CAISO Initiates Broad Cost Allocation Stakeholder Process
Yesterday, the California Independent System Operator Corp. (“CAISO”) issued a straw proposal entitled “Cost Allocation Guiding Principles.” The straw proposal kicks off a new stakeholder process designed to establish a set of guiding principles for cost allocation that can be applied throughout the CAISO’s various markets and services.
As expected, the stakeholder community has been divided over how to address cost allocation. Recently, the CAISO has reviewed cost allocation issues in several initiatives impacting renewable energy generators in the CAISO balancing authority area, including the Renewable Integration: Market and Product Review Phase 1, the Renewable Integration: Market Vision and Roadmap, and the Flexible Ramping Product. The stakeholder comments in these initiatives and others provided the basis for the CAISO’s current straw proposal. The CAISO plans to apply this new set of guiding principles both new programs (starting with the ongoing Flexible Ramping Product initiative) and, later in 2012, existing programs (CAISO expects to make a broad-spectrum review of existing cost allocations to ensure consistency with the new guiding principles.
Read on for a summary of the guiding principles proposed by the CAISO yesterday, which are similar to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s cost causation principles in Order No. 1000:
Continue Reading...Update: California Energy Commission Postpones Action on Proposed Decision Allowing PV Projects to Opt-In to CEC Permitting Process
In a previous blog, we reported on a proposed decision pending consideration by the California Energy Commission (CEC), which would allow solar photovoltaic project developers to opt-in to the CEC's permitting process. The CEC has announced that its decision on this matter has been postponed to an as-yet undetermined date.
The Interconnection Landscape Changes Yet Again: FERC Conditionally Accepts the California ISO's Interconnection Queue Reform Phase 2
On January 31, 2012, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) conditionally accepted additional reforms to the California ISO’s Generator Interconnection Procedures (GIP) that significantly change the rules that apply to developers seeking to interconnect power generation facilities in the California ISO’s balancing authority area.
The decision continues the California ISO’s efforts to reform the GIP that began in 2008, and focuses on 18 specific issues that arose from stakeholder efforts, interconnection agreement negotiations, the California ISO’s transmission planning process, or that were carried over from the previous round of reforms.
The reforms addressed the following issues and more:
• Deliverability Status
• Financial Security Deadlines
• Posting of Security and Reimbursement of Costs for Network Upgrades
• Reductions in Project Size
Click here to continue reading this alert.
To learn more about the reforms approved yesterday and how they may affect your generation development plans, please contact one of the attorneys listed below.
Maurcus Wood at (503) 294-9434 or mwood@stoel.com
Seth Hilton at (415) 617-8943 or sdhilton@stoel.com
Jason Johns at (503) 294-9618 or jajohns@stoel.com
Chad Marriott at (503) 294-9339 or ctmarriott@stoel.com
California Energy Commission Issues 2011 Integrated Energy Policy Report
Yesterday, the California Energy Commission (CEC) issued a notice that, as part of the CEC’s February 8, 2012 Business Meeting, the Commission will consider adoption of the Lead Commissioner’s Final 2011 Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR).
The CEC’s notice included the following information:
Background
Senate Bill 1389 requires the CEC to adopt an integrated energy policy report every two years. The objective of the IEPR is to evaluate market trends and develop energy policies that will "conserve resources, protect the environment, ensure energy reliability, enhance the state's economy, and protect public health and safety." The Final 2011 IEPR has been prepared in response to this direction and is available on the CEC’s website.
To prepare the report, the Energy Commission conducted 30 public workshops on a range of issues facing California's electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel sectors. On December 5, 2011, the Energy Commission released the Draft 2011 IEPR to solicit public comments. The Final 2011 IEPR considers all written comments on the draft report.
Written Comments
The Energy Commission will accept comments on the Final 2011 IEPR and requests parties to submit comments in writing by February 1, 2012, so that comments can be considered before the February 8, 2012, Business Meeting. Comments will also be accepted at the Business Meeting.
CPUC Adopts Decision Implementing RPS Portfolio Content Categories
A legal update from our colleagues Seth Hilton and Allison Smith:
On December 15, 2011, the California Public Utilities Commission adopted Decision 11-12-052, implementing Portfolio Content Categories for the 33% Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program in California. The Decision implements portions of Senate Bill (S.B.) x1-2, which created the 33% RPS Program. S.B. x1-2 established three categories of RPS-eligible electricity, applicable to RPS contracts executed after June 1, 2010:
- Category One includes electricity from RPS-eligible resources that have their first point of interconnection with a California balancing authority, RPS-eligible resources with a dynamic transfer arrangement with a California balancing authority, and RPS-eligible resources scheduling their electricity directly into a California balancing authority without substituting electricity from another source.
- Category Two includes firmed and shaped RPS-eligible electricity.
- Category Three includes transactions that do not meet the criteria of Category One or Two, including unbundled renewable energy credit (REC) transactions.
Click here to read the entire update on the Portfolio Content Categories and this decision.
Proposed Decision Would Allow Solar PV Projects to Opt-In to California Energy Commission Permitting Process
Next Wednesday, the California Energy Commission will consider adoption of a Proposed Decision that would “expand” the Commission’s jurisdiction over the permitting of energy facilities in California. The Proposed Decision arises from a motion by Solar Trust of America asking the Energy Commission to find that photovoltaic electrical generating facilities may voluntarily submit to the Commission’s exclusive permitting jurisdiction. For thirty-five years, the Commission has acted as the “one-stop shop” for the permitting of thermal energy facilities greater than 50 megawatts capacity in California, including gas-fired, geothermal and solar-thermal power plants. However non-thermal facilities (e.g. wind and solar PV) and projects under 50 megawatts were excluded from CEC jurisdiction. The Proposed Decision provides an interpretation of an existing statutory “opt in” provision, which would allow solar photovoltaic projects (and logically, by extension, other non-thermal projects of less than 50 megawatt) to opt in to the Energy Commission’s permitting process and avoid local permitting jurisdiction. The Commission’s jurisdiction over a proposed energy facility generally dispenses with the need to obtain most other local, regional, and state permits, though it does not eliminate the obligation to comply with applicable local, regional, and state laws and regulations. Solar Trust’s motion to open up the Commission’s state-level permitting process for the first time to strictly non-thermal projects has been of interest to a variety of sectors and numerous parties participated in the briefing leading to the Proposed Decision. The Proposed Commission Decision Affirming that Warren-Alquist Act Section 25502.3 Applies to Photovoltaic Electrical Generating Facilities is available for public comment preceding the December 14 hearing.
PIRP Changes Off the Agenda for December CAISO Board Meeting
On November 30, the California Independent System Operator Corporation ("CAISO") announced that it would not push for changes to the Participating Intermittent Resources Program ("PIRP") at the December 15-16 Board of Governors meeting. The announcement came as welcome news to intermittent renewables advocates as the CAISO and stakholders have spent the past year negotiating issues set out in one Straw Proposal, five Revised Straw Proposals, and a Draft Final Proposal on changes to PIRP eligibility requirements and cost allocation, bid cost recovery ("BCR"), and a lowering of the energy bid floor. Instead of making changes to PIRP now, the CAISO will revisit the discussions in the second quarter of 2012- when it is scheduled to begin a stakeholder process to review decremental bidding options for participating intermittent resources in the Renewable Integration- Market and Product Review, Phase 2 initiative. Changes to the BCR netting methodology and the incremental lowering of the energy bid floor are still scheduled for review by the CAISO Board this month.
California Energy Commission Releases Comprehensive Energy Storage Analysis
This week the California Energy Commission's PIER program released a comprehensive report titled "2020 Strategic Analysis of Energy Storage in California." The report discusses the state of technology, policy, barriers to deployment and suggested reforms. A staff workshop related to the report will be held on November 15, 2011 at 10 am at the CEC located at 1516 Ninth Street, Sacramento, California 95814 (webex also available).
CPUC Seeks Comments in AB 2514 Electric Storage System (ESS) Docket R.10-12-007
California’s AB 2514 directs the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) to determine appropriate targets, if any, for load-serving entities to procure viable and cost-effective energy storage systems. If the CPUC decides that targets are appropriate, it is supposed to set dates for achieving those targets.
As a follow up to an AB 2514 workshop held on June 28, 2011, Administrative Law Judge Amy C. Yip-Kikugawa issued a ruling asking for comments on the presentations made at the workshop by the California Energy Commission, the California Independent System Operator, Southern California Edison, the California Energy Storage Alliance, AES Energy Storage, Beacon Power Corporation and KS Engineers, all of which were attached to the ruling. The ruling asks the parties to comment on whether they agree or disagree with the presentations.
In addition, the ruling seeks comments from parties on the following questions:
- Which barrier(s), either identified by the presenters or the CPUC, do you believe present the greatest impediment to more widespread usage of energy storage and development of ESS in California?
- Are there other barriers that were not identified during theworkshop? Please explain how these other barriers impede theusage or development of energy storage and whether they needto be resolved at the Commission or other forums.
- To whatextent can the Commission assist in removing these barriers?In your opinion, are there certain barriers that need to beresolved first, and therefore have higher priority?
The deadline for comments is August 29, 2011, and reply comments will be due September 16, 2011. Your can find a copy of the ruling and attachments here.
PG&E Unveils its Smart Grid Deployment Plan
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (“PG&E”) released its Smart Grid Deployment Plan which represents a disciplined and integrated approach to using new monitoring and control technology to provide safe, reliable, responsive and environmentally sustainable service to its customers in Northern and Central California.
The 290-page Plan includes future projects that will take advantage of a wide range of advanced communications, computing, sensing and control technologies. PG&E hopes to improve service and reliability, lower customer costs and incorporate more renewable energy onto the grid, all in accordance with the California Public Utility Commission’s decisions and policies implementing California's Smart Grid bill.
The Plan adopts several high-priority objectives to guide PG&E’s Smart Grid investments and initiatives over the next 10 years. Those objectives include the following:
- To engage customers, PG&E will:
- Use the existing SmartMeterTM technology to allow customers not only to view but to modify their energy usage;
- Improve the use of demand response resources in energy and ancillary service markets; and
- Invest in infrastructure to support the electric vehicle market.
- To support Smart Energy Markets, PG&E will:
- Improve its forecasting of market conditions; and
- Integrate renewable resources (primarily wind and solar) on a large scale into the grid.
- To support Smart Utility practices, PG&E will:
- Improve its response to outages;
- Enhance its grid monitoring and control;
- Maintain system voltage levels; and
- Improve substation monitoring.
- PG&E will also continually improve and upgrade the infrastructure supporting the smart grid.
The Plan can be found at:
Compliance with California Cap-And-Trade May Be Deferred until 2013
Yesterday, the Executive Director of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), Mary Nichols, announced that CARB is proposing to delay full implementation of California’s cap-and-trade program for a year. In testimony before the California Senate Select Committee on the Environment, the Economy, and Climate Change, Nichols stated that CARB is proposing to “initiate” the cap-and-trade program in 2012, but delay requirements for compliance until January 1, 2013. CARB adopted cap-and-trade in December 2010 and the program was set to go into effect on January 1, 2012, the statutory deadline for all greenhouse gas emissions reduction measures under A.B. 32 to become operative. CARB’s announcement comes despite an order from the California Court of Appeals last Friday that CARB can continue with implementation of cap-and-trade pending appeals related to the program in Association of Irritated Residents v. CARB. Earlier this month, CARB issued a revised analysis of alternatives to the cap-and-trade program, as ordered by the lower court in Association of Irritated Residents v. CARB. That supplemental environmental document is currently open for public comment until July 28 and CARB will consider adoption of the supplement on August 24, 2011. Nichols stated in her testimony that CARB will hold a public workshop in the next few weeks on its proposal to delay cap-and-trade compliance and other elements needed to finalize the cap-and-trade regulation. Look for CARB to issue an updated draft regulation in advance of the public workshop.
Stoel Rives Partners to Present Wind Project Development Case Study at Chinese Wind Conference in Beijing
Stoel Rives Partners Alan Merkle, Ed Einowski and Michael Mangelson will participate in the upcoming Workshop on Investment in U.S. Wind Energy by Chinese Companies, held in Beijing, China on June 30, 2011.
The opportunities for mutually beneficial cooperation between U.S. and China wind power industries have become increasingly profitable. Now more than ever it’s important for key players on both sides to understand and evaluate where their best prospects lie, as many basic business assumptions can become lost in translation.
This workshop, organized by the Chinese Wind Energy Association (CWEA), the U.S.-China Energy Cooperation Program (ECP) Wind Power Working Group (WPWG), and the National Energy Administration (NEA), gathers wind experts from across the U.S. and China to discuss the globalization of the Chinese wind energy industry, strategies for undertaking M&A transactions in the U.S., and a variety of case studies based on wind energy development projects.
Stoel Rives attorneys prepared their own case study, which will be presented during the workshop by Alan Merkle. Case Study: Development of a Wind Project in California, is based on a hypothetical 200 MW wind development project in Southern California. The case study covers the legal framework for a project of this scale, including real estate, permitting, transmission and interconnection, power purchase agreement, renewable energy credits, turbine supply and balance of plant agreements, and financing. It is available as a PDF for download in English and Chinese.
Ed Einowski will provide workshop attendees with a presentation titled Setting the Stage for Investing In U.S. Renewable Energy Projects: The Business and Legal Environments. The PowerPoint presentation is available as a PDF for download in English and Chinese.
The Stoel Rives Law of Wind Energy (now in its 6th edition) is also available for download in both English and Chinese editions here.
Coming Very Soon: CPUC Energy Storage Workshop
On Tuesday, June 28, 2011, the CPUC will hold an “Electric Energy Storage Workshop” as part of its R10-12-007 proceeding for AB 2514, which defines the process by which the CPUC will consider electric energy storage standards for California’s investor owned utilities. The workshop will be held at in the Golden Gate Room at CPUC’s headquarters from 9:30 am to 4:00 pm.
According to a draft agenda circulated by the CPUC, the theme of the workshop will be addressing barriers to entry facing Electric Energy Storage (EES). The workshops goals are to identify actions that the CPUC should consider, as well as whether and how it should participate in other forums.
The morning will feature presentations from several different perspectives, with each presentation to be followed by Q&A:
- Presentation from UC Berkeley and California Energy Commission (CEC) team on “2020 Vision Project”
- Presentation from CAISO about recent storage-related activities at the Independent System Operator, including findings from recent studies.
- Presentation from Southern California Edison (SCE) discussing a white paper entitled Moving Energy Storage from Concept to Reality.
- Presentation from California Energy Storage Alliance about developer’s perspectives
The afternoon will feature a facilitated presentation about a staff straw proposal concerning potential CPUC actions. The CPUC will allow parties to provide post-workshop comments on both the presentations and the staff straw proposal.
The CPUC is willing to accommodate short presentations (five minutes or less) or share prepared material pertinent to the workshop. Any party who wishes to do so may contact Michael Colvin at michael.colvin@cpuc.ca.gov. For reference (or inspiration), a series of energy storage presentations made to the CPUC as part of its 2011 IEPR process can be found here.
Stoel Rives attorneys Seth Hilton and Janet Jacobs will be attending the workshop.
Supreme Court Dismisses Common Law GHG Case Against Energy Producers
On June 20, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion on American Electric Power Co., Inc., et al. v. Connecticut, et al.
This case is significant because it dismissed a lawsuit in which several states and environmental groups sought court orders requiring large electrical utilities (alleged to be “the five largest emitters of carbon dioxide in the United States”) to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions because the emissions were alleged to be a public nuisance. Plaintiffs alleged that the emissions violated federal common law (nuisance) or state tort law. The plaintiffs were thereby requesting a court decree setting a cap for C02 emissions to be reduced annually.
The Supreme Court in a fairly short opinion touched upon a number of significant issues. The Court first dealt with the issue of jurisdiction and then with the issue of whether there is a federal common law cause of action of nuisance. The Court split on the issue of whether the plaintiffs had Article III standing, i.e., whether there was sufficient specific injury to the plaintiffs such that the Article III Claims and Controversies requirement would be met, allowing the plaintiffs to avail themselves of the jurisdiction of the federal court system. Half of the Court believes that there was no standing, the other believes (assuming the prior cases are an indication) that some of the plaintiffs (the states) had sufficient standing that the case could be brought. This issue was addressed in the Massachusetts v. EPA case in which the Court held that greenhouse gases were regulated under the Clean Air Act. In that case the state of Massachusetts was found to have had sufficient standing to allow the case to be heard.
The Court held that the federal common law nuisance which had been recognized in several interstate environmental cases was displaced by the statute even absent the setting of emission standards (EPA’s CO2 regulations are due in May 2012.) The Court also indicated that the agency should be allowed to act first, before the judiciary, as the expert agency is better equipped to do the job then the judiciary who typically lack the economic technological resources to cope with these issues. Plaintiffs’ proposal to have federal judges determine these emission limits in the first instance could not be reconciled with the statute.
Finally, the Court did not reach the issue of the viability of the state nuisance claims because they had been dropped by the lower courts when they held that the federal common law governed over state law. Because there was no briefing on the state law preemption issue, the issue was left for consideration on remand. The Court did indicate that the issue of whether there was preemption of the federal common law by federal legislation, as in this case, did not require “the same sort of evidence of a clear and manifest (congressional) purpose” required for preemption of state law. (Citing City Milwaukee II 451 U.S. at 304, 317 (1981)).
This decision, while sending the case back to the lower courts, raises several unresolved issues. Will the courts continue to allow plaintiffs, particularly non-states such as the industry groups in the Massachusetts case, and the environmental groups in this case, Article III standing where there is an argument that no specific injuries have been pled? Will the courts find that state common law claims are also pre-empted by the federal Clean Air Act? Will this theory of agency primacy be applied at other levels? What happens if the EPA or Congress decides not to issue greenhouse gas regulations? We’ll be continuing to monitor the case as it works its way back through the lower courts—stay tuned for updates.
Energy Storage Industry Expresses Optimism at Energy Storage Association Annual Meeting
This week I attended the 21st Annual Meeting of the Energy Storage Association in San Jose, California. The meeting broke its attendance record by attracting over 420 attendees, including representatives from electric energy storage (“EES”) technology companies, utilities, venture capital funds, consultancies and government agencies. Key note speakers included Dr. Imre Gyuk of the U.S. Department of Energy, Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner of the California Assembly, Fan Wong of Pacific Gas & Electric, and Vinod Khosla of Khosla Ventures. Over 50 other distinguished speakers presented lectures and materials on various topics including flow battery applications, advanced storage technologies, smart grid interface, lithium ion battery applications, economics and policy, and venture capital markets.
The record attendance at the meeting and reports of successful pilot projects were strong indicators that the EES industry has matured over the past years. The general sense at the meeting was that the EES industry is poised to emerge from the product development stage and move into the commercialization and deployment stage. In order to successfully make that leap, the EES industry must first overcome several hurdles.
Prospective EES customers, including utility representatives, contended that, except for pumped hydro, EES applications are not yet cost competitive and that EES systems must achieve significant price reductions before they can be competitive. Various utility representatives encouraged the EES industry to continue to bring down costs with the goal of becoming cost competitive with gas peaker plants.
Project developers and technology companies acknowledged this reality, but stressed that when comparing EES applications to gas peakers, it is imperative that the market recognize the broad range of combined value streams and utility benefits that EES applications offer. These benefits include:
- Ancillary services and frequency regulation
- Reactive power, voltage, and power quality
- Renewable integration and smoothing
- Multiple hour peak shifting
- Demand response
- Islanding
- Deferred T/D upgrades
- Minimizing spinning reserves
In addition to these benefits, various speakers emphasized the siting and permitting advantages EES enjoys over gas plants. From a land use perspective, EES applications are relatively low impact. Many EES projects can obtain required permits based on a negative declaration and thereby avoid the lengthy siting proceedings that can drag on for years for some thermal generation projects. These siting and permitting advantages that EES applications enjoy translate into reduced costs and quicker development timelines and give EES a distinct advantage over gas peakers.
The future of EES will in part hinge on the development of supportive federal and state regulations. Accordingly, ongoing proceedings at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the California Public Utilities Commission are critical to the future of EES.
Further, EES system providers will face challenges in structuring transactions to finance and build EES projects. Consultants and legal advisors, including Stoel Rives attorneys, are currently wrestling with various options to solve these challenges.
The EES industry will meet again in San Diego for Infocast’s Storage Week on July 11-14, and several Stoel Rives attorneys will be presenting and attending.
Injunction on California Cap & Trade Rules Stayed by Appeal
At the prompting of the Petitioners, on June 6, 2011, the San Francisco Superior Court delivered an order criticizing the California Air Resources Board for continuing to work on AB 32, Greenhouse Gas regulations, despite the injunction issued in the CEQA case and ordered them to appear to discuss the issue. However, late last week the Appeals Court hearing the appeal in the case issued a stay of that same injunction pending the appeal of that case. The question of whether the stay will he re-imposed, will be the subject the parties will need to argue in June 2011. For additional information see our blog entitled, "Cap & Trade Injunction Stayed by Appeal of Lower Court Decision."
CEC Moves Forward on Implementation of 33% RPS
On June 3, the California Energy Commission (“CEC”) issued a Notice of Intent to Implement 33 Percent Renewables Portfolio Standard (“RPS”). The new 33% RPS was signed into law by Governor Brown on April 12, 2011. The legislation for the first time expanded the RPS to publicly-owned utilities (“POU”), and tasked the CEC with, among other things, monitoring POU compliance with, and developing regulations to enforce, the new 33% RPS.
The Notice also encourages all regulated entities, including POUs, to participate in the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) proceeding addressing the new RPS, Rulemaking 11-05-005, “so that, where appropriate, the [CEC] and CPUC may coordinate program development.”
The Notice states that the CEC will implement the new RPS through two processes: (1) amending the RPS Eligibility Guidebook through the existing amendment process so that it conforms with the new legislation, and (2) initiating a rulemaking proceeding to address POU compliance. Although the new RPS legislation set a target date of July 1, 2011 for the CEC to adopt regulations for POU compliance, pending legislation (Senate Bill 23) may extend that deadline to July 1, 2012.
On June 6, the CEC also noticed a staff workshop for June 17, 2011 to introduce the scope and a tentative schedule for the rulemaking proceeding concerning POU compliance, and to solicit comments from interested stakeholders. Written comments may also be submitted to the CEC by July 1, 2011.
CPUC Issues Scoping Memo in Energy Storage Proceeding; Workshop Set for June 28
On May 31, 2011, the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) issued a scoping memo (“Scoping Memo”) identifying issues to be considered and setting a procedural schedule for its energy storage proceeding. In December, 2010, the CPUC opened Rulemaking 10-12-007 to implement the provisions of Assembly Bill 2514, which directs the CPUC to determine appropriate energy storage procurement targets for load serving entities. To date, the CPUC has issued an Order Issuing Rulemaking, held an initial workshop and a prehearing conference, and received public comments from interested parties. After considering such background and input, the CPUC issued the Scoping Memo.
The Scoping Memo splits the proceeding into two phases: Phase 1 – Policies and Guidelines and Phase 2 – Cost Benefit Analysis and Allocation. The Scoping Memo provides that Phase 1 will consider the following topics:
- How are energy storage technologies currently being used? To what extent are these current uses indicative of how energy storage should be utilized on a going forward basis? As the Commission is developing a generalized view towards energy storage, what lessons learned should the Commission consider, both in terms of successes and failures?
- What policies are needed to encourage effective energy storage that will: reduce greenhouse gas emissions; reduce peak demand; defer and/or substitute for an investment in generation, transmission or distributions; and improve reliable grid operations?
- How can energy storage technologies be best integrated into the utilities’ existing portfolios?
- How could energy storage technologies be integrated with the Commission’s loading order, such as energy efficiency, demand response, renewable procurement, distributed generation and other items in the Commission’s loading order? What about other overarching policies like smart grid?
- Are there current state or federal policies that impede the ability of energy storage technologies from being utilized more widely or serve as barriers to the development of energy storage systems? What, if anything, can be done to remove these impediments and barriers?
- Is it possible to develop a single unifying policy for energy storage when storage has a wide variety of uses?
- Regardless of the technology used, are there certain energy storage applications/attributes that should be encouraged? To what extent do the costs and benefits associated with these different applications/attributes differ?
- How should ownership model of energy storage be considered? Do the current value streams favor one type of ownership model over another?
The Scoping Memo contemplates that Phase 1 will involve a series of workshops, the first of which is set for June 28, 2011 at the CPUC Golden Gate Room, 505 Van Ness Ave., San Francisco, CA.
The Scoping Memo notes that the outcome of Phase 1 will influence the scope of Phase 2. Accordingly, the Scoping Memo declines to set the scope of Phase 2, but states that Phase 2 shall consider at least the following topics:
- How should energy storage applications/attributes be valued?
- What are the costs for the various types of energy storage applications?
- What should be taken into consideration to determine whether energy storage technologies are cost effective? Should they be compared against the other types of resources currently being procured by the utilities? How should the benefits associated with energy storage technologies be taken into consideration when determining cost-effectiveness?
- How should the costs and benefits associated with energy storage technologies be allocated among retail end-use customers?
The CPUC will issue a future scoping memo to definitively set the scope of Phase 2.
Southern California Edison Begins Process to Reform CREST Power Purchase Agreement
Citing changes in market conditions, Southern California Edison (SCE) announced last week that it is beginning the process of reforming the standard Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) it uses for its California Renewable Energy Small Tariff (CREST) program. CREST is SCE’s feed-in tariff program for eligible renewable energy projects under 1.5 MW. The PPA for each of these projects is a standard, non-negotiable PPA under either a full buy/sell or excess power purchase program for a term of 10, 15, or 20 years. Of the 247.7 MW allocated to SCE by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for CREST, SCE states that it has 214.1 MW either under contract or in the queue.
In its press release, SCE states that it will publish the proposed pro forma PPA on its website on June 2. It also states that the proposed “CREST PPA is based on SCE’s pro forma Solar Photovoltaic Program PPA for projects less than 5 MWs, and has been modified to make it applicable to all technology types and to be in compliance with the requirements of the CREST Tariff and CPUC Decision (‘D.’) 07-07-27.” Comments on the proposed PPA will be due by June 22, with the submission of the new PPA to the CPUC planned for August 2011.
Stoel Rives' Bill Holmes and David Benson to Speak at Storage Week 2011
Please plan to join me and my colleagues - Bill Holmes, David Benson, John Thompson, and Morten Lund - at Storage Week 2011. Stoel Rives is proud to be a Platinum Sponsor at this premier event.
Storage Week kicks off on July 11 with four in-depth market and technical tutorials to provide you with all the background details necessary to maximize your experience at the two-day main event. Network with every key group playing a role in rewriting the rules of power markets, from policy strategists, state regulators, and grid operators, to utility planners and IPPs, vendors and more. This event lines up block-buster case studies, key project developers, investors, engineering firms and consultants covering bulk storage development, as well as distributed storage business models.
Click here for a detailed agenda, registration information, and our exclusive 15% off discount code!
New Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets - from the U.K. to Bank of America
This week, the United Kingdom proposed cutting its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 50% below 1990 levels, in its recently released proposed carbon budget for 2023 to 2027. This would put it on track to cut emissions by 80% by 2050, as required under the U.K. Climate Change Act of 2008. Moreover, this target would go beyond the European Union goal of cutting emissions to 20% below 1990 levels by 2020. The U.K. has given itself an escape hatch, however, in that its target is tied to the E.U. following suit. Sources reporting the story invariably note that the U.S. has no mandatory GHG emissions reduction targets in place. Being in California, though, I’ll make a mention of our state’s mandate to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 under A.B. 32. That said, as a side note, Bank of America committed this week to reduce its GHG emissions by 15% by 2015. I’ve heard many a pundit declare that the heyday of the nation-state is over, and that the world is increasingly controlled by multinational corporations. If that’s the case, maybe the new trend will be corporations like Bank of America committing to, and actually achieving, GHG reductions where countries don’t.
CEC Holds Workshop on Energy Storage for 2011 IEPR
The 2011 IEPR Committee Workshop on Energy Storage for Renewable Integration was held Thursday, April 28th at the California Energy Commission (CEC) offices in Sacramento. The Workshop was presented in a three panel format, with each panel addressing specific topics, including (1) the need for energy storage in light of California’s renewable portfolio standard, greenhouse gas goals, smart grid and demand response, (2) the costs, benefits and revenues from energy storage applications, and (3) utility perspectives on energy storage. The full agenda, which describes the topics and the questions addressed at the Workshop, can be found here.
The CEC is not planning any further workshops on energy storage, but it will be making recommendations about the topic in its 2011 Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR). We understand that the CEC is seeking input on energy storage from all arenas, including developers and owners of gas-fired peaker plants. Among other things, the CEC wants to understand the economic and environmental benefits and impacts of peakers (i.e., facilities that have the ability to ramp up in ten minutes, generate for a full hour, then be taken off line) compared to the cost and benefits of various energy storage technologies. The CEC will use the information it gathers to determine if it makes sense economically to recommend a lower or a higher target for energy storage in its 2011 IEPR.
The CEC’s report will be taken into account by the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC), which is conducting a separate proceeding under AB 2514 to determine appropriate energy storage targets for California’s investor-owned utilities. You can find our previous descriptions of the AB 2514 process here , here and here. A report on last year's CPUC staff whitepaper describing energy storage technologies and their potential use in the California market can be found here.
Parties who want to weigh in on energy storage in California must submit their comments to the CEC by 5 p.m. on May 16, 2011. The comments must include the docket number “11-IEP-1N” and indicate “Energy Storage for Renewable Integration” in the subject line or first paragraph of the comments. All filings in the IEPR proceeding are now accomplished electronically and can be submitted in either Microsoft Word format or as a PDF by e-mail to docket@energy.state.ca.us.
Thanks to Kimberly Hellwig in our Sacramento office for her help in preparing this Blog!
California Public Utilities Commission Holds Prehearing Conference on Energy Storage Procurement Targets
As we’ve previously discussed, California’s AB 2514 requires the CPUC and municipal utilities in California to open proceedings by March 1, 2012 to determine appropriate targets, if any, for the procurement of viable and cost-effective energy storage systems by load-serving entities. Over a year before that deadline, the CPUC opened Rulemaking 10-12-007 in December of last year to both implement AB 2514 and “on [the CPUC’s] own motion to initiate policy for California utilities to consider the procurement of viable and cost effective storage systems.” In early March, the CPUC held an initial workshop on the scope of the rulemaking proceeding.
On April 21, the Commission held a prehearing conference to determine the scope and schedule for the proceeding. Stoel Rives partner Seth Hilton attended the conference. Among the issues discussed at the prehearing conference, led by Administrative Law Judge Yip-Kikugawa, was whether to conduct the proceeding in phases (e.g., first examining how storage might be applied, and then in a subsequent proceeding setting what the mandate will be for storage procurement), the issues to be covered in each phase , and whether evidentiary hearings would be necessary.
According to ALJ Yip-Kikugawa, a scoping memo should issue in the next two to three weeks. The scoping memo will set out the issues to be considered in the proceeding and a schedule for their resolution.
We'll be posting further information on Renewable + Law Blog when the scoping memo comes out, so stay tuned for further developments.
LexisNexis Selects Renewable + Law Blog to its Top 50 Environmental Law Blogs List
Having first reported to our readers in February that LexisNexis had nominated the Stoel Rives Renewable + Law Blog for its Top 50 Environmental Law & Climate Change Blogs for 2011 award, we are pleased to announce we made the list of winners! In publishing its Top 50 list, LexisNexis declared that our Renewable + Law bloggers’ “avowed passion for solar energy, wind energy, biofuels, ocean and hydrokinetic energy, biomass, waste-to-energy, geothermal and other clean technologies is evident in the care they take with this blog-the posts are frequent, the topics are interesting and cutting edge, and the writing is top notch.”
Thanks again to all our readers who make regular use of Renewable + Law Blog and those who wrote in to support us for this award. We're honored and inspired, and we plan to keep those Blogs and letters coming.
Governor Brown Signs Bill Increasing California's Renewable Portfolio Standard to 33%
A Legal News Alert from Seth Hilton and the Stoel Rives Renewable Energy Law Group:
California’s Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill ("SB") X1-2 on Tuesday requiring California's electric utilities to procure 33% of their energy from renewable resources by 2020. Upon signing the bill, Governor Brown stated the "bill will bring many important benefits to California, including stimulating investment in green technologies in the state, creating tens of thousands of new jobs, improving air quality, promoting energy independence and reducing greenhouse gas emissions."
Details concerning the implementation of the new legislation will have to be worked out at various California regulatory agencies, including the California Public Utilities Commission and the California Energy Commission. The legislation will likely spawn numerous regulatory proceedings as the various regulatory agencies struggle to come to grips with the new RPS mandate.
For more information about SBX1-2, please see our earlier blog post and detailed Renewable Energy Law Alert, dated March 29, 2011.
Upcoming Electric Energy Storage (EES) Workshops
California’s AB 2514 requires the CPUC and municipal utilities in California to open proceedings by March 1, 2012 to determine appropriate targets, if any, for the procurement of viable and cost-effective energy storage systems by load-serving entities. By October 1, 2013, the CPUC must (1) determine whether a procurement target for energy storage is appropriate and, if so, (2) adopt a procurement target for each load-serving entity under its jurisdiction to be achieved by December 31, 2015 and a second target to be achieved by December 31, 2020. Municipal utilities have an additional year to meet these requirements.
In December of last year, the CPUC opened Rulemaking 10-12-007 both to implement AB 2514 and “on [the CPUC’s] own motion to initiate policy for California utilities to consider the procurement of viable and cost-effective energy storage systems.” Order Instituting Rulemaking (“OIR”) at 1, R.10-12-007.
On March 9, 2011, a workshop was held to address the scope of the rulemaking proceeding. The workshop included discussions of current and emerging energy storage technologies, the goals and applications of energy storage, existing barriers to storage implementation, and whether a unified storage policy would work or whether the policy should be written to address specific barriers to entry. The workshop also considered how the CPUC could and should work with other agencies addressing energy storage or related issues, including the California Energy Commission, the California Independent System Operator, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. You can find Seth Hilton’s report about the March 9 workshop here.
The CPUC has scheduled a pre-hearing conference in the rulemaking proceeding for April 21, 2011. The conference will be held before ALJ Amy C. Yip-Kikugawa, beginning at 10 am, in the Commission Courtroom, State Office Building, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, California. Stoel Rives partner Seth Hilton will attend the conference.
In addition, as part of its 2011 Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) Schedule, the California Energy Commission has scheduled a committee workshop on energy storage for renewable integration, which will begin at 9:30 on April 28 in Hearing Room A, CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION, 1516 Ninth Street, First Floor, Sacramento, California. Stoel Rives attorneys are planning to attend the workshop.
California Public Utility Commission to Reopen Rule 21 Working Group
A report from Stoel Rives attorney Jake Storms (Sacramento):
The California Public Utility Commission (“CPUC”) recently announced that it will reopen the Rule 21 Working Group. Rule 21 governs the interconnection of distributed generation to a utility’s distribution system.
Each of the three largest investor-owned utilities—Pacific Gas and Electric, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas and Electric—have a version of Rule 21 in their electric tariffs, which are subject to approval by the CPUC. The last Rule 21 workshop was held in 2008. The CPUC stated that, given the substantial changes in the technical and regulatory landscape in the past several years, Rule 21 is in need of reconsideration and has set forth a list of issues it believes should be addressed by the new Working Group. These include:
• The need for transparency in processing, queue information, and customer application information
• The need for review and potential reconsideration of technical screens within Rule 21 to ensure that the appropriate issues are being studied
• The need for articulation of cost-allocation methodology when network upgrades are required
• The need for review of utility tariffs for consistency with each other and with state law
• The need for additional standard interconnection agreements to accommodate the different types of distributed generation projects anticipated to come online
The first meeting of the Rule 21 Working Group will be Friday, April 29, 2011 from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. at the Auditorium of the CPUC located at 500 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA.
Legislature Passes SBX1-2 to Increase California RPS to 33%
Legal News Alert from Stoel Rives Renewable Energy Law Group
The California Legislature has passed Senate Bill (“SB”) X1-2, which requires California’s electric utilities to increase their renewable generation to 33% by 2020. Passage of the legislation is the culmination of years of effort to increase California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (“RPS”) from its current 20%. In 2009, the Legislature passed SB 14, which also would have increased California’s RPS to 33%, but the bill was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger on the ground that it imposed too many restrictions on the use of out-of-state generation to meet California’s RPS requirement. Governor Schwarzenegger then issued an executive order directing the California Air Resources Board to develop its own 33% Renewable Energy Standard under the Board’s authority pursuant to Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Last year, the Legislature again tried to pass another 33% RPS bill, SB 722, but the session expired before the legislation could reach a final vote. Two bills were introduced in this session: SB 23 and SBX1-2. SBX1-2 was identical to SB 23, but it was introduced in special session in an attempt to speed passage of the legislation. SBX1-2 now goes to Governor Brown for signature, and he is expected to sign the legislation into law.
For more background and information on the decision and its implications, click here.
All Party Meeting Concerning California's 2011 RPS Procurement
My partner Seth Hilton attended last Friday's all-party meeting on California's 2011 RPS procurement and prepared the following update:
On February 11, 2011, California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Administrative Law Judge Burton Mattson issued a Proposed Decision (PD) conditionally accepting the 2011 Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) Procurement Plans for Southern California Edison (SCE), Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), and San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E). If adopted, the Decision would set a schedule for the utilities’ 2011 RPS solicitation. The PD was on the agenda for the CPUC’s March 24, 2011 business meeting, but was held at Commissioner Florio’s request until the April 14 meeting.
On March 25, Commissioner Florio held a well-attended all-party meeting on the PD. Among the issues raised by Commissioner Florio was where California’s investor-owned utilities stood relative to the current RPS procurement targets and the targets contained in pending legislation (SBX1-2), and whether a 2011 RPS solicitation was necessary.
All three investor-owned utilities—PG&E, SCE and SDG&E—stated that holding a 2011 RPS solicitation would be prudent. PG&E stated that it was on track to meet the current 20% RPS this year and through 2013. However, future compliance, especially with the higher procurement targets under SBX1-2, is dependent on several large projects that are scheduled to come online in the next few years. Any delay or failure of those projects would require PG&E to procure additional resources to get to the 2016 target under SBX1-2, and therefore holding a solicitation this year made sense.
According to SCE, a 2011 solicitation would be prudent for a number of reasons, not only to assist SCE to reach the goals in SBX1-2. SCE noted that a solicitation would be beneficial for current contract administration by setting the price for any replacement power and that annual RPS solicitations were important for maintaining a vigorous RPS market.
SDG&E stated that it too was not done with procurement and would need further procurement to comply with the 2016 goal under SBX1-2.
Other parties also advocated in favor of a 2011 solicitation, with TURN noting that there may be some bargains available to the utilities due to the fact that no RPS solicitation was held last year and that competition would be fairly robust for RPS contracts.
The Division of Ratepayer Advocates was one of the few dissenters (along with CARE), arguing that because a new cost containment mechanism would apply under SBX1-2, the CPUC should consider waiting until it had addressed cost containment before commencing a new RPS solicitation.
The parties also discussed various issues to be resolved by the PD, including how economic curtailment should be handled in the pro forma RPS contract, congestion adders and integration cost adders. As currently drafted, the PD would require all three utilities to amend their pro forma agreements to use the economic curtailment provisions proposed by PG&E, which would allow utilities to economically curtail projects up to five percent of the project’s expected annual generation, for which PG&E would pay the project the full contract price but would not reimburse the project for any lost production tax credits. The California Wind Energy Association noted that although it supported PG&E’s proposal, the proposal should be amended to make it clear that the cap applies to any economic curtailment caused by the utility, even if the curtailment was in fact ordered by the California Independent System Operator, and to provide for the payment of any lost production tax credits as well.
As for congestion adders, the PD would require the utilities to consider congestion costs when evaluating projects and order the utilities to release congestion cost information in their 2012 and future plans, so that project developers will be fully informed when making siting decisions.
Finally, the PD declined to allow the use of integration cost adders when evaluating bids, despite both SCE’s and SDG&E’s requests that they be permitted to do so.
If you have any further questions on this all-party meeting or any other California energy regulatory issue, please contact:
Seth Hilton at (916) 319-4749 or sdhilton@stoel.com
Bill Holmes at (503) 294-9207 or whholmes@stoel.com
Jennifer Martin at (503) 294-9852 or jhmartin@stoel.com
California Court Enjoins Implementation of Cap-and-Trade
|
Legal News Alert from Stoel Rives Environmental Law Group
March 23, 2011 San Francisco Superior Court has issued a final decision in Association of Irritated Residents v. California Air Resources Board. For the moment, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is enjoined from further rulemaking to implement the California Global Warming Solutions Act (A.B. 32), including for the cap-and-trade program. The Court upheld the validity of CARB’s Scoping Plan for implementation of A.B. 32, saving CARB from having to revise the Plan. But, the Court found flaws with CARB’s environmental review of the Scoping Plan under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in particular its analysis of alternatives to the Plan’s recommended greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction measures, such as cap and trade. CARB is enjoined from further rulemaking until the agency has come into compliance with CEQA by amending its environmental review of the Scoping Plan. For entities facing regulation under A.B. 32, this decision has important implications. Scoping Plan GHG reduction measures that have already made their way through the rulemaking process appear unaffected. But CARB’s cap-and-trade program never made it out of the formal rulemaking process. While the Board members of CARB approved the cap-and-trade program in December 2010, it left it to the Executive Officer to take final action to adopt the proposed regulation (or bring it back to the Board) after more details were finalized. CARB had a packed schedule this year to finalize cap and trade prior to its January 1, 2012 start date. Under the Court’s final decision, these activities will have to be shelved if they fall within the rubric of further rulemaking or implementation. Regulated entities may thus have a temporary reprieve from the onset of cap and trade in 2012. But continued uncertainty over the details of CARB’s planned GHG regulation of stationary sources is a less than ideal situation for regulated sources. For more background and information on the decision and its implications, click here. If you currently subscribe to Stoel Rives legal updates, click here to update your contact information and preferences. To join the Stoel Rives mailing list and ensure direct delivery of future alerts, click here to subscribe. To unsubscribe, send an email to unsubscribe@stoel.com. |
California Court Enjoins Implementation of Cap-and-Trade
|
Legal News Alert from Stoel Rives Environmental Law Group
March 23, 2011 San Francisco Superior Court has issued a final decision in Association of Irritated Residents v. California Air Resources Board. For the moment, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is enjoined from further rulemaking to implement the California Global Warming Solutions Act (A.B. 32), including for the cap-and-trade program. The Court upheld the validity of CARB’s Scoping Plan for implementation of A.B. 32, saving CARB from having to revise the Plan. But, the Court found flaws with CARB’s environmental review of the Scoping Plan under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in particular its analysis of alternatives to the Plan’s recommended greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction measures, such as cap and trade. CARB is enjoined from further rulemaking until the agency has come into compliance with CEQA by amending its environmental review of the Scoping Plan. For entities facing regulation under A.B. 32, this decision has important implications. Scoping Plan GHG reduction measures that have already made their way through the rulemaking process appear unaffected. But CARB’s cap-and-trade program never made it out of the formal rulemaking process. While the Board members of CARB approved the cap-and-trade program in December 2010, it left it to the Executive Officer to take final action to adopt the proposed regulation (or bring it back to the Board) after more details were finalized. CARB had a packed schedule this year to finalize cap and trade prior to its January 1, 2012 start date. Under the Court’s final decision, these activities will have to be shelved if they fall within the rubric of further rulemaking or implementation. Regulated entities may thus have a temporary reprieve from the onset of cap and trade in 2012. But continued uncertainty over the details of CARB’s planned GHG regulation of stationary sources is a less than ideal situation for regulated sources. For more background and information on the decision and its implications, click here. If you currently subscribe to Stoel Rives legal updates, click here to update your contact information and preferences. To join the Stoel Rives mailing list and ensure direct delivery of future alerts, click here to subscribe. To unsubscribe, send an email to unsubscribe@stoel.com. |
New Stoel Rives California Environmental Law Blog
Stoel Rives LLP is pleased to present the California Environmental Law Blog (http://www.californiaenvironmentallawblog.com), which will focus on emerging environmental and natural resource issues specific to California.
The Stoel Rives California Environmental Law Blog is written by leading environmental and natural resources attorneys, whose posts will discuss comprehensive legal and business issues involving water rights, water quality, land use and CEQA, timber and forest products, energy, agribusiness and food processing, wineries and vineyards, Proposition 65, and delta legislation.
We look forward to many lively discussions with ag interest owners, wineries, property rights owners, food processors, local governments, public entities, forest product companies, landowners, and timber companies, as well as others interested in California environmental law.
We hope you enjoy the California Environmental Law Blog!
COMMISSIONER FLORIO NOTICES ALL-PARTY MEETING CONCERNING 2011 RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD PROCUREMENT
On February 11, 2011, California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Administrative Law Judge Burton Mattson issued a Proposed Decision conditionally accepting the 2011 Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) Procurement Plans for Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and San Diego Gas and Electric Company. If adopted, the Decision would set a schedule for the utilities’ 2011 RPS solicitation. The Decision was on the agenda for the CPUC’s March 24, 2011 business meeting, but was held at Commissioner Florio’s request until the April 14 meeting.
On March 17, 2011, Commissioner Florio noticed an all-party meeting on the Proposed Decision for March 25, 2011. Yesterday, Commission Florio circulated an agenda for the meeting. Among the issues raised by the agenda is whether an RPS solicitation in 2011 is necessary and prudent.
Stoel Rives’ Partner Seth Hilton will be present at the all-party meeting, and will provide an update afterwards.
California Public Utilities Commission Holds Workshop on Energy Storage Legislation
On Wednesday, March 9, the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) held a workshop on its implementation of California’s recent energy storage bill, Assembly Bill (AB) 2514, signed by Governor Schwarzenegger on September 29, 2010.
AB 2514 requires the CPUC and municipal utilities in California to open proceedings by March 1, 2012 to determine appropriate targets, if any, for the procurement of viable and cost-effective energy storage systems by load-serving entities. By October 1, 2013, the CPUC must (1) determine whether a procurement target for energy storage is appropriate and, if so, (2) adopt a procurement target for each load-serving entity under its jurisdiction to be achieved by December 31, 2015 and a second target to be achieved by December 31, 2020. Municipal utilities have an additional year to meet these requirements.
Continue Reading...FERC and Feed-in Tariffs: Opportunities and Challenges in California and Other States Webinar - March 2, 2011
Seth Hilton, Jason Johns, and Morten Lund will be presenters at the following webinar on Wednesday:
FERC and Feed-in Tariffs: Opportunities and Challenges in California and Other States
Wednesday, March 2 at 11:00 a.m. CST/ 9:00 a.m. PST.
After prolonged consideration by the California Public Utilities Commission, California recently adopted a reverse auction mechanism for renewable energy projects 20 megawatts or smaller. That program initially arose from the California Public Utilities Commission's efforts to expand an existing feed-in tariff program and was structured as a reverse auction mechanism to avoid potential conflicts with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) jurisdiction. This webinar will explore feed-in tariffs and similar programs, such as California's Renewable Auction Mechanism. It will also address the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's decision in October concerning the California Public Utilities Commission's proposed feed-in tariff for combined heat and power generators, as well as the implications of that decision for feed-in tariff design.
Learning Outcomes
- Discuss feed-in tariff policies, including benefits and drawbacks
- Analyze FERC's decision on California's feed-in tariff for combined heat and power generators
- Recognize the implications of FERC's decision on feed-in tariff design
- Examine California's Renewable Auction Mechanism and feed-in tariff
- Compare California's feed-in tariff with those in other states while examining feed-in tariff success in other states
Tradable Renewable Energy Credits in California Webinar - March 1, 2011
My partner Seth Hilton will be presenting on Tuesday March 1st on Tradable Renewable Energy Credits in California.
Tradable Renewable Energy Credits in California
Tuesday, March 1 at 12:00 p.m. CST/ 10:00 a.m. PST
In January, 2011, the California Public Utilities Commission lifted its moratorium on the use of Tradable Renewable Energy Credits for compliance with California's 20% Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). However, the CPUC imposed a cap on the use of TRECs, limiting the amount that California's three largest investor-owned utilities and their energy service providers can use to reach RPS.
In addition, The California Air Resources Board adopted regulations to implement a 33% Renewable Energy Standard last year, and intends to harmonize its RES with the limits on TRECs adopted by the CPUC.
Join a panel of esteemed energy experts, including Stoel Rives Partner Seth Hilton, for an engaging discussion of where California is headed with a 33% RPS, the use of TRECs, and how regulated TRECs will affect the REC market.
