 focuses on certain aspects of regional transmission planning and does not address
    the topics covered in Table 1 in a general manner, in contrast to many of the legislative proposals
    summarized in the table. For example, the order specifies some cost allocation requirements, but
    only those pertaining to transmission needs identified through the long-term planning process
    required by Order No. 1920. Cost allocation for transmission projects selected under different
    planning processes remain unchanged. Additionally, Order No. 1920 provides some support for
    GETs by requiring transmission planners to consider opportunities to deploy certain kinds of
    GETs (e.g., conduct a cost-benefit analysis of including GETs as part of regular regional
    transmission planning). Order No. 1920 does not, however, require the adoption of GETs.
    Also in May 2024, FERC revised its regulations implementing its backstop siting authority in
    response to IIJA (backstop siting authority is discussed in the section “Siting Authority”).10 The

    8 Currently, international transmission lines require a presidential permit for construction.
    9 FERC, Building for the Future Through Electric Regional Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation,
    https://ferc.gov/media/e1-rm21-17-000.
    10 FERC, Applications for Permits to Site Interstate Electric Transmission Facilities, https://ferc.gov/media/e-2-rm22-7-
    000.
    Congressional Research Service

    4
    link to page 10 Electricity Transmission Permitting Reform Proposals

    extent to which FERC’s revised backstop siting authority could affect transmission development
    remains unclear. IIJA does not require FERC to approve projects that states have denied. Instead,
    the backstop siting authority provides a “second chance” for projects that meet specified criteria if
    the projects do not receive approval from the applicable state governments. Potentially,
    transmission project developers and states will be encouraged to come to agreements about siting,
    in order to avoid the federal process. Alternatively, transmission project developers may focus on
    project design that is likely to be approved by FERC, regardless of state regulators’ preferences.
    Legislative Proposals and FERC Order No. 1920
    CRS analyzed the transmission permitting reform provisions in selected bills introduced in the
    118th Congress and draft legislative proposals, and in legislation enacted in the 118th Congress.
    CRS also analyzed FERC Order No. 1920.
    Table 1 provides a summary of the provisions in each bill addressing the issues identified above.
    The table is not a full analysis of each bill, and does not necessarily identify all transmission- necessarily identify all transmission-
    related provisions in each bill. For example, related provisions in each bill. For example, H.R. 1 addressessome bills in the 118th Congress would have addressed NEPA review for vegetation NEPA review for vegetation
    management (a maintenance procedure for transmission lines) on public lands, but this provision management (a maintenance procedure for transmission lines) on public lands, but this provision
    is not included in the table because NEPA is is not included in the table because NEPA is not a topic discussed inoutside the scope of this report. The table also this report. The table also
    does not identify all electricity-related provisions. For example, the discussion draft of Promoting
    Efficient and Engaged Reviews Act of 2023 addresses the process for interconnecting new power
    plants with the transmission system, but this provision is not included in the table.
    The bills, legislative proposals, FERC regulation, and enacted legislation included in this analysis
    are
    • The Streamlining Interstate Transmission of Electricity Act (SITE Act; S. 946),
    introduced by Senator Whitehouse on March 22, 2023.
    • The Lower Energy Costs Act (H.R. 1), as passed by the House on March 30,
    2023.
    • The Building American Energy Security Act of 2023 (S. 1399), introduced by
    Senator Manchin on May 2, 2023.
    • The Spur Permitting of Underdeveloped Resources Act (SPUR Act; S. 1456),
    introduced by Senator Barrasso on May 4, 2023.
    • The Revitalizing the Economy by Simplifying Timelines and Assuring
    Regulatory Transparency Act (RESTART; S. 1449) Act, introduced by Senator
    Capito on May 4, 2023.
    • The Promoting Efficient and Engaged Reviews Act of 2023 (PEER Act)
    discussion draft, released by Senators Carper and Schatz on May 18, 2023.11
    • The Interregional Transmission Planning Improvement Act of 2023 (S. 1748),
    introduced by Senator Heinrich on May 18, 2023.
    • The Facilitating America’s Siting of Transmission and Electric Reliability Act of
    2023 (FASTER Act of 2023; S. 1804), introduced by Senator Heinrich on June 1,
    2023. Companion legislation (H.R. 4689) was introduced by Representative
    Peters on July 17, 2023.

    11 The Promoting Efficient and Engaged Reviews Act (PEER Act) discussion draft is available at
    https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2023/5/carper-schatz-unveil-environmental-review-and-permitting-
    reform-proposal.
    Congressional Research Service

    5
    Electricity Transmission Permitting Reform Proposals

    • The Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (P.L. 118-5), enacted on June 3, 2023.
    • The Connecting Hard-to-reach Areas with Renewably Generated Energy Act of
    2023 (CHARGE Act of 2023; S. 2480), introduced by Senator Markey on July
    25, 2023. Companion legislation (H.R. 5154) was introduced by Representative
    Ocasio-Cortez on August 4, 2023.
    • The Building Integrated Grids With Inter-Regional Energy Supply Act (BIG
    WIRES Act; S. 2827/H.R. 5551), introduced by Senator Hickenlooper and
    Representative Peters on September 18, 2023.
    • The Clean Electricity and Transmission Acceleration Act (CETA Act; H.R. 6747),
    introduced by Representative Casten on December 13, 2023.12
    • FERC Order No. 1920, issued on May 13, 2024.

    12 Earlier versions of this report included a discussion draft of the Clean Electricity and Transmission Acceleration Act,
    which is available at https://seec.house.gov/sites/sustainableenergyandenvironmentcoalitioncaucus.house.gov/files/
    CETA%20Act%20Discussion%20Draft%2023.04.26.pdf.
    Congressional Research Service

    6

    Table 1. Selected Electricity Transmission Provisions in Selected Legislative Proposals,
    Enacted Legislation, and FERC Order No. 1920
    Interregional Transmission

    Federal Siting Authority
    Cost Allocation
    Planning
    Other Topics
    SITE Act (S. 946)
    Would give FERC authority to issue
    Not addressed.
    Not addressed.
    Not addressed.
    certificate of public convenience and
    necessity for certain large, interstate
    transmission lines.
    Would provide right of eminent
    domain for holders of such a
    certificate.
    Lower Energy Costs
    Not addressed.
    Not addressed.
    Not addressed.
    Would modify approval
    Act (H.R. 1)
    does not identify all electricity-related provisions in each bill. Table A-1. Electricity Transmission Provisions in Selected Legislative Proposals in the 118th Congress

    Federal Siting Authority

    Cost Allocation

    Interregional Transmission Planning

    Other Topics

    SITE Act (S. 946)

    Would give FERC authority to issue certificates of public convenience and necessity for certain large interstate transmission lines.

    Would grant eminent domain authority to holders of such certificates.

    Not addressed.

    Not addressed.

    Not addressed.

    Lower Energy Costs Act (H.R. 1)

    Not addressed.

    Not addressed.

    Not addressed.

    Would modify the approval     process for international process for international
    transmission facilities.
    Building American
    Would amend backstop siting authority Would establish cost allocation
    Not addressed.
    Not addressed.
    Energy Security Act of
    to allow FERC to determine
    principles based on broader set
    2023
    transmission facilities in the national
    of benefits than status quo, for
    (S. 1399)
    interest (i.e., removes DOE NIETC
    transmission determined by
    designations for purposes of backstop
    FERC to be in the national
    transmission facilities.

    Building American Energy Security Act of 2023 (S. 1399)

    Would amend backstop siting authority to allow FERC to determine transmission facilities in the national interest (i.e., removes DOE NIETC designations for purposes of backstop siting authority). Facilities must be     siting authority). Facilities must be
    interest.
    interstate (including offshore) or interstate (including offshore) or
    international and meet other criteria.international and meet other criteria.
    SPUR Act
    Not addressed.
    Not addressed.
    Not addressed.
    Would modify approval
    (S. 1456)
    process for international
    transmission facilities.
    RESTART Act
    Not addressed.
    Not addressed.
    Not addressed.
    Not addressed.
    (S. 1449)
    CRS-7

    Interregional Transmission

    Federal Siting Authority
    Cost Allocation
    Planning
    Other Topics
    PEER Act discussion
    Would give FERC authority to issue
    Would establish cost allocation
    Would direct FERC to
    Would establish an Office of
    draft
    certificate of public convenience and
    principles based on broader set promulgate a rule requiring
    Transmission at FERC.
    necessity for certain large, interstate
    of benefits than status quo.
    transmission providers to
    Would require independent
    transmission lines.
    Would require other changes
    engage in interregional and
    transmission monitors for each
    Would provide right of eminent
    to cost allocation methodol-
    interconnection-wide planning
    transmission planning region.
    domain for holders of such a
    ogies, including preventing ones processes.
    Would promote adoption of
    certificate.
    that discourage distributed
    Would direct FERC to
    GETs and NTAs.
    generation, energy efficiency,
    establish minimum transfer
    demand response, or energy
    capability between regions.
    storage.
    Interregional
    Not addressed.
    Would establish cost allocation
    Would direct FERC to
    Not addressed.
    Transmission Planning
    principles for interregional
    promulgate a rule addressing
    Improvement Act of
    transmission projects based on
    interregional transmission
    2023 (S. 1748)
    broader set of benefits than
    planning.
    status quo.
    FASTER Act (S. 1804 /
    Would amend backstop siting authority Not addressed.
    Not addressed.
    Not addressed.
    H.R. 4689)

    Would establish cost allocation principles based on broader set of benefits than status quo for transmission determined by FERC to be in the national interest.

    Not addressed.

    Not addressed.

    SPUR Act (S. 1456)

    Not addressed.

    Not addressed.

    Not addressed.

    Would modify the approval process for international transmission facilities.

    Interregional Transmission Planning Improvement Act of 2023 (S. 1748)

    Not addressed.

    Would establish cost allocation principles for interregional transmission projects based on broader set of benefits than status quo.

    Would direct FERC to promulgate a rule addressing interregional transmission planning.

    Not addressed.

    FASTER Act (S. 1804 / H.R. 4689)

    Would amend backstop siting authority     to allow transmission developers to to allow transmission developers to
    request certain proposed routes to be request certain proposed routes to be
    designated as designated as a NIETC.
    NIETCs. Would encourage transmission Would encourage transmission
    developers to enter into community developers to enter into community
    benefit agreements with affected benefit agreements with affected
    parties.
    Fiscal Responsibility Act Not addressed.
    parties.

    Not addressed.

    Not addressed.Not addressed.
    Directs NERC and FERC to
    Not addressed.Not addressed.
    of 2023 (P.L. 118-5)
    study existing interregional
    transfer capability and
    recommend levels that would
    demonstrably strengthen
    reliability.
    CRS-8

    Interregional Transmission

    Federal Siting Authority
    Cost Allocation
    Planning
    Other Topics
    CHARGE Act (S. 2480
    Not addressed.
    Would establish cost allocation
    Would direct FERC to
    Would establish an Office of
    / H.R. 5154)
    principles based on broader set promulgate a rule requiring
    Transmission at FERC.
    of benefits than status quo.
    transmission providers to
    Would require independent
    Would require other changes
    engage in interregional and
    transmission monitors for each
    to cost allocation methodol-
    interconnection-wide planning
    transmission planning region.
    ogies, including preventing ones processes.
    Would promote adoption of
    that discourage distributed
    Would direct FERC to
    GETs and NTAs.
    generation, energy efficiency,
    establish minimum transfer
    demand response, or energy
    capacity between regions.
    storage.
    BIG WIRES Act
    Not addressed.
    Not addressed.
    Would direct FERC to
    Not addressed.
    (S. 2827 / H.R. 5551)

    CHARGE Act (S. 2480 / H.R. 5154)

    Not addressed.

    Would establish cost allocation principles based on broader set of benefits than status quo.

    Would require other changes to cost allocation methodologies, including preventing ones that discourage distributed generation, energy efficiency, demand response, or energy storage.

    Would direct FERC to promulgate a rule requiring transmission providers to engage in interregional and interconnection-wide planning processes.

    Would direct FERC to establish minimum transfer capacity between regions.

    Would establish an Office of Transmission at FERC.

    Would require independent transmission monitors for each transmission planning region.

    Would promote adoption of GETs and NTAs.

    BIG WIRES Act (S. 2827 / H.R. 5551)

    Not addressed.

    Not addressed.

    Would direct FERC to     promulgate a rule requiring promulgate a rule requiring
    specified levels of interregional specified levels of interregional
    transfer capacity between transfer capacity between
    regions.regions.
    CRS-9

    Not addressed.

    CETA Act (H.R. 6747)

    Would give FERC authority to issue certificates of public convenience and necessity for certain large interstate transmission lines.

    Would grant eminent domain authority to holders of such certificates.

    Would amend backstop siting authority to avoid duplicate environmental reviews for the designation of NIETCs and FERC siting decisions.

    Would clarify that owners of certain interstate or offshore transmission facilities can seek cost allocation through FERC.

    Would prohibit costs of certain network upgrades from being allocated exclusively to a single interconnection customer.

    Would direct FERC to promulgate a rule requiring transmission organizations to develop plans every three years that identify and facilitate the construction of certain interregional transmission projects.

    Interregional Transmission

    Federal Siting Authority
    Cost Allocation
    Planning
    Other Topics
    CETA Act
    Would give FERC authority to issue
    Would clarify that owners of
    Would direct FERC to
    Would establish an Office of
    certificate of public convenience and
    certain interstate or offshore
    promulgate a rule requiring
    Transmission at FERC.
    (H.R. 6747)
    necessity for certain large, interstate
    transmission facilities can seek
    transmission organizations to
    Would require independent
    transmission lines.
    cost allocation through FERC.
    develop plans every three years transmission monitors for each
    Would provide right of eminent
    Would prohibit costs of certain that identify and facilitate the
    transmission planning region.
    domain for holders of such a
    network upgrades from being
    construction of certain
    Would promote adoption of
    certificate.
    allocated exclusively to a single
    interregional transmission
    projects.
    GETs and NTAs.
    Would amend backstop siting authority interconnection customer.
    to avoid duplicate environmental
    Would direct FERC to
    reviews for the designation of NIETCs
    establish minimum transfer
    and FERC siting decision.
    Would direct FERC to establish minimum transfer capacity between regions.capacity between regions.
    FERC Order No. 1920
    Not addressed.
    For transmission facilities
    Not addressed.
    Requires consideration of
    selected for cost allocation
    certain GETs as part of near-
    under a long-term regional
    term and long-term regional
    transmission plan, requires cost
    transmission planning.
    allocation based on specified
    Requires long-term regional
    benefits.
    transmission planning, over a
    time horizon of at least 20
    years. Long-term plans must
    incorporate specified factors
    that influence future electricity
    needs.
    Source: CRS analysis of 118th Congress legislation in Congress.gov, PEER Act discussion draft (available at https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2023/5/carper-
    schatz-unveil-environmental-review-and-permitting-reform-proposal), and FERC Order No. 1920.

    Would establish an Office of Transmission at FERC.

    Would require independent transmission monitors for each transmission planning region.

    Would promote adoption of GETs and NTAs.

    Source: CRS analysis of selected 118th Congress legislation in Congress.gov.

    Notes:     FERC = Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; NERC = North American Electric Reliability FERC = Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; NERC = North American Electric Reliability CorporationsCorporation; DOE = U.S. Department of Energy; NIETC = ; DOE = U.S. Department of Energy; NIETC =
    National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor; GETs = National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor; GETs = Grid-Enhancing Technologies; NTAs = Non-Transmission Alternativesgrid-enhancing technologies; NTAs = non-transmission alternatives. This table does not provide a . This table does not provide a
    comprehensive analysis of the selected legislative proposals, enacted legislation, or FERC regulation.


    CRS-10
    link to page 10 Electricity Transmission Permitting Reform Proposals

    Biden Administration Priorities
    On May 10, 2023, the White House released a fact sheet outlining the Biden Administration’s
    priorities for permitting reform.13 For transmission, these priorities are
    • providing for electric transmission siting and cost allocation;
    • developing minimum interregional transfer requirements;
    • broadening the benefits considered for cost allocation; and
    • accelerating the deployment of GETs.
    The Administration fact sheet does not provide legislative details for these priorities. For
    example, the fact sheet does not clarify the meaning of “providing for electric transmission siting
    and cost allocation.” While announcing the Administration’s priorities for permitting reform,
    White House Senior Advisor John Podesta said “Congress should give FERC clear authority to
    issue permits for interstate transmission lines.”14
    Concluding Observations
    Various proposals in the 118th Congress could potentially affect new transmission development.
    Many of the provisions identified in Table 1 aim to promote increased development of large,
    interstate transmission lines. Federal policy is not the only factor affecting development of such
    infrastructure. Other factors include electricity market conditions and state regulatory decisions.
    Other topics included in some permitting reform debate could also potentially affect new
    transmission development. These include proposals to modify NEPA implementation and
    proposals to address energy infrastructure development on public lands. A separate, but related,
    issue is the process for approving offshore transmission lines which is currently overseen by the
    Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.15
    Several of the issues addressed by proposed provisions (e.g., cost allocation) would provide
    policy direction to FERC within FERC’s existing authority. FERC modified its requirements for
    regional transmission planning in Order No. 1920. The new order partially addresses some issues
    addressed by legislative proposals, although to a different degree than some legislative proposals
    would do. Congress may consider codifying some of these requirements or giving FERC
    alternative policy direction through legislation. Congress may also continue to monitor electricity
    transmission development and conduct oversight on implementation of Order No. 1920 as
    needed. Typically, FERC rules of this magnitude take several years to fully implement, so it
    remains unclear to what extent the new policy will affect transmission development.
    Implementation details will be determined by individual planning regions, with FERC oversight.

    13 White House, “Fact Sheet: Biden-Harris Administration Outlines Priorities for Building America’s Energy
    Infrastructure Faster, Safer, and Cleaner,” May 10, 2023, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-
    releases/2023/05/10/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-outlines-priorities-for-building-americas-energy-
    infrastructure-faster-safer-and-cleaner/.
    14 The White House, “Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Senior Advisor John Podesta on the Biden-Harris
    Administration’s Priorities for Energy Infrastructure Permitting Reform,” May 10, 2023, https://www.whitehouse.gov/
    briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/05/10/remarks-as-prepared-for-delivery-by-senior-advisor-john-podesta-on-the-
    biden-harris-administrations-priorities-for-energy-infrastructure-permitting-reform/.
    15 For additional information about offshore electricity infrastructure development, see CRS Report R46970, U.S.
    Offshore Wind Energy Development: Overview and Issues for the 118th Congress    , by Laura B. Comay and Corrie E.
    Clark.
    Congressional Research Service

    11
    Electricity Transmission Permitting Reform Proposals

    In addition—if FERC’s transmission rule follows the same path as previous major FERC
    orders—future FERC administrative actions (such as rehearings) or litigation and judicial review
    could influence implementation details.




    Author Information

    Ashley J. Lawson

    Specialist in Energy Policy



    Disclaimer
    This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
    shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
    under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
    than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
    connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
    subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
    its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
    material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
    copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

    Congressional Research Service
    R47627 · VERSION 12 · UPDATED
    12
    comprehensive analysis of the selected legislative proposals.

    Footnotes

    1.

    For an overview of permitting reform provisions adopted in the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (P.L. 118-5), see CRS In Focus IF12417, Environmental Reviews and the 118th Congress, by Kristen Hite.

    2.

    Siting approval is one of multiple permits that a transmission line may require. Some federal agencies may have authority to issue some of these permits, depending on the path of the line. Additional information about the role of federal agencies is in CRS Report R47862, Electricity Transmission: What Is the Role of the Federal Government?, by Ashley J. Lawson and Adam Vann.

    3.

    For a summary of changes made to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC's) backstop siting authority, see CRS Report R47034, Energy and Minerals Provisions in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58), coordinated by Brent D. Yacobucci.

    4.

    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), "National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor Designation Process," https://www.energy.gov/gdo/national-interest-electric-transmission-corridor-designation-process.

    5.

    DOE, "Notice of Early Public and Governmental Engagement for Potential Designation of Tribal Energy Access, Southwestern Grid Connector, and Lake Erie-Canada National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors," 89 Federal Register 101597-101600, December 16, 2024. A map of the proposed National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors is available at DOE, "National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor Designation Process," https://www.energy.gov/gdo/national-interest-electric-transmission-corridor-designation-process.

    6.

    FERC, "Applications for Permits to Site Interstate Electric Transmission Facilities," https://ferc.gov/media/e-2-rm22-7-000.

    7.

    For more details about FERC's pipeline siting authority, see CRS Report R48347, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Natural Gas Permitting and Litigation, by Paul W. Parfomak and Adam Vann.

    8. FERC, "Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation by Transmission Owning and Operating Public Utilities," 76 Federal Register 49842, August 11, 2011, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2011/08/11/2011-19084/transmission-planning-and-cost-allocation-by-transmission-owning-and-operating-public-utilities. FERC issued Order No. 1000 in 2011 to revise its policies for transmission planning and cost allocation. Order No. 1000, and two related clarifying orders, are currently in force. 9.

    Not all entities that own transmission lines are covered by Order No. 1000. For example, federal power marketing administrations (e.g., the Bonneville Power Administration) are outside of FERC's jurisdiction for transmission planning. Such entities are not required by FERC to participate in regional transmission planning, though they may choose to do so in a manner consistent with their statutory obligations. For a discussion of federal power marketing administrations, see CRS Report R45548, The Power Marketing Administrations: Background and Current Issues, by Richard J. Campbell. For additional information, congressional offices may contact Ashley J. Lawson.

    10.

    See, for example, the list of studies in Brattle Group, "The Value of Interregional Transmission: Grid Planning for the 21st Century," PowerPoint presentation, Midwestern Governors Association MID-GRID 2023 Meeting, Little Rock, AR, September 27-28, 2023, p. 17, https://www.brattle.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/The-Value-of-Interregional-Transmission-Grid-Planning-for-the-21st-Century.pdf.

    11.

    The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) is the certified Electric Reliability Organization for the United States, pursuant to 16 U.S.C. §824o. For background information on NERC's and FERC's roles in regulating electric reliability, see CRS Report R45764, Maintaining Electric Reliability with Wind and Solar Sources: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ashley J. Lawson, and CRS Report R48127, Natural Gas Reliability: Issues for Congress, by Paul W. Parfomak, Ashley J. Lawson, and Michael Ratner.

    12.

    NERC, Interregional Transfer Capability Study (ITCS): Strengthening Reliability Through the Energy Transformation, November 2024, https://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/Documents/ITCS_Final_Report.pdf (hereinafter NERC, ITCS).

    13.

    NERC, ITCS, p. x.

    14.

    NERC assessed prudent additions as the amount of interregional transfer capability that would prevent energy shortfalls in a projection of the contiguous U.S. electricity system in 2033. The analysis was based on electricity demand and supply projections from NERC's 2023 Long-Term Reliability Assessment (LTRA), published in December 2023. The supply projections include planned retirements and additions from new capacity under development as of the time of data collection for the 2023 LTRA. The analysis used historic weather data for the years 2007-2023.

    15.

    NERC, ITCS, p. xiv.

    16.

    NERC, ITCS, p. 136.

    17.

    Currently, international transmission lines require a presidential permit for construction. This authority has been delegated to DOE. Additional information is available at DOE, "Presidential Permits," https://www.energy.gov/gdo/presidential-permits.

    18.

    To identify transmission permitting reform bills introduced in the 119th Congress, CRS searched Congress.gov for bills that included the term "Federal Energy Regulatory Commission." Bills were then reviewed to determine whether they addressed the policy issues covered by this report.