Lawmakers debate interstate transmission compact; bill pulled for further work

Representative Zach Graemeck, sponsor of House Bill 18‑13, told the committee the bill would create a compact and a multi‑state council to recommend ways to lower the cost and speed the siting, permitting and construction of high‑voltage transmission lines across participating states.

The legislation, as explained to the committee, would set up a transmission council with members appointed by governors and legislative presiding officers, require an annual report to governors, state public service commissions and legislatures, and identify “principles” to guide permitting and siting across participating states.

Mike Adair, external affairs, American Powerplay, said the compact aims to address a national shortfall in electricity transmission and to “bring home manufacturing jobs” by speeding projects. He told lawmakers, “We are falling behind rapidly,” and urged state coordination so lawmakers can recommend changes to laws and regulations that slow regional projects.

Entergy Arkansas public affairs director John Bethel testified against the bill, saying regional organizations already provide coordinating forums. “MISO and SPP . . . have regional committees” and host coordination that includes state regulators, he told the committee, and he warned the bill as drafted could overlap with existing regional planning and spark confusion.

Several lawmakers pressed the sponsor and witnesses about the bill’s mandatory language. Representative Linda Dolby and others pointed to provisions requiring member states to “allow and streamline permitting and regulatory review,” asking whether that language would bind Arkansas to actions that could affect state regulatory authority or create new costs. Sponsor testimony repeatedly said the compact’s council would make recommendations only; it would not itself adopt binding regulations, and the Public Service Commission and state legislatures retain regulatory authority. The bill includes a severability clause and language intended to preserve each state’s regulatory responsibilities.

Lawmakers also questioned likely costs and how the compact would interact with existing regional transmission organizations (RTOs) such as the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) and Southwest Power Pool (SPP). Witnesses said the compact would not replace RTO planning and operations; rather, it would be a forum for legislators and regulators to compare permitting practices and recommend legislative changes. Concerns remained over whether the compact’s aspirational “shall” language could be read as mandatory and how cost‑sharing or bid selection for projects would work.

After extended questioning and testimony from utilities and the sponsor, Representative Jefferson Graham asked for a pause to consult with counsel. He then told the committee the bill would be pulled and submitted as an interim study proposal (ISP) for further work and discussion before returning to the committee.

Outcome: The sponsor withdrew the bill from consideration in committee and said it will be refiled as an ISP for further study and revision.

Why it matters: Supporters said the compact could provide a structured way for neighboring states to harmonize permitting and reduce delays that slow transmission upgrades and new lines. Opponents and several legislators said the bill as drafted raised unanswered questions about legal commitments, costs, overlap with existing regional bodies, and whether Arkansas could be bound by actions taken or recommended by a multistate council.

What’s next: Committee members and witnesses urged additional drafting to clarify the compact’s legal effect, cost exposures, and the distinction between advisory recommendations and state regulatory authority before the measure returns as an ISP or a revised bill.