Some of you may remember the Environmental Analysis and Decisionmaking effort the FS conducted. At our Region 2 session, the power folks were concerned that if they had a power line that went through numerous Districts, they had to get approval separately and wondered if there were an easier way (say, a giant EIS). This seems particularly important as power lines (perhaps less so for transmission and more so for distribution, still..) can start wildfires, leading to litigation, possible bankruptcy and increasing charges to customers, let alone impacts of the wildfires themselves. Then there are the costs and health impacts of turning off power to communities in high winds.
Different sources have different estimates of how many transmission lines need to be replaced, e.g.
Over the next three decades, we estimate that upward of a hundred and forty thousand miles of transmission lines will come due for replacement. To simply upgrade this infrastructure and maintain the status quo would require an investment of more than seven hundred billion dollars, by our calculations.
Different sources have different estimates for how much new transmission is required for solar and wind buildout (and of course nuclear and geothermal might need more as well, depending on where they are built.)
According to this article NREL says
According to NREL’s 100% clean electricity study, these high load growth and high clean electricity futures would require building 91,000 miles of new high voltage interregional transmission lines by 2035. This appears unattainable when it takes 10 years on average to move a transmission line from conception to operation, and only 386 miles of high voltage transmission were built in 2021. The projects required are not even in the pipeline — the Needs Study says all regions are behind on utility planning for even the moderate/high scenarios, let alone the high/high scenarios.
Apparently the kind of growth desired is not happening, but I think given current uncertainties, transmission and distribution lines are very important.; hence their maintenance is very important. It appears the the Fix our Forests Act tries to make maintenance easier. It also says no new permanent roads. Does anyone think that this is not a good idea? Also I wonder if this CE should apply to BLM, NPS, FWS and DOD as well? I know the new CEQ regs allow agencies to adopt others’ CEs but there seems to be work involved that may not be necessary. See these examples, DOI adopts FS and Navy’s CEs, FS adopts USGS CE. It doesn’t look like a great deal of work.. but why not obviate it?
SEC. 203. Vegetation management, facility inspection, and operation and maintenance relating to electric transmission and distribution facility rights-of-way.
(a) Hazard trees within 150 feet of electric power line.—Section 512(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1772(a)(1)(B)(ii)) is amended by striking “10” and inserting “150”.(b) Consultation with private landowners.—Section 512(c)(3)(E) of such Act (43 U.S.C. 1772(c)(3)(E)) is amended—
(1) in clause (i), by striking “and” at the end;
(2) in clause (ii), by striking the period and inserting “; and”; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
“(iii) consulting with a private landowner with respect to any hazard trees identified for removal from land owned by the private landowner.”.
(c) Review and approval process.—Section 512(c)(4)(A)(iv) of such Act (43 U.S.C. 1772(c)(4)(A)(iv)) is amended to read as follows:
“(iv) ensures that—
“(I) a plan submitted without a modification under clause (iii) shall be automatically approved 120 days after being submitted; and
“(II) with respect to a plan submitted with a modification under clause (iii), if not approved within 120 days after being submitted, the Secretary concerned shall develop and submit a letter to the owner and operator describing—
“(aa) a detailed timeline (to conclude within 165 days after the submission of the plan) for completing review of the plan;
“(bb) any identified deficiencies with the plan and specific opportunities for the owner and operator to address such deficiencies; and
“(cc) any other relevant information, as determined by the Secretary concerned.”.
SEC. 204. Categorical exclusion for electric utility lines rights-of-way.
(a) Categorical exclusion established.—Forest management activities described in subsection (b) are a category of activities hereby designated as being categorically excluded from the preparation of an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement under section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332).(b) Forest management activities designated for categorical exclusion.—The forest management activities designated under subsection (a) for a categorical exclusion are—
(1) the development and approval of a vegetation management, facility inspection, and operation and maintenance plan submitted under section 512(c)(1) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1772(c)(1)) by the Secretary concerned; and
(2) the implementation of routine activities conducted under the plan referred to in paragraph (1).
(c) Availability of categorical exclusion.—On and after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary concerned may use the categorical exclusion established under subsection (a) in accordance with this section.
(d) Exclusion of certain areas from categorical exclusion.—The categorical exclusion established under subsection (a) shall not apply to any forest management activity conducted—
(1) in a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System; or
(2) on National Forest System lands on which the removal of vegetation is restricted or prohibited by an Act of Congress.
(e) Permanent roads.—
(1) PROHIBITION ON ESTABLISHMENT.—A forest management activity designated under subsection (b) shall not include the establishment of a permanent road.
(2) EXISTING ROADS.—The Secretary concerned may carry out necessary maintenance and repair on an existing permanent road for the purposes of conducting a forest management activity designated under subsection (b).
(3) TEMPORARY ROADS.—The Secretary concerned shall decommission any temporary road constructed for carrying out a forest management activity designated under subsection (b) not later than the date that is 3 years after the date on which the forest management activity is completed.
(f) Applicable laws.—Clauses (iii) and (iv) of section 106(a)(3) shall apply to forest management activities designated under subsection (b).
“It also says no new permanent roads.”
… if you want to use this CE.
Does anyone think that this is not a good idea?
The possible effects of permanent roads would preclude using a CE. So yes, I think it’s a good idea.
Jon, I meant “do you think this CE is a good idea?”