Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utilities Avian Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utilities urge Congress for clearer MBTA guidance to plan transmission and reduce bird strikes
Summary
Salt River Project and other witnesses told a House subcommittee that voluntary avian protection programs and best practices can reduce bird–infrastructure conflicts but that changing MBTA interpretations create planning uncertainty for utilities building and maintaining transmission lines.
Representatives of large electric utilities told the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries that regulatory certainty is necessary for long‑term planning of transmission and distribution systems and for protecting both birds and grid reliability.
Leslie Swanson, senior environmental scientist at Salt River Project, described SRP’s Avian Protection Program and the practical field measures the utility uses to reduce interactions between birds and energized equipment. Swanson said SRP coordinates with local conservation partners, uses industry best practices and supports scientific monitoring, but added that utilities need clear compliance standards and predictable enforcement to budget and schedule major projects.
Multiple lawmakers raised concerns about ‘‘regulatory whiplash’’ — the alternation of departmental interpretations across administrations — and asked whether a general permit or similar framework could provide the needed certainty without removing incentives for industry to adopt best practices. Ranking Member Huffman described a legislative proposal he sponsored that would create a general permit program to provide predictable conditions for companies that follow approved mitigation measures.
Witnesses recommended continued reliance on collaborative bodies (for example, the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee), development and dissemination of best management practices, and assurance that enforcement discretion would prioritize compliance and mitigation rather than sudden punitive actions that could disrupt essential services. No regulatory change occurred at the hearing; members asked for more technical follow‑up and written materials.
