Electricity Transmission Permitting Reform
September 5, 2023
Proposals
Ashley J. Lawson
Permitting reform has been a topic of debate in the 118th Congress. One aspect of this debate
Specialist Energy Policy
addresses the processes for planning, siting, approving, and paying for electricity transmission

lines (broadly 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

solar energy and (2) improved electric reliability and resilience. Debate has focused on perceived
hurdles to the development of large, interstate electricity transmission lines which are broadly viewed as being supportive of
these two desired outcomes.
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
lines may require approvals from multiple state and local governments along the line’s path. Critics argue the current
framework adds time to the transmission development process and can allow a single state or local government to block a
transmission project that is supported by neighboring jurisdictions. In 2005, Congress gave the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) limited authority to site some transmission
lines under certain circumstances, but this authority was never used. Congress amended FERC’s siting authority in 2021.
DOE and FERC are currently developing regulations to implement this revised authority. Some transmission permitting
reform legislative proposals would further amend this authority, for example by granting siting authority for all large
interstate transmission lines to FERC. A key point of debate around these proposals is the appropriate role of the 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 quo whereby states have siting authority in most cases.
A second perceived hurdle is the allocation of electricity transmission line costs to customers. A central tenet for electricity
regulators is that the beneficiary of new electricity infrastructure should pay for that infrastructure (sometimes referred to as
the cost causation 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
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) and would additionally consider
benefits that may be difficult to quantify. A key point of debate around these proposals is the appropriate balance of costs and
benefits for consumers. Some believe that identifying a broader set of benefits and beneficiaries would encourage
development of beneficial transmission lines that may not be identified using current cost allocation practices. Others believe
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. Currently, FERC requires some
amount of planning within defined transmission planning regions. Some stakeholders believe current FERC requirements
have been ineffective at encouraging large interstate electricity transmission lines. Some proposals would strengthen
requirements for regional transmission planning and add requirements for interregional transmission planning. Some
proposals would additionally require minimum levels of electricity sharing (transfer capacity) between regions. Key points of
debate around these proposals are costs and benefits for consumers as well as the appropriate role of federal and state
governments in 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 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 10 permitting reform
proposals in the 118th Congress, including the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (P.L. 118-5) which requires a study of
interregional transfer capacity. Separate from legislative proposals, FERC has initiated rulemakings that would address some
of the topics identified in this report. FERC could change some national transmission policies using its existing authority,
without enactment of new legislation specifically addressing electricity transmission permitting. Some Members of Congress
have publicly encouraged FERC to do so.

Congressional Research Service

Electricity Transmission Permitting Reform Proposals

ultiple proposals for permitting reform have been put forward in the 118th Congress, and
some were adopted in the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (P.L. 118-5).1 In the current
M policy context, the term permit is commonly used in a broad sense to refer to a number
of federal permits, approvals, authorizations, or other forms of consent around infrastructure
development. Likewise, this report uses the term permit in a broad sense. Permitting reform
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. Much congressional
interest in electricity transmission lies in issues other than permits. Nonetheless, this report uses
the term transmission permitting reform to refer to proposals to change any aspect of transmission
planning, siting, approval, cost allocation, and other 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 the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
and does not cover topics related to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or other
environmental protection statutes.
Background information on electricity transmission is available in the following CRS resources:
• CRS In Focus IF12253, Introduction to Electricity Transmission
• CRS Report R47521, Electricity: Overview and Issues for Congress
• CRS In Focus IF11257, Variable Renewable Energy: An Introduction
• 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)
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 proponents is to support
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
lines with respect to the desired outcomes noted above.
Some industry participants and observers have identified a number of perceived barriers to the
development of large interstate transmission lines, as discussed below.
Siting Authority
Currently, most electricity transmission siting authority resides in the states. A transmission line
crossing state lines may require approvals from multiple state and local governments along the
line’s path. Critics argue the current framework adds time to the transmission development
process and can allow a single state or local government to block a transmission project that is
supported by neighboring jurisdictions. Others argue that the current framework protects the
ability of states and local governments to approve (or disapprove) infrastructure that is in the best
interest of their citizens.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 added Section 216 of the Federal Power Act (FPA, 16 U.S.C.
§824p), which carves out a limited role for FERC and other federal agencies in siting interstate

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 Permitting: Pending Legislation, by Kristen Hite.
Congressional Research Service

1

link to page 7 Electricity Transmission Permitting Reform Proposals

electric transmission facilities. This section authorizes the Secretary of Energy, in consultation
with the affected states, to designate areas experiencing electricity transmission constraints or
congestion as National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETCs). The section grants
FERC authority to issue permits for constructing interstate electricity transmission facilities in
designated NIETCs (commonly referred to as FERC’s backstop siting authority). As originally
enacted, this authority could be exercised only if the state that has authority to approve the
facilities had “withheld approval for more than one year.”
Two judicial decisions hamstrung the exercise of the Section 216 authority granted in 2005 to the
agencies. In Piedmont Environmental Council v. FERC (558 F.3d 304 (4th Cir. 2009)), the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that FERC may not permit transmission facilities if a
state has denied the applicant’s request to site transmission facilities; FERC may permit the
transmission facilities only in the event the state has not acted on the applicant’s request. And in
California Wilderness Coalition v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy (631 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2011)), the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the Department of Energy’s first two NIETC
designations, finding that the agency had failed to consult adequately with the states as required
by the FPA. Since the Ninth Circuit’s 2011 decision, the Secretary of Energy has made no further
NIETC designations.
In 2021, Congress amended FERC’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
lawsuits.2 DOE is revising its determination of NIETCs and anticipates releasing guidance for
applicants in Fall 2023.3 FERC is likewise revising 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.
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
should pay for that infrastructure (sometimes referred to as the cost causation principle). FERC
enforces this principle in its transmission cost allocation policies laid out in its 2011 Order No.
1000. The order specifies that costs must be allocated “in a manner that is at least roughly
commensurate with estimated benefits.”4 A related principle (stated explicitly in Order No. 1000)
is that customers that do not benefit from transmission investments should not be required to

2 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.
3 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), “DOE Proposes National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor Designation
Process,” May 9, 2023, https://www.energy.gov/gdo/articles/doe-proposes-national-interest-electric-transmission-
corridor-designation-process.
4 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.
Congressional Research Service

2

Electricity Transmission Permitting Reform Proposals

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
territory. Costs for transmission development are allocated exclusively to these identified
beneficiaries.
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
incentivize 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
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 increased
development of regional projects. In Order No. 1000, FERC required utilities to participate in
regional transmission planning in multistate regions.5 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.
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
requirements. Some would require FERC to enforce minimum levels of interregional transfer
capacity. Proponents of these approaches say this would encourage more long-distance
transmission development that could potentially lower costs for consumers and improve
reliability and resilience. Opponents say the current process is sufficient and allows state
regulators greater say in transmission development.
Other Issues
Various other topics have been included in some 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;
• Presidential authority for approving international transmission lines (i.e., those
connecting the United States with Canada or Mexico);6

5 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.
6 Currently, international transmission lines require a presidential permit for construction.
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 4 link to page 9 Electricity Transmission Permitting Reform Proposals

• Reliability and resilience; and
• Incentives for new technology deployment, such as Grid Enhancing Technologies
(GETs) and Non-Transmission Alternatives.
FERC Activities
In the last several years, FERC has initiated (but not finalized) rulemakings addressing many of
the issues discussed above. In many cases, FERC has proposed reforms that generally align with
the goals of legislative proposals. For example, FERC has proposed reforms to take a broader
view for determining transmission cost allocation.7 FERC has existing authority to finalize these
rulemakings and implement some degree of transmission reform without additional congressional
directives. Alternatively, Congress could provide statutory guidance for FERC’s transmission
policies, as some transmission reform proposals would do.
FERC is also revising its regulations implementing its backstop siting authority in response to
IIJA (backstop siting authority is discussed in the section “Siting Authority”). 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 states. 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
CRS analyzed the transmission permitting reform provisions in selected bills introduced in the
118th Congress, draft legislative proposals, and legislation enacted in the 118th Congress.
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-
related provisions in each bill. For example, H.R. 1 addresses NEPA review for vegetation
management (a maintenance procedure for transmission lines) on public lands, but this provision
is not included in the table because NEPA is not a topic discussed in this report. The table also
does not identify all electricity-related provisions. For example, the 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 and legislative proposals included in this analysis are
• The Lower Energy Costs Act (H.R. 1), as passed by the House on March 30,
2023.

7 See FERC, Building for the Future Through Electric Regional Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation and
Generator Interconnection, https://www.ferc.gov/media/rm21-17-000. In July 2023, FERC issued Order No. 2023
modifying its regulations for interconnecting new power plants to the transmission system. These modifications could
potentially support some goals of transmission permitting reform proposals, namely increased use of wind and solar
energy and improved reliability.
Congressional Research Service

4

Electricity Transmission Permitting Reform Proposals

• The Clean Electricity and Transmission Acceleration Act (CETA) of 2023
discussion draft, released by Representatives Casten and Levin on April 27,
2023.8
• 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, 2023.9
• 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.
• 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.

8 The Clean Electricity and Transmission Acceleration Act discussion draft is available at https://seec.house.gov/sites/
sustainableenergyandenvironmentcoalitioncaucus.house.gov/files/
CETA%20Act%20Discussion%20Draft%2023.04.26.pdf.
9 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

Table 1. Selected Electricity Transmission Provisions in Selected Legislative Proposals and Enacted Legislation in the 118th
Congress
Inter-
regional
Trans-
Building
mission
American
Planning
Fiscal
Lower
Energy
Improve-
FASTER
Respon-
CHARGE
Energy
CETA Act
Security
RESTART
PEER Act
ment Act of
Act (S.
sibility Act
Act (S.
Costs Act
discussion
Act of 2023 SPUR Act
Act
discussion
2023 (S.
1804 / H.R.
of 2023
2480 / H.R.
Topic
(H.R. 1)
draft
(S. 1399)
(S. 1456)
(S. 1449)
draft
1748)
4689)
(P.L. 118-5)
5154)
Federal Siting Not
Would give
Would
Not
Not
Would give
Not
Would
Not
Not
Authority
addressed
FERC
amend
addressed
addressed
FERC
addressed
amend
addressed
addressed
authority to
backstop
authority to
backstop
issue
siting
issue
siting
certificate of authority to
certificate of
authority to
public
allow FERC
public
allow
convenience
to determine
convenience
transmission
and necessity transmission
and necessity
developers to
for certain
facilities in
for certain
request
large,
the national
large,
certain
interstate
interest (i.e.,
interstate
proposed
transmission removes
transmission
routes to be
lines.
DOE NIETC
lines.
designated as
Would
designations
Would
a NIETC.
provide right for purposes
provide right
Would
of eminent
of backstop
of eminent
encourage
domain for
siting
domain for
transmission
holders of
authority).
holders of
developers to
such a
Facilities
such a
enter into
certificate.
must be
certificate.
community
interstate
benefit
(including
agreements
offshore) or
with affected
international
parties.
and meet
other
criteria.
CRS-6

Inter-
regional
Trans-
Building
mission
American
Planning
Fiscal
Lower
Energy
Improve-
FASTER
Respon-
CHARGE
Energy
CETA Act
Security
RESTART
PEER Act
ment Act of
Act (S.
sibility Act
Act (S.
Costs Act
discussion
Act of 2023 SPUR Act
Act
discussion
2023 (S.
1804 / H.R.
of 2023
2480 / H.R.
Topic
(H.R. 1)
draft
(S. 1399)
(S. 1456)
(S. 1449)
draft
1748)
4689)
(P.L. 118-5)
5154)
Cost
Not
Would
Would
Not
Not
Would
Would
Not
Not
Would
Allocation
addressed
establish cost establish cost addressed
addressed
establish cost establish cost addressed
addressed
establish cost
allocation
allocation
allocation
allocation
allocation
principles
principles
principles
principles for
principles
based on
based on
based on
interregional
based on
broader set
broader set
broader set of transmission
broader set
of benefits
of benefits
benefits than
projects
of benefits
than status
than status
status quo.
based on
than status
quo, for
quo, for
Would
broader set
quo.
certain large
transmission
require other of benefits
Would
interstate
determined
changes to
than status
require other
transmission by FERC to
cost allocation quo.
changes to
facilities or
be in the
methodol-
cost
offshore
national
ogies,
allocation
transmission interest.
including
methodol-
facilities.
preventing
ogies,
ones that
including
discourage
preventing
distributed
ones that
generation,
discourage
energy
distributed
efficiency,
generation,
demand
energy
response, or
efficiency,
energy
demand
storage.
response, or
energy
storage.
CRS-7

Inter-
regional
Trans-
Building
mission
American
Planning
Fiscal
Lower
Energy
Improve-
FASTER
Respon-
CHARGE
Energy
CETA Act
Security
RESTART
PEER Act
ment Act of
Act (S.
sibility Act
Act (S.
Costs Act
discussion
Act of 2023 SPUR Act
Act
discussion
2023 (S.
1804 / H.R.
of 2023
2480 / H.R.
Topic
(H.R. 1)
draft
(S. 1399)
(S. 1456)
(S. 1449)
draft
1748)
4689)
(P.L. 118-5)
5154)
Interregional Not
Would direct Not
Not
Not
Would direct Would direct Not
Directs
Would direct
Transmission addressed
FERC to
addressed
addressed
addressed
FERC to
FERC to
addressed
NERC and
FERC to
Planning
promulgate a
promulgate a promulgate a
FERC to
promulgate a
rule
rule requiring rule
study existing rule requiring
addressing
transmission
addressing
interregional transmission
interregional
providers to
interregional
transfer
providers to
transmission
engage in
transmission
capability and engage in
planning.
interregional
planning.
recommend
interregional
Would direct
and inter-
levels that
and intercon-
FERC to
connection-
would
nection-wide
establish
wide planning
demonstrably planning
minimum
processes.
strengthen
processes.
transfer
Would direct
reliability.
Would direct
capacity
FERC to
FERC to
between
establish
establish
regions.
minimum
minimum
transfer
transfer
capability
capacity
between
between
regions.
regions.

CRS-8

Inter-
regional
Trans-
Building
mission
American
Planning
Fiscal
Lower
Energy
Improve-
FASTER
Respon-
CHARGE
Energy
CETA Act
Security
RESTART
PEER Act
ment Act of
Act (S.
sibility Act
Act (S.
Costs Act
discussion
Act of 2023 SPUR Act
Act
discussion
2023 (S.
1804 / H.R.
of 2023
2480 / H.R.
Topic
(H.R. 1)
draft
(S. 1399)
(S. 1456)
(S. 1449)
draft
1748)
4689)
(P.L. 118-5)
5154)
Other Topics Would
Would
None
Would
None
Would
None
None
None
Would
modify
establish an
addressed
modify
addressed
establish an
addressed
addressed
addressed
establish an
approval
Office of
approval
Office of
Office of
process for
Transmission
process for
Transmission
Transmission
international at FERC.
international
at FERC.
at FERC.
transmission Would
transmission
Would
Would
facilities.
require
facilities.
require
require
independent
independent
independent
transmission
transmission
transmission
monitors for
monitors for
monitors for
each
each
each
transmission
transmission
transmission
planning
planning
planning
region.
region.
region.
Would
Would
Would
promote
promote
promote
adoption of
adoption of
adoption of
GETs and
GETs and
GETs and
NTAs.
NTAs.
NTAs.
Source: CRS analysis of legislation in Congress.gov, CETA Act discussion draft available at https://seec.house.gov/sites/
sustainableenergyandenvironmentcoalitioncaucus.house.gov/files/CETA%20Act%20Discussion%20Draft%2023.04.26.pdf, and 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.
Notes: FERC = Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; NERC = North American Electric Reliability Corporations; DOE = U.S. Department of Energy; NIETC =
National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor; GETs = Grid-Enhancing Technologies; NTAs = Non-Transmission Alternatives. This table does not provide a
comprehensive analysis of selected legislative proposals or enacted legislation.

CRS-9

link to page 9 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.10 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.”11
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.12
Several of the issues addressed by proposed provisions (e.g., cost allocation) would provide
policy direction to FERC within FERC’s existing authority. FERC could adopt these policies
absent congressional action. FERC has initiated rulemakings addressing some of the topics
discussed in this report. In other words, some FERC transmission policies could change in the
coming years even without Congress passing legislation specifically addressing these policies.
Some Members of Congress have publicly called on FERC to do so. For example, on July 24,
2023, Majority Leader Schumer sent a letter to FERC commissioners urging them to “strengthen
and finalize both the ‘Building for the Future Through Electric Regional Transmission Planning

10 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/.
11 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/.
12 For additional information about offshore electricity infrastructure development, see CRS Report R46970, Offshore
Wind Energy: Federal Leasing, Permitting, Deployment, and Revenues, by Laura B. Comay and Corrie E. Clark.
Congressional Research Service

10

Electricity Transmission Permitting Reform Proposals

and Cost Allocation and Generator Interconnection’ proposed rule, and the Federal backstop
siting authority proposed rule.”13

Author Information

Ashley J. Lawson

Specialist 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.

13 The text of the letter is available at https://www.democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/building-on-work-in-
inflation-reduction-act-leader-schumer-calls-on-ferc-to-make-americas-energy-grid-cheaper-cleaner-and-more-reliable.
Congressional Research Service
R47627 · VERSION 3 · UPDATED
11