province. prior to her appointment to the wisconsin psc, commissioner naz ar worked as an attorney and practiced extensively in the areas of electric and water utilities representing rate payers and utilities. she helped to create the first stand alone transmission company, otherwise known as atc ' to have her here to testify. i welcome her to our subcommittee. >> thank you, congresswoman, mr. chairman. remember about him and members of the subcommittee, and for inviting me to appear at this hearing on the future of the

grid fifth. phelppatients plan to greta. cite transmission lines. three, congress should define the framework through which the states will design and cite the grid. if the states fail then it's appropriate for the federal government to step in and, four, congress should agree to do no harm by not selecting a specific grid designer technology and by not selecting a specific cost allocation. >> as to point number one, congress should define the goals. the renewable energy standards will define the generation portfolio that our nation will need to develop. with clear identification of ref and the carbon mandate, the states can be combin designing the transmission grid necessary for the generation portfolio.

point number two, states should develop the plan and cite the lines. there are a variety of reason yes a state-led process will lead to better results than a process. these reasons include state provisions for retail electric rates. second, planning must accommodate state choices for generation and demand side programs for distribution decisions they've made. third, planning must incorporate the designs for the economisting state transmission and distribution systems anda lastly, state decision making allows more complete public information, participation and acceptance. point number three, congress should define the process. congress could define the parameters for state-led process. such parameters could include the following essentially requiring the states to participate in regional planning initiatives to design the grid that will meet the congressional

mandates. set strict and reasonable deadlines for the planning product and the citing of lines in the plan. ensure that they'll profit from the grid buildout and do not make the decisions for the buildout. lastly, if states do not complete the plan and the siding of the lines for the plan then the federal government should intervene. point number four, congress should do no harm. i ask you to take a hippocratic oath today and such an oath would require you to not do two things. number one, do not pick technologies and plans, while the moniker super highway, end quote, sounds good. depending on the goals of congress, it may not be what we need. i suspect the one size fits all solution such as the 765 grid overlay will not be cost effective, will likely be oversized and will harm some areas. as an aside, the parties advocating for an overlay are the parties that will make money off of that plan.

and the second point about not doing harm is do not select a specific cost allocation for the grid because cost allocation should be tailored for the plan developed. congress should not preselect such an option. if congress mandates a specific cost allocation, it would be indirectly endorsing a specific type of design. for instance, endorsing a so-called postage stamp which allocates the cost evenly over a large area is more appropriate for alternating a current solution. in conclusion, i ask congress to promptly set renewable standards and carbon limits so that the problem is defined. i also ask the congress essentially lock the states in a room and instruct them to solve the problem within a specified time period. the $80 million provided under the aria will conduct thissen dfor.

after being locked in a room for a reasonable period of time, meeting the congressional mandates, then the federal government should step in. the same framework should also be applied to transmissionsiding. i see i have 43 seconds so i'm going quickly provide a quick summary of the efforts currently happening within the states as far as regional planning and siding. the chairman and congresswoman already referenced one of them which is the organization of miso states and that's the midwest independent operator, the states within the 13-state region and one canadian province are currently developing a regional plan and cost allocation process and we expect to have that done by the end of the year. more, i think, importantly to this committee's work, in the aria congress decided they wanted interconnection wide plans and on may 15th, leaders

from the eight different regions within the eastern interconnection met to begin the process of planning on the interconnection wide basis. at the end of this month, we expect to have all 40 states presentt a meeting in which we will begin to discuss just how we expect to go forward in the process and what the state's role should be in the process. thank you very much. >> we thank you very much for being here today and for your testimony. our next witness is paul hibberd, chairman of the mci department of public utilities, chairman hibberd previously worked for the massachusetts department of environmental protection. we welcome you, sir. whenever you're ready, please begin. >> i want to thank members of the committee for inviting me here today to discuss the topic. i want to thank you all for your leadership in addressing our energy challenges and global

climate change and for your wisdom in addressing both at the same time in the legislation. we support your efforts and encourage congress to have the legislation expeditiously. on transmission, we think that ace has got the transmission planning and citing question exactly right. in its current form, it presents a measured and sensitive approach that supports the continued and vital primary role in state and regional resource plan and efforts and it expands the role of ferc to regional planning across a broader geographical footprint and most importantly t does so without jeopardizing the critically important role in competition in the wholesale energy markets. in contrast, i have serious concerns with the more aggressive proposals that have been put forward to expand federal authority in transmission planning and seaeding. at their core, these proposals prepare to put ferc in three roles.

they have the short period of time in interconnection wide plans. ostensibly to access renewable resources. second, it puts ferc in the world of deeming transmission included in such plans as needed for the public convenience and welfare triggering the citing override and third t puts ferc in the role of improving the allocation across all load. under thpr we would hope to see something that one would recognize those areas that have a priority. because of the richness of their renewable resources. but more than that, recognize that if we are going to meet any requirements for renewable portfolio standards or carbon reduction, we've got to do a much better job of matching up how long it takes to do renewable development, with how long it takes to get the transmission to those developments. >> so again, not to make too fine of a point of this. but you're saying out west, it's very difficult, if you're dealing with the remote areas

where the wind and the sun might be strongest? geothermal as well, to create any kind of a transmission system, without at some point, confronting ts federal issue? >> that's absolutely true. >> and no matter how cooperative the states are, and your testimony is that in most instances, states are trying to resolve these issues. the federal government serves as an impediment sometimes of, of such a nature as to just paralyze the process. >> that's correct. >> that's very helpful to us. thank you. >> let me now turn and recognize the gentleman from kentucky. mr. woodfield. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you all for your testimony. mr. wellenkof, back in april of 2009 and the new york times quoted you in an article saying that new coal and nuclear plants

may be unnecessary. and i know that chairman barten and mr. walden and others sent you a letter about that. and i've not had an opportunity it read your response. but you're certainly not opposed to coal and nuclear power, i'm sure of that. >> that's correct. i'm not opposed to coal or nuclear power. >> since i didn't even read "the new york times" article, would you -- basically explain what you were referring to when you made that statement? >> i'd be happy to, thank you for the question. i was referring to basically a scenario where if we look at the diversity of a number of renewable resources, which would include potentially midwest wind, that may have a diversity of delivery, from off-shore wind, and includes solar and geothermal, biomass and also include the demand side, looking at demand response. energy efficiency, distributed generation -- combining these things together with a smart

grid. and the whole answer was in the response was in the context of the smart grid. if you combine these things together, it may in fact be possible with a smart-enough grid, to effectively provide these renewables as if they are base load. and that way, with the displacing base load. and that was my, the context of my statement. >> when you talk about a smart grid, do you have any idea or thoughts or, have you seen any studies about what the cost would be to complete drans formation to a smart grid? >> i've seen cost estimates anywhere from 50 to $60 billion, up to $200 billion. >> and to reach this scenario that you're referring to in the "new york times" article that you just explained, what sort of timeframe would you view this transformation taking place in? >> at least a 10-year to 15-year

timeframe. >> 10 to 15, okay. on the fourth circuit court of appeals decision, havyou all appealed that decision? has ferc appealed the decision? >> let me check with my counsel. it's due in july, we haven't yet made a decision. we're looking at it now. i will tell you, i personally disagree with the fourth circuit's decision. >> i know there are many of us that hope you will appeal. but that's the decision that you all will make, of course. mr. cohen, and mr. hubbard, could you tell me the last, when the last new transmission line was built in each of your states? >> we are actually in vermont, in the process of upgrading most of our transmission systems. so we actually have ongoing projects as we speak. the most major transmission line

that has ever been cited in vermont, the docket ended two years ago and the line is currently almost complete today. >> and how many miles is that line? >> this is vermont. the line was 60 miles. >> 60 miles. and what about you, ms. sayzar. >> just yesterday, we approved a 32-mile, 345-kv line, that costs about $220 million through the city of madison. so in other words the three commissioners essentially cited the transmission line through their back yards. over the the last eight years we've spent $2.5 billion upgrading or creating about 1700 new miles of transmission in the state of wisconsin. we have construction going on all over the state. a line was just energized i believe last week, which was over 100 miles long.

and as congressman baldwin indicated before i became commissioner, i was on the other side, i was getting permits to for a 210-mile line between minnesota and wisconsin. and that line has been energized. >> and mr. edwards? >> in massachusetts, our most populace -- >> please turn on your microphone. >> in massachusetts, our most populated region is the boston area, where our heaviest electrical load is. over the past ten years we've cited and had constructed a number of transmission enhancements to promote the flow of power into boston to eliminate constraints between the boston load pocket and the remainder of massachusetts. >> one other question to you three. with the anticipated increase in demand of electricity needs over the next 15 or 20 years, do you think the existing system is adequate in you