Rep. Dye requests action to stop SB 6355
Received today from Rep. Mary Dye (R-Pomeroy) March 6th and passing along to WREN subscribers for consideration. This bill is an example of the worst of authoritarian instincts out of Olympia ignoring rural community input and concerns. Contact your legislators and share concerns with your circles.
From Rep. Dye:
I am hoping you can help me spread the word.
We heard SB 6355 in Appropriations this morning, a bill which would establish a quasi-state body (the Washington Electric Transmission Authority). The body is intended to expedite expansion of electric transmission projects, increase grid connections for renewable energy, and be a statewide resource for developing upgrades to transmission lines.
This body would be entirely appointed by the Governor (without Senate confirmation), and have a broad range of capacities and powers that go beyond typical state agency authority, including: the power of eminent domain and the ability to finance electric transmission projects.
We asked questions in committee to show concerns that our counties should be aware of:
My understanding is that if an investor-owned utility builds a transmission line, that property is considered real property and generates tax revenue to the county and its junior taxing districts. If transmission lines are owned and built by the State Authority, will that generate property tax revenue to the county and its junior taxing districts? Answer: No. When transmission lines are owned by investor-owned utilities or private developers, the infrastructure is treated as taxable utility property. Counties hosting these lines receive significant property tax revenue that supports schools, fire districts, emergency services, rural hospitals, and county government. The bill establishes an undefined impact fee that the Authority would pay, but the way the funds would be developed is not well defined. If Washington builds 2000-3000 miles of new transmission lines by 2040, counties hosting those corridors could receive an estimated $60 million - $90 million per year in property tax revenue. Over the life of the infrastructure, that could be billions of dollars supporting rural public services. Without a payment mechanism, those revenues may never reach the counties where the infrastructure is located. I have attached a memo explaining this flaw in the bill.
Under this bill, are the Board Members of the Authority prohibited from having financial interests in the projects that are being developed? Are the Board Members considered members of the Executive Branch that are subject to the State Public Ethics Act? Answer: No. The bill does not prevent people from serving who have significant conflicts of interests.
Under this bill, are any Board Members required to be residents of counties East of the Cascades? Answer: No. The Governor appoints 9 of the 10 members of the Authority. There is no requirement to seat anyone from the impacted counties east of the Cascades.
Under this bill, is the selection of a transmission corridor path a significant agency action subject to an Environmental Justice Assessment? The bill has no guaranteed representation from Eastern Washington, where most new transmission corridors would likely be built and where wildfire risk and land-use impacts are the greatest. It creates over-burdened communities with no requirement to do an Environmental Justice Assessment.
The bill creates a powerful new state entity without addressing the real bottlenecks –permitting delays, federal interconnection queues, and the region’s underlying supply shortage –while concentrating eminent domain authority in a board that may not represent the communities most affected by new transmission corridors.
The authors of the bill did not reach out to Counties or WSAC to get their input on the policy, an agency that functions similarly to EFSEC in siting transmission, only with more power to develop, own and sell transmission lines.
