HOME    SEARCH    ABOUT US    CONTACT US    HELP   
           
Rule: 17.20.1606 Prev     Up     Next    
Rule Title: ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION LINES, NEED STANDARD
Add to My Favorites
Add to Favorites
Department: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, DEPARTMENT OF
Chapter: MAJOR FACILITY SITING
Subchapter: Decision Standards
 
Latest version of the adopted rule presented in Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM):

Printer Friendly Version

17.20.1606    ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION LINES, NEED STANDARD

(1) In order to find that there is a need for an electric transmission facility as required by 75-20-301 , MCA, the department must find that the services of the facility are needed by finding and determining the following:

(a) For facilities for which insufficient power transfer capacity at adequate voltage levels under normal operating conditions is a stated basis of need in the application, either that:

(i) the transfer capacity of the proposed facility will be required within two years of the date the proposed facility is to be placed in service; or

(ii) if the finding in (1) (a) (i) cannot be met, that the expected benefits of constructing a transmission line with the transfer capacity of the proposed line, instead of a line for which the finding in (1) (a) (i) can be met, warrant the costs based on a finding and determination of the following:

(A) the expected benefits of building the proposed line compared with a line that would satisfy (1) (a) (i) ; and

(B) the extra costs of building the proposed line compared with a line that would satisfy (1) (a) (i) .

(b) For facilities for which insufficient power transfer capacity at adequate voltage levels under contingent operating conditions is a stated basis of need in the application, that:

(i) there is or will be a power transfer capacity shortage under contingent conditions that will be rectified by the proposed facility within two years of the date the proposed facility is to be placed in service; and

(ii) the contingent conditions under which existing transfer capacity is insufficient, are sufficiently likely to occur to give a reasonable assurance that the expected benefits of the proposed facility exceed the costs of the facility.

(c) For facilities for which transient stability under normal operating conditions is a stated basis of need in the application, that there is or will be a transient stability problem under normal operating conditions, that will be rectified by the proposed facility within two years after the date the proposed facility is to be placed in service.

(d) For facilities for which transient stability under contingent operating conditions is a stated basis of need in the application, that:

(i) there is or will be a transient stability problem under contingent operating conditions that will be rectified by the proposed facility within two years of the date the proposed facility is to be placed in service; and

(ii) the contingent conditions under which the transient stability problems arise are sufficiently likely to occur to give a reasonable assurance that the expected benefits of the proposed facility exceed the costs.

(e) For facilities for which excessive voltage drop under normal operating conditions is a stated basis of need in the application, that:

(i) there is, or will be within two years after the proposed facility is to be placed in service, an excessive voltage drop that will be rectified by the proposed facility; and

(ii) the applicable design or operating voltage drop criteria used to justify the proposed facility are reasonably likely to result in benefits in excess of costs.

(f) For facilities for which excessive voltage drop under contingent operating conditions is a stated basis of need, that:

(i) there is or will be within two years after the proposed facility is to be placed in service a problem of excessive voltage drop under contingent operating conditions which will be rectified by the proposed facility; and

(ii) the applicable design or operating voltage drop criteria and the expected frequency and duration of the contingent operating conditions under which the problem exists are such as to give a reasonable assurance that the expected benefits of the proposed facility exceed the costs of the facility.

(g) For facilities for which reliability of service is a stated basis of need in the application:

(i) that the reliability criteria of the applicant will be violated within two years of the date the proposed facility is to be placed in service if the proposed facility is not built or some other solution is not implemented; and

(ii) that the value of the savings from reduced outage plus any value for general reliability of service, over the life of the facility, is reasonably likely to exceed the cost of the proposed facility.

(h) For facilities for which economy considerations are a stated basis of need:

(i) that the expected benefits of the proposed facility exceed the costs of the facility, given:

(A) the difference between expected system costs with and without the line;

(B) the expected location and size of markets and price for surplus power; and

(C) the expected source, quantity and price of purchased economy energy; and

(ii) that the benefits of the line warrant the resource commitment associated with it given the degree of uncertainty surrounding the benefits, likely markets, and economy purchases identified in (1) (h) (i) ; and

(iii) if transmission capacity exists that could carry the desired energy power flow without violating voltage drop, transfer capacity or other transmission planning criteria, that:

(A) the existing capacity is not available to the applicant at reasonable cost;

(B) the applicant has made every reasonable effort to reach agreement with the owners of the existing capacity;

(C) no agreement has been reached with the owners of the existing capacity; and

(D) no means exist for reaching a reasonable agreement with the owners of the existing capacity or for otherwise gaining access at reasonable terms to the existing capacity.

(i) For all facilities, that any forecast of loads is consistent with available information about loads and load growth in the area to be served by the proposed facility.

History: 75-20-105, MCA; IMP, 75-20-301, MCA; NEW, 1984 MAR p. 1844, Eff. 12/28/84; TRANS, from DNRC, 1996 MAR p. 2863; AMD, 2005 MAR p. 252, Eff. 2/11/05.


 

 
MAR Notices Effective From Effective To History Notes
2/11/2005 Current History: 75-20-105, MCA; IMP, 75-20-301, MCA; NEW, 1984 MAR p. 1844, Eff. 12/28/84; TRANS, from DNRC, 1996 MAR p. 2863; AMD, 2005 MAR p. 252, Eff. 2/11/05.
Home  |   Search  |   About Us  |   Contact Us  |   Help  |   Disclaimer  |   Privacy & Security