Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Energy Transmission Regulation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Sponsor proposes moving transmission line certificate reviews from DEQ to PSC; proponents and agencies flag cleanup and amendment needs

2663821 · March 17, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Senator Daniel Zolnicott opened the hearing on Senate Bill 301, which would shift review authority for certain advanced transmission projects to the Public Service Commission and create a preapproval role.

Senator Daniel Zolnicott opened the hearing on Senate Bill 301, which would shift review authority for certain advanced transmission projects to the Public Service Commission (PSC) and create a preapproval role for the commission.

Zolnicott said the bill aims to give the PSC – which regulates utilities and understands transmission economics – the authority to issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) for advanced transmission projects rather than DEQ. “The main point of that is if it's a billion dollars of transmission, even if you get that certificate, that's going to be unaffordable to rate payers. So we got to make sure the PSC has their ability to say yes or no,” the sponsor told the committee.

NorthWestern Energy’s director of government affairs testified in support and said the company would propose a few non‑substantial amendments. State Department of Environmental Quality Director Sonya Nowakowski and a PSC external‑affairs coordinator attended as informational witnesses to answer questions. The PSC and DEQ representatives did not offer opposition in the transcript but raised issues to be addressed through amendment.

Committee questions focused on whether the sponsor would work with stakeholders on cleanup amendments and whether the bill’s language duplicated existing statutory sections. The sponsor said he planned to run proposed cleanup amendments by the interested parties and asked the committee to hold the bill for a few days to allow that work.

The sponsor characterized the measure as a product of negotiation and said he wanted the bill to be unanimous and fully supported; he also noted that if contentious language were added later in the process, the bill might die in the House. No committee vote appears in the hearing transcript.