A report from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has found that there are both opportunities and barriers to co-locating high voltage transmission over the nation’s transportation corridor.
The report, required by Congress to be delivered to the Committees on Appropriations in both houses of Congress, looked at the studies, reports and policies across the country surrounding high voltage transmission and what kinds of impact co-locating it along the country’s transportation corridor.
While various federal and state laws support co-location, the report found, it is not without its drawbacks and concerns.
The report found that some states have enacted laws and policies to promote co-location of high voltage transmission. In Maine, for example, a 2010 law designated energy corridors for the development of transmission and other energy infrastructure along specific highway and pipeline rights-of-way.
The state’s designation of transmission corridors along transportation corridors provided greater certainty in planning, siting, and permitting, the report said. Additionally, lease payments from infrastructure development in the transportation corridors could be used to fund state energy efficiency initiatives and economic initiatives for renewable energy development.
Likewise, in 2016, New Hampshire passed a law designating energy corridors along, within and under specific highway rights-of-way for underground co-location of transmission and other energy infrastructure.
Co-location in these cases, the report said, could reduce the negative effects of a project, and the cost of project development by eliminating the creation of new rights-of-way on undisturbed lands.
However, there are some barriers to co-location with transportation corridors, the report said.
While the opportunities may benefit the projects, ultimately, the use of highway rights-of-way are decisions made by states. Some states’ utility accommodation policies expressly prohibit transmission and other longitudinal utility facilities in highway rights-of-way, the report said. And other states restrict the co-location of transmission in highway rights-of-way for other reasons.
While co-location along transportation corridors could reduce developmental costs in some ways, they may increase costs in others because of their locations. If the transportation corridor does not run in the direction compatible with the transmission corridor, it would be inefficient to co-locate the two.
Lastly, the report said the physical proximity of co-located infrastructure could create additional safety and security concerns. Co-locating transmission corridors along transportation corridors increase the risk of an accident or failure, the report said. Construction and maintenance work at co-located infrastructure could put workers at greater risk of safety hazards. And, co-located infrastructure may be a more desirable terrorist target, the report said.