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 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 governments along the line’s path. Critics argue 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
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 taking steps 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. Since 2011, FERC has required
some planning within transmission planning regions. Some stakeholders believe 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 versus state and local 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 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

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. Additionally, this report
summarizes modifications the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) made to its
transmission permitting rules in May 2024.
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 FERC’s jurisdiction 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 R47862, Electricity Transmission: What Is the Role of the Federal
Government?, by Ashley J. Lawson and Adam Vann
• 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 (i.e., authority to approve the route and
authorize construction) resides in the states. A transmission line crossing state lines may require
approvals from multiple state governments along the line’s path. Transmission line developers
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 time to the transmission development process and
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
and other 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
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.3 Under its amended authority, DOE released a guidance document for applicants in
December 2023 and a preliminary list of 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
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.”6 A related principle (stated explicitly in Order No. 1000)
is that customers that do not benefit from transmission investments should not be required to
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.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
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);8
• Reliability and resilience; and
• Incentives 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-
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 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)
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
siting authority). Facilities must be
interest.
interstate (including offshore) or
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)
to allow transmission developers to
request certain proposed routes to be
designated as a NIETC.
Would encourage transmission
developers to enter into community
benefit agreements with affected
parties.
Fiscal Responsibility Act Not addressed.
Not addressed.
Directs NERC and FERC to
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)
promulgate a rule requiring
specified levels of interregional
transfer capacity between
regions.
CRS-9

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.
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.
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 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