The Transmission Line Siting Act (TLSA), ss. 403.52-.5365, F.S., provides for certification of electrical transmission lines which are 230 kV or larger and which cross a county line and are 15 miles or more in length.   However, if a line is to be constructed entirely within certain** rights-of-way, the act does not apply.  If an applicant so desires, it can request that a line which is less than 15 miles in length or which is within one county be allowed to use the Act.

    The procedural rule is Ch. 62-17, Part II, F.A.C., [62-17.510 through 62-17.760], and an Application Guide is also available.  All nonprocedural rules that would otherwise apply to such a facility will apply to a certified facility. See the Power Plant/Transmission Line Siting  Status Chart for a listing of those units or sites which fall under the TLSA.

     The law is very similar to the Power Plant Siting Act in terms of provisions for Siting Board (Governor & Cabinet) certification, DEP acting as lead agency in addition to addressing its own jurisdictional interests, being in lieu of other agency permits, being a life-of-the facility permit and public interaction. There are some differences in the licensing process, although the majority of the steps, and points when the Districts and Divisions must participate remain the same. The timeclock provided for going through the TLSA certification process is shorter than that for the Power Plant Siting process.  It is recommended that if the reader has not done so already, the description for the Power Plant Siting program be read now, as it clarifies many of the points discussed below.

    The two main differences are (a) there is no Land Use and Zoning hearing -- these issues are incorporated in with the overall process and the certification hearing; and (b) parties to the TLSA proceeding can propose corridors which are alternate in location to the ones proposed by the applicant (the corridor is an area in which the final right-of-way must be located).  These alternate corridors must be reviewed by the agencies, and may be the one (or a variation thereof) which is ultimately certified (TLSA flowchart showing alternate corridor process).

    The Alternate Corridor provision of the law (this provision does not occur in the Power Plant Siting Act), while providing affected persons the opportunity to address their concerns about the projects location, can also impose a heavy workload on agency staff.  For example, any person which is a landowner in the corridor(s) proposed by the applicant can be deemed substantially affected and thus be granted party status by the Administrative Law Judge.  Since the corridors can be as much as a mile wide under the TLSA, and corridors can be several hundred miles long, this opens up the potential for many alternates to be proposed and reviewed.  In one TLSA proceedings, over 800 miles of route was eventually reviewed (four times what had been proposed by the applicant), and only about 20% of the route proposed by the applicant was certified.

    Because of this consideration, and because a corridor is initially what is proposed for certification, an exact right-of-way location can seldom be reviewed during the proceedings.  Thus, the Postcertification Review process is used extensively in the TLSA, and a process is even outlined in the rule.  The majority of impacts to be reviewed under Postcertification Review tend to relate to the location of the line in relation to wetlands, and the review process was modeled after the dredge-and-fill permitting procedures.  However, no separate permit is issued, since certification is the permit; instead, when a point is reached that the information provided is satisfactory and there are no further objections to the designs and plans, the jurisdictional agency provides a letter to that effect.

    Location of the corridor and the right-of-way raises more than wetlands issues, however.  The public is frequently concerned about of health & safety effects from and electric and magnetic fields (EMF), and the issue of land ownership.  District /Division staff should refer and questions received on these matters to the SCO.  The Department has rules adopted regulating EMF, and the SCO is the administering office for that program.  Regarding land ownership, generally, a utility company will attempt to work out any necessary arrangements via the acquisition of easements or fee simple title, but almost all utilities have the right of eminent domain and will exercise that authority if no other means can be worked out.