New maps of proposed "energy corridors" along thousands of miles of public lands in 11 western states are raising more questions than answers.

The legislation that authorized the corridors also is raising concerns that the federal government will usurp the authority of individual states when it comes to siting power and pipe lines, as well as prompting debate over Montana's role as an energy producer and the exportation of that energy.

"We continue to take issue with the basic premise behind this policy," said Patrick Judge with the Montana Environmental Information Center. "... We think it's bad for the environment, bad for landowners and bad for Montana ratepayers."

The designation of energy corridors is required under the energy bill signed in August 2005 by President Bush.

Frustrated by the length of time it takes the energy industry to get approval to run pipe and power lines, Congress gave the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) two years to designate energy corridors on federal land in 11 states in the West. The deadline for that process is August 2007.

The corridors can be used for electrical transmission lines, natural gas or hydrogen pipelines and even fiber optics. The federal government is in the process of putting together a "Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement" that will consider general effects of potential corridors, and said that site-specific analysis will be done when a project is proposed.

CORRIDOR CONFUSION

Having utility lines grouped in one corridor is not a bad idea, said David Alberswerth with The Wilderness Society. But the short timeframe allocated to designate the corridors, coupled with a lack of information as to where they might be located, troubles him and others.

Jim Melton of Clancy is a self-employed environmental consultant these days, after a lengthy career with the BLM, where he often crafted these kinds of "programmatic EIS" documents. But even Melton can't figure out where the corridors may be designated.

"You can see the general lines on a map, but it's hard to see where that is on the ground. It's a spider web of incongruity," Melton said.

Even NorthWestern Energy of Butte, which submitted proposals for some corridors, has had difficulties understanding the maps, according to company spokeswoman Claudia Rapkoch.

"We see the most recent developments as progress, and progress is good, but the maps were difficult to read," Rapkoch said. "From what we are able to see, so far it looks like what we proposed is included."

Most of those corridors involved areas where NorthWestern already has transmission lines, she added.

The consultant for the project does have better mapping data, which will be included when the draft EIS is released at the end of the year, according to Scott Powers, who is leading the EIS process for the BLM.

"It's still a work in progress," he said.

The possible locations for corridors were crafted after a whirlwind tour by federal officials last fall, who were seeking input from the public and energy companies about where they would like to see -- or not see -- transmission corridors.

At this point, the size of the pathways would be about 3,500 feet wide, although some energy companies requested the corridors be closer to a few miles wide, and Powers was quoted as saying they could be up to 10 miles wide.

Since the DOE and BLM only have the authority to designate corridors on federal lands, many of the corridors appear on the maps as a series of small dots or unconnected lines on public property that goes to and from -- but not through -- tribal or private lands. Nor do the maps show the locations of existing transmission lines.

South of Helena, for example, two small dots appear on the map on the I-15 corridor. A short line is drawn on I-15 midway through Jefferson County, and another is shown on I-90 near the I-15 intersection. North of Helena, a small squiggly line crosses BLM land near what might be the Sleeping Giant. The longest line shown is west of Missoula and generally follows I-90, although it's drawn on Forest Service land.

WHAT'S MISSING

It's what's not shown on the map that concerns some people.

In Oregon, one corridor on the map is drawn to the border of the Warm Springs Indian Reservation, where it stops, but resumes again --on the other side of the reservation.

While it appears that the line is intended to cross tribal lands, that raises the question of whether the federal government can force the sovereign nation to accept the corridor designation.

The answer seems to be no.

Powers said it was a "real challenge" to find a route across the Cascade Mountain Range, and this was the best available, which is why that line is on the map. He added that federal officials have gone back to the consultant to ask for an alternative. Corridors that might cross tribal lands also are a problem in New Mexico and elsewhere.

In fact, that very topic was the subject of a Congressional hearing last week, Alberswerth said. In that hearing, federal officials said they're having discussions with the tribes.

"And just because you see those lines doesn't mean that at the end of the day there will actually end up being corridors in our designated land use plan," Powers said.

The issue could be just as problematic for private property owners.

Using the power of "eminent domain," the government could force property owners to accept power and pipe lines across their land if there are corridors on either side.

But looking at the maps, it's difficult to tell exactly where the corridors are being considered.

"Those maps that they released are not really detailed enough to provide the type of information regarding where those proposed corridors would impact both public lands that we think should be protected ... but depictions on those maps show where those corridors would have some impacts on non-federal lands," Alberswerth said. "You look at the maps and suddenly come to the end of federal lands and the corridor disappears -- where do you think it's going to go? It will go right across the adjacent lands.

"That's important not just for Montanans who care about wilderness or public lands, but private lands as well. ... I'm sure there were good intentions for the maps to convey to the public, but unfortunately they raise more questions than answers."

Power said more definitive information will be included in the draft EIS.

"But how many people are going to be willing to wade through a big, fat document and if the quality, in terms of maps, is not better -- for whatever reason -- we may find ourselves in some sort of situation where the information that's out there is less than what the public needs," Alberswerth said.

Clancy-area rancher Bob Marks, who isn't opposed to the corridors in general, said he'd rather offer some substantive comments prior to the draft EIS being released, rather than after.

"Sometimes, you can make suggestions in the evolution of the draft EIS, that's just as helpful to the process, as opposed to after the draft comes out," Marks said. "After the draft comes out, the horse is almost out of the barn."

SECTION 1221

A bigger issue for Alberswerth and others, however, is what is known as "section 1221."

Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, is the portion of the legislation that mandates energy corridors. But the lesser known "section 1221" of the Act is perhaps even more significant.

"This is going to be really important in the future," Alberswerth said. "It empowers the secretary of energy to designate what are called national interest electric transmission corridors. Once it is designated, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission -- a separate agency -- has the authority to override states' siting authority for transmission lines within those corridors

That's a concern for the MEIC, as well as the Public Service Commission and many Western governors.

"Montana has always been responsible for siting its own transmission lines, through the Major Facility Siting Act," said Judge with MEIC. "This policy was a clear attempt by the Bush administration to subvert that local control, in order to fast-track energy development without regard to the local interests."

PSC Commissioner Tom Schneider said section 1221 was discussed at length during a conference call with FERC representatives last week, and will be the topic of future calls.

"That's what I think is most dangerous -- they would actually override the states and it's specifically allowed by the g****** legislation," Schneider said. "... We want to make sure there is deference to the states' authority, so that companies don't play games with the state's authority, so they don't drag something out, then get a slam dunk through FERC. The states and their governors are sensitive to this issue."

THE BIGGER PICTURE

Judge is concerned about the issue of where corrdors are ultimately sited, but said an even bigger question is whether they should exist at all in the West.

He noted that one of the most devastating aspects of Montana's energy deregulation in 1997 was that it left Montana with one dominant, unregulated energy provider.

"One of the few advantages we have is that the transmission situation currently limits the amount of power PPL can export. That helps keep prices lower for Montanans," Judge said. "What we need to do is reconnect Montana's native, low-cost generation with Montana customers. This proposal takes us in the opposite direction."

He also questions whether it's good for Montana to be developing coal-fired power plants -- he notes that MEIC is tracking more than 5,000 megawatts of proposed plants -- that would put thousands of tons of pollutants into the air each year.

"We think this is another attempt to make us 'the boiler room of the nation,' -- the power and the profits flow out of state, while the pollution remains behind," Judge said.

Reporter Eve Byron can be reached at 447-4076 or eve.byron@helenair.com