The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued a revolutionising reform, which is being regarded as a milestone of a decision. FERC issued a new rule, Order No. 1920, addressing the regional transmission policy and the need for long-term planning.
This new rule marks the first time that FERC has turned its attention to regional transmission policy in over ten years. Experts and climate advocates say the decision was desperately required to transition the United States’ power sector towards a cleaner future.
FERC initiated action to ensure the transmission grid can satisfy the increasing need for dependable electricity nationwide. They introduced a new regulation that specifies the process for planning and funding the infrastructure necessary to sustain the power supply and support the US economy into the 21st Century. (A transmission grid comprises a network of different power stations, transmission lines and substations.)
The long-awaited order from FERC requires the country’s regional grid operators to create processes for planning and building transmission lines. It lists specific requirements for transmission providers to plan long-term for regional transmission facilities and determine how to pay for them (cost allocation), according to the news release on the FERC website.
As per the rule, transmission lines should be able to support the rapidly growing electricity demand for over 20 years. The regional grid operators have approximately 12 months to develop plans to comply with this requirement which will be subject to approval or rejection by FERC.
Till the rule was passed, these operators were not required to create any long-term plans, and as a result, the majority of the operators, except a few, had no plan at all.
Although clean energy and climate advocates lauded FERC’s new rule, remarks from the critics sharply criticised the rule. Republic FERC Commissioner Mark Christie voted against the rule and remarked that the order if passed, negates key state authority to the federal government and will face severe challenges in court. Legal experts echoed their assent mentioning that the rule could possibly be overturned by legal challenges if it reaches a court that favours the major questions doctrine.