Renewable + Law : Renewable Energy Lawyer & Attorneys : Stoel Rives Law Firm : Climate Change, Emissions, Carbon Markets, Wind, Solar, Biofuels : Western United States

Through industry presentations and publications as well as through our blog, our energy attorneys are dedicated to helping you stay informed and knowledgeable about legal developments that affect your business.

Visit our website for the latest calendar of events. Upcoming highlights include:

PV Due Diligence Requirements
January 23-26 – San Diego, CA
This conference will focus on the core areas of due diligence for PV projects—mostly utility-scale, but also distributed-scale—and provide a "blueprint" for their execution. It covers aspects of solar project development not tackled by instructional programs, which focus strictly on financing issues. On January 23, Stoel Rives attorney, Howard Susman will present, "Project Contractual Relationships."

Next Generation Bio-Based Chemicals Summit
January 23-26 – Phoenix, AZ
This summit is focused on sustainably sourced chemicals — and the platforms, resources, business models and tools required to deliver them. Sam Webb will moderate the Plant/Biomass Panel Discussion, CJ Voss will moderate the Plenary Keynote Session, Consumer Goods Brand Owner/Automotive OEM Panel, and David Quinby will serve as Summit Chair. Stoel Rives is proud to be the Platinum Sponsor of this event.

EUEC 2012
January 30-February 1 – Phoenix, AZ
Over 2,000 delegates including environmental business leaders, energy executives and government policymakers gather to share presentations and discuss alternate energy solutions to secure our independence from foreign oil while protecting our environment. Kristen Castaños will present, "Utility-Scale Solar Projects in California - The Keys to Development Permits in Desert Areas and on Farmland," and Allison Smith will present, "Strategies for Complying with Current GHG Regulations in California."

Municipal Solid Waste to Biofuels Summit
February 7-8 – Chicago, IL
Stoel Rives attorney Kevin Johnson is headed to the Windy City for this forum, designed specifically to facilitate business meetings with investors, biofuels developers, waste management executives, and local and state officials. Hear Kevin Johnson present “The Legal Perspective: Counseling Municipalities in Renewable Energy Strategy.”

Wind Power Finance & Investment Summit
February 8-10 – San Diego, CA
Join Stoel Rives attorneys Ed Einowski, Duff Bryant, Greg Jenner, Howard Susman and Alexandra Mertens at one of the best deal-making and networking events in the wind industry. This annual summit brings together leading project developers, lenders, investors, financiers and other key players to discuss the latest finance and investment developments, and share information about upcoming projects opportunities. Stoel Rives is a proud Platinum Sponsor of this event. Stoel Rives is pleased to offer a 15% registration discount with code 120131.

2012 Wind, Solar and Storage
February 14-16 – Austin, TX
Stoel Rives Partners Bill Holmes and Greg Jenner will serve as members of the esteemed faculty for this CLE program, presented by the University of Texas School of Law and the Oil, Gas and Energy Resources Law Section of the Texas State Bar.  Greg Jenner will moderate the discussion panel, “A Primer on Economics, Tax Credits and PPAs for Wind and Solar Projects.” Bill Holmes will moderate the discussion panel, “Integration, Reliability, Operational and regulatory Issues for Renewables.”

Utah Energy Development Summit
February 15 – Salt Lake City, UT
Join Stoel Rives attorney Julia Pettit for the premier energy event for Utah and the Greater Rocky Mountain area. With a speech from Utah Governor Gary Herbert highlighting energy priorities in his administration, as well as keynotes from national-level energy leaders, this will be an event not to miss. Stoel Rives is a proud sponsor of this event.

National Ethanol Conference
February 22-24 – Orlando, FL
Stoel Rives is proud to be a sponsor for this conference delivering timely information on marketing, legislative and regulatory issues facing the ethanol industry. With numerous networking opportunities, more business meetings are conducted and contacts made at this conference than any other ethanol conference. Stoel Rives attorneys Graham Noyes and Kevin Prohaska will be in attendance.

Solar Power Finance & Investment Summit
February 27-March 1 – San Diego, CA
This summit brings together utility-scale, commercial and residential solar project developers, investors, lenders, equipment suppliers, construction contractors and other key players to share their perspectives on the latest developments in the solar project finance and investment market. David Benson will Chair the Solar Power Executive Briefing. Julia Pettit will moderate, "The Buying and Selling of Distributed Solar Projects,” and Morten Lund will moderate, "Financing 2-20 MW Scale Projects.” Stoel Rives attorneys Greg Jenner and Howard Susman and Ed Einowski will also be in attendance. Stoel Rives is a Platinum Sponsor at this event. Stoel Rives is pleased to offer a 15% registration discount with code 120221.

AWEA Wind Power Project Siting Workshop
February 28-March 1 – Las Vegas, NV
This two-day siting seminar delves into key siting topics and explores issues related to wildlife interactions, sound and visual impacts, radar issues, cultural resources and stakeholder interests. Stoel Rives attorneys Aaron Courtney and Tim McMahan both members of AWEA’s Siting Committee, will be in attendance, and Aaron Courtney present, “Managing Regulatory Risk on Your Site.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Through industry presentations and publications as well as through our blog, our energy attorneys are dedicated to helping you stay informed and knowledgeable about legal developments that affect your business.

Visit our website for the latest calendar of events. Upcoming highlights include:

Distributed Solar Summit 2011
November 30-December 2 – San Diego, CA
This event is a unique opportunity for the entire distributed solar community to connect and discuss successful strategies for funding distributed solar projects. Stoel Rives attorneys Morten Lund and Brian Nese will moderate discussion panels covering “The California Market – Market Environment and Business Opportunities,” “Asset and Portfolio Capital Providers' Appetite for Investing in Distributed Solar,” and “EPC/Installers Views on Contracting Relationships.” As a sponsor, Stoel Rives is offering a 15% registration discount with code 118926.

Siting & Permitting Renewable Energy Projects in the West
December 7-9 – San Diego, CA
On December 8 hear Tim McMahan co-present “Impact of the Endangered Species Act, NEPA and Other Environmental Legislation on Current and Planned Projects,” and Tim Taylor participate in the discussion panel “Strategies for Working Successfully with the Regulators to Get Projects Permitted and Developed.” Wayne Rosenbaum will chair the Pre-Conference Workshop on December 7.

Hydropower’s Evolving Role in Western Power Grid Reliability
December 12-13 – Sacramento, CA
Join Stoel Rives attorneys Chad Marriott, Bill Holmes and Barbara Brenner for one of the year's most important hydroelectric power events. On December 13, Bill Holmes will present "Storage: How Changing Policies and Technologies Influence Hydropower Utilization," and Chad Marriott will present "Recognizing the Role of Small Hydro in the West."

US-China Wind 2011: Building Strategic Cooperation
December 13-15 – San Francisco, CA
Join Stoel Rives’ Mike Mangelson, William Clydesdale, David Benson, and Ed Einowski as they examine the factors driving developments of the US and Chinese wind power markets. Mike Mangelson will serve as the pre-summit chair, at which time William Clydesdale will present “Negotiating the Joint Venture Agreement.” During the main summit, chaired by Ed Einowski, David Benson will present “Alternative Financing Structures.” As the Platinum Sponsor of this event, Stoel Rives is offering a 15% registration discount with code 116011.

2012 Pacific West Biomass Conference & Trade Show
January 16-18 – San Francisco, CA
This event focuses on biomass utilization in the western US, and brings together area producers of biomass-derived electricity, heat, and power with waste generators, utility executives, equipment manufacturers, and more. On January 16, Lee N. Smith will moderate the discussion panel "Capitalizing on Energy Rich Waste Streams and Technical Approaches for their More Varied Conversion," and Greg Jenner will serve as a panelist for "Capitalization Strategies in Challenging Financial Environment." Stoel Rives is a proud sponsor of this event.

Projects & Money 2012
January 18-20 – New Orleans, LA
Stoel Rives is proud to be a Gold Sponsor for this one-stop meeting center for project professionals working to kick off their project finance plans. Stoel Rives attorney David Benson will be in attendance, and Stoel Rives attorney Julia Pettit will moderate the discussion panel "Buying and Selling Project Assets (Project M&A)" on January 19. Stoel Rives is pleased to offer a 10% registration discount with code 120366.

Wind & Solar Integration Summit
January 18-20 – Scottsdale, AZ
Stoel Rives attorneys Stephen Hall and Bill Holmes come together with policy makers, transmission owners and operators, and renewable energy developers to network and exchange valuable information about operational changes and their impact on distributed solar and grid-scale wind energy. Bill Holmes will serve as Summit Chair, and Stephen Hall will present "Approaches to Handling Environmental Redispatch and Curtailment.”

PV Project Due Diligence Requirements
January 23-24 – San Diego, CA
Hear Stoel Rives attorney Howard Susman present "Project Contractual Relationships" on Monday, January 23 as he covers such issues as PPAs, financing, siting and permitting, and more.

Next Generation Bio-Based Chemicals Summit
January 23-26 – San Diego, CA
Join Stoel Rives attorneys David Quinby, Christopher Voss and Jere Webb for this innovative biotech/biofuels event with a comprehensive, in-depth focus on sustainably sourced chemicals — and the platforms, resources, business models and tools required to deliver them. Stoel Rives is a Platinum Sponsor for this event.

EUEC 2012
January 30-February 1 – Phoenix, AZ
See over 600 professional presentations on 12 specialized tracks, and browse over 200 exhibits. Allison Smith will present "Strategies for Complying with Current GHG Regulations in California,” and Kristen Castaños will present "Utility-Scale Solar Projects in California - The Keys to Development Permits in Desert Areas and on Farmland."

Wind Power Finance & Investment Summit
February 8-10 – San Diego, CA
Join Ed Einowski and members of the Stoel Rives Wind team as they participate in one of the best deal-making and networking events in the wind industry. Stoel Rives is proud to be a Platinum Sponsor for this event.

Solar Power Finance & Investment Summit
February 27-March 1 – San Diego, CA
Join Stoel Rives attorneys Howard Susman, Julia Pettit, David Benson, Morten Lund and Greg Jenner to learn about putting together solar power project deals. Hear investors discuss their future plans and what they seek when getting involved in deals in 2012 and beyond. David Benson will Chair, Julia Pettit will moderate, “The Buying and Selling of Distributed Solar Projects,” and Morten Lund will moderate, “Financing 2-20 MW Scale Projects.” Stoel Rives is proud to be a Platinum Sponsor at this event.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Through industry presentations and publications as well as through our blog, our energy attorneys are dedicated to helping you stay informed and knowledgeable about legal developments that affect your business.

 

Visit our website for the latest calendar of events. Upcoming highlights include:

 

Southeast Biomass Conference & Trade Show
November 1-3 – Atlanta, GA
Join Stoel Rives attorneys Lee Smith, Greg Jenner, Joe Thompson, and Tim Taylor in Atlanta for this BBI conference. Stoel Rives is a proud sponsor of this event. Our attorneys will participate in discussion panels covering Environmental Compliance, Biomass Procurement and Supply Chain Management, and Federal Incentives.

 

WoWE Leadership Forum
November 2 – Carlsbad, CA
Stoel Rives and the Women of Wind Energy (WoWE) are pleased to announce the second installment of this special Forum. Stoel Rives attorneys Elizabeth Cason, Dina Dubson and Julia Pettit, member of the 2011 planning committee, will be in attendance.

 

AWEA Wind Energy Fall Symposium
November 2-4 – Carlsbad, CA
Join Stoel Rives attorneys Julia Pettit, Howard Susman and Wayne Rosenbaum at this exclusive event designed for professionals in every segment of the wind industry.

 

Solar Power Project Development
November 9 – San Diego, CA
Join Stoel Rives attorney Brian Nese in San Diego where he will co-present the Solar Status and Update session.

 

Green Energy M&A Outlook for 2012
November 15-16 – Santa Clara CA
Stoel Rives is proud to be a Platinum Sponsor at this event. Attorneys Duff Bryant, Ed Einowski and Julia Pettit will moderate discussion panels covering the Corporate M&A Landscape, Renewable Developers’ Perspectives, and Wind M&A Deals. Duff Bryant and Ed Einowski will serve as Summit Co-Chairs. We are pleased to offer a 15% registration discount with code 119631.

 

CalWEA 11th Annual Meeting
November 16-17 – Carlsbad, CA
Join Howard Susman, Wayne Rosenbaum, Randy Faccinto, Brian Nese, and Elizabeth Cason as they gather with other members of the California Wind Energy Association. Stoel Rives is proud to be a breakfast sponsor at this event.

 

Utah Renewable Energy Business Summit
November 16-17 – Salt Lake City, UT
Join Stoel Rives attorney Julia Pettit for this two-day event presented by the Governor’s Office of Economic Development.

 

Distributed Solar Summit 2011
November 30-December 2 – San Diego, CA
Hear discussions moderated by Stoel Rives attorneys Morten Lund and Brian Nese covering The California Market Environment and Business Opportunities, Asset and Portfolio Capital Providers' Appetite for Investing in Distributed Solar, and EPC/Installers Views on Contracting Relationships.

 

Siting & Permitting Renewable Energy Projects in the West
December 7-9 – San Diego, CA
Tim McMahan will co-present Impact of the Endangered Species Act, NEPA and Other Environmental Legislation on Current and Planned Projects and Tim Taylor will participate in the discussion panel Strategies for Working Successfully with the Regulators to Get Projects Permitted and Developed.

 

US-China Wind 2011: Building Strategic Cooperation
December 13-15 – San Francisco, CA
Visit with Mike Mangelson, William Clydesdale, David Benson, and Ed Einowski in San Francisco for the 2nd Annual US-China Wind Summit. Stoel Rives is proud to be a Platinum Sponsor at this Infocast event, and we are pleased to offer a 15% discount on registration with code 116011.

 

If you have problems viewing this email, you can view it as a web page.

To see the full calendar of events, click here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

For those who like to pay close attention to developments in the energy storage industry, take a look at Stationary Electricity Storage, which collects and presents articles about storage industry news, noteworthy projects, and other topics.  It's well organized (with articles filtered by category, storage provider, organization and location), offers a free daily newsletter and looks like a good way to stay on top of developments in this expanding sector.  (Thanks to Greg DelSesto for introducing me to this new site.)

On a related note, I'll be chairing Infocast's Developing Grid Storage Projects in Dallas from October 5 through October 6.  Stoel Rives partner John Thompson will be speaking on "Intellectual Property Protection for Grid Storage," and Dave Hattery, a partner in our Seattle office, will be speaking on "Negotiating the Terms and Navigating the Risk of a Procurement Contract and Other Financial Documents."  The conference features an impressive list of speakers who are very active in the energy storage industry, and I hope to see you there!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On August 15, 2011, Great River Energy (GRE) issued a request for proposals (RFP) for community-based energy development (C-BED) renewable energy resources.  Eligible energy technologies include: wind, solar, hydroelectric of less than 100 megawatts, biomass, municipal solid waste, landfill gas and anaerobic digesters, and hydrogen produced from any of the previous resources.

In announcing the RFP, GRE noted that it already has enough renewable resources in its energy portfolio to meet Minnesota's Renewable Energy Standard.  Minnesota's RES requires electric utilities to supply an increasing percentage of their energy sales from renewable energy sources, reaching 25 percent by 2025. Nevertheless, GRE issued the RFP to "evaluate if additional C-BED renewable resources can provide value to our member cooperatives in the future," according to Jon Brekke, Great River Energy vice president of member services.  GRE plans to evaluate proposals based on their impact to wholesale power rates and other factors.

Proposals are due before 4pm Central Prevailing Time on Sept. 9, 2011.  GRE plans to notify short listed bidders by September 30 and has targeted November 1, 2011 as the execution date for a power purchase agreement (PPA).  GRE is clearly looking for bargains from developers who can take advantage of the Section 1603 cash grant, a program that expires on December 31, 2011, and who can place a project in service by December 31, 2012.  Since projects seeking the cash grant will need to "begin construction" (as that concept is defined in Section 1603) by December 31, 2011, the November 1 target execution date will likely be critical for developers seeking to arrange project financing before year end.

GRE is interested in entering into a PPA rather than a build-transfer or other ownership arrangement.  GRE's form of PPA can be found here.   The RFP itself can be found here.  For more information about the RFP, contact Mark Rathbun at 763-445-6104 or 2011cbedrenewablerfp@grenergy.com.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

With the end of 2011 drawing near, many renewable energy developers are seeking to qualify their projects for the Section 1603 cash grant.  Developers continue to try to understand the complexities surrounding the grant requirements, especially the determination of when projects are considered to have met the “beginning construction” requirement.

On August 24, I'll moderate a Law Seminars International (LSI) Telebriefing on Section 1603, featuring Stoel Rives partner Greg Jenner and  Victoria McDowell, the Compliance Program Manager, Section 1603 Program, U.S. Department of the Treasury. 

The TeleBriefing will take place from 10 AM – 11 AM Pacific Time/ 1 PM -- 2 PM Eastern Time.  During the briefing, attendees will learn how to meet the “beginning construction” test and receive clarification from the Treasury Department on project requirements.  We'll also discuss the fate of projects that fail to qualify for the cash grant.

 

Registration is available online through Law Seminars International.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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:

1. 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?

 

2. 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.

 

3. 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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 

Through industry presentations and publications, our energy attorneys are dedicated to helping you stay informed and knowledgeable about legal developments that affect your business.

Visit our website for the latest calendar of events. Upcoming highlights include:

Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES): Lessons Learned from Natural Gas Tolling
July 21 – WEBINAR
Stoel Rives Partners Bill Holmes, Ed Einowski and Marcus Wood will serve as the exclusive faculty this 90-minute webinar, part of the “Law of Renewable Energy Series” presented by Stoel Rives and EUCI.

Renewable Energy in the Pacific Northwest
August 4-5 – Seattle, WA
Join partners Steve Hall, Tim McMahan (conference co-chair) and Michael O'Connell for sessions on "Getting Renewable Power to Market," “Working with Tribes: Lessons from Case Studies in Their Roles as Developers and Commercial Partners,” and “Best Practices for Engaging with Leasing and Permitting Agencies,” among others.

GEA National Geothermal Summit
August 16-17 – Reno, NV
Attorneys John McKinsey, Jennie Bricker, Tami Boeck, Michael O'Connell and Allison Smith are heading to Reno, Nevada for the first annual National Geothermal Summit, presented by the Geothermal Energy Association. Stoel Rives is proud to be a Gold Sponsor at this event.

Renewable Energy in the Midwest States: New Policy, Business and Legal Developments
August 25-26 – Minneapolis, MN
Join Minneapolis-based partners Mark Hanson and Greg Jenner for sessions on "Special Legal Issues for Biofuels Development," and "Commercialization and Financing Structures: What Will Future Deals Look Like?"

National Hydropower Association Alaska Regional Meeting
August 30-31 – Girdwood, AK
Greg Jenner will speak on tax incentives for development of renewable energy, development alternatives, and DOE funding.

Utility Scale Solar Summit 2011
September 13-15 – San Diego, CA
Stoel Rives is proud to be a Platinum Sponsor at this Infocast event, and serve as Chair of the “Solar Project Development Briefing.” Join attorneys Howard Susman, Morten Lund, Greg Jenner, Ed Einowski, Jennifer Martin, David Quinby and Seth Hilton in sunny San Diego. We are pleased to offer a 15% registration discount, use code 115321.

RETECH 2011
September 20-22 – Washington, DC
Visit Stoel partners Bill Holmes, Ed Einowski and Graham Noyes at booth #819 in the Exhibit Hall. We’ll also be participating in sessions covering wind and energy storage topics.

You’ll see Stoel Rives sponsoring and/or speaking at Turbines, Towers & Vessels in Rhode Island, Northwest & Intermountain Power Producers Coalition (NIPPC) Annual Meeting in Washington, Transmission West Summit in San Diego, ACORE’s REFF West in San Francisco, CanWEA Annual Conference in Vancouver, Solar Power International in Dallas, and many more this fall.

To see the full calendar of events, click here.

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.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Washington State House of Representatives Technology, Energy, and Communication Committee (TEC Committee) has asked the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (Commission) to provide to the State Legislature background information and detailed discussion of options to encourage the development of cost-effective distributed energy in areas served by investor-owned utilities, as well as the opportunities and challenges facing investor-owned utilities and their ratepayers in developing distributed energy in Washington.

The Commission is currently in the process of gathering information and reviewing existing literature concerning distributed energy. The Commission also seeks the perspective of investor-owned utilities, persons involved in developing distributed energy in the state, and others to better inform their efforts in this study. Attached here is the set of questions upon which the Commission seeks input.  This list includes questions that are both general and energy source-specific (e.g., solar, wind, hydro, etc.). The Commission provides an opportunity for interested persons to provide comments on these topics and questions by Friday, July 15, 2011.

The Commission also invites interested persons to a work session scheduled for Monday, July 25, 2011, in Room 206 of the Commission's headquarters, Richard Hemstad Building, 1300 S. Evergreen Park Drive S.W., Olympia, Washington.

For additional information, see the UTC Rulemaking Website (click on "UTC invites comments on a study of the potential for distributed energy in Washington State") and UTC Docket UE-110667.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 

Posted on behalf of Stoel Rives Partner, Aaron Barker.

Envision Solar International, Inc. recently announced that it has filed for a U.S. patent application for the company’s multi-axis Envision Trak™ solar tracking systems, which are designed to increase energy output by approximately 20 percent over a standard fixed PV array. Envision Solar emphasized that it is “pursuing an aggressive technology and product development program” and that the “company’s intellectual property portfolio is growing.”

Because most patent applications are not published until 18 months after filing, details of the new patent application are not available. However, Envision Solar states that the company’s new patent application advances its “previously patented Solar Tree® products into Envision Solar’s next generation—ultra-high output solar parking array technologies.”

U.S. Patent No. 7,705,277 is Envision Solar’s previous patent covering sun tracking solar panels. The patent is related to maximizing solar energy utilization by moving a solar panel to track movement of the sun from sunrise to sunset. An example claim and drawing from U.S. Patent No. 7,705,277 are shown below.

 

Claim from U.S. Pat. No. 7,705,277

1. An apparatus for moving an energy converting unit to maximize solar energy utilization which comprises:

    at least one solar panel having a substantially flat surface with a plurality of the energy converting units mounted thereon;

    a mount for supporting the solar panel with the flat surface thereof inclined relative to a terrestrial horizon at a fixed angle "α" wherein the mount includes a pole anchored in the ground;

    a means for rotating the panel on the mount about a central axis, wherein the central axis is aligned with the pole and is substantially perpendicular to a horizontal plane defined by the terrestrial horizon; and

    a controller for controlling rotation of the panel through successive one-directional cycles in accordance with a programmed schedule to maximize generation of solar energy.

 

According to Envision Solar, the company’s new patent application describes a “Device for Continuously Reorienting a Solar Panel.” The company also hints that the new patent application covers “a hybrid, multi-axis design, [that] provides a highly functional solution which allows the entire Solar Tree® canopy to track the sun, while not restricting traffic flow in drive aisles of parking lots.”

We look forward to the publication of Envision Solar’s new patent application.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 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:

1. 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?
2. 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?
3. How can energy storage technologies be best integrated into the utilities’ existing portfolios?
4. 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?
5. 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?
6. Is it possible to develop a single unifying policy for energy storage when storage has a wide variety of uses?
7. 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?
8. 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:

1. How should energy storage applications/attributes be valued?
2. What are the costs for the various types of energy storage applications?
3. 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?
4. 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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Join Stoel Rives Partners Mark Hanson and Greg Jenner in Minneapolis, for Renewable Energy in the Midwest States: New Policy, Business and Legal Developments.  Here they will meet with leading renewable energy professionals, innovators and regulators to address opportunities and challenges for developers  and entrepreneurs in the Midwest renewable market and the developing Smart Grid sector.

Both Mark and Greg will present on Friday, August 26, and will discuss environmental issues and updates of federal and state programs, as well as ways to move renewable projects forward with less government support.

For full conference details, click here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

FERC Clarifies Qualifying Facility Restrictions in Sale/Resale Transactions

On May 19, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") issued an order in Idaho Wind Partners I, LLC, a docket in which wind farm owners in Idaho petitioned FERC for approval of a unique transaction that would both provide eligible Renewable Energy Credits ("RECs") to a utility in California and leave the wind farm owners in a position to make a Qualifying Facility ("QF") "put" sale at avoided cost rates on the interconnecting utility.

FERC confirmed that so long as the third party is a QF, the size, affiliation, or relative physical location of the third party has no effect on the QF status of the power being sold and repurchased. Consequently, any power that the Idaho wind farms sell to a QF and then buy back may subsequently be sold to an electric utility at avoided cost rates.

Read more on the Qualifying Facility Restrictions

SunZia Transmission Obtains Approval of Ownership Structure, Anchor Tenant Proposal

On May 20, FERC granted SunZia Transmission's ("SunZia") petition for FERC's approval of the ownership structure and transmission service plans for the SunZia Southwest Transmission Project (the "Project"). SunZia had requested that each of its investor-owners be allocated ownership rights representing 100 percent of its respective pro rata investment in the Project, and that certain of the investor-owners be able to allocate up to 50 percent of their pro rata shares of transmission capacity to anchor tenants through long-term negotiated transmission contracts. In May 2010, FERC rejected SunZia's request to allocate 100 percent of the Project's transmission capacity (as opposed to ownership rights) among the owners according to their pro rata investment in the Project's capacity and ruled that the owners do not have exclusive rights to the Project's capacity equal to their share of investment in the Project.

Read more on the Approval of SunZia Ownership Structure and Anchor Tenant Proposal

Midwest ISO Releases Group 5 Re-Study System Impact Study

On May 19, the Midwest ISO released the long-anticipated Minnesota Group 5 Re-Study Generator Interconnection System Impact Study, which Re-Study was ordered by FERC as the result of a cost allocation dispute between a wind developer (Community Wind) and the Midwest ISO with respect to the Brookings County-Twin Cities transmission line.

Read more on Midwest ISO's Group 5 Re-Study Generator Interconnection System Impact Study

A Big Day for Transmission Rate Incentives: Multiple Applications Approved, and FERC Seeks Comments on Its Policies

FERC's May 19 open meeting turned out to be positive for transmission developers, as FERC approved transmission rate incentives (or related settlements) for five transmission projects located from the Atlantic coast to the desert Southwest. FERC also issued a Notice of Inquiry on its implementation of Section 219 of the Federal Power Act, and is seeking comments on how it should modify its policies and regulations to promote increased transmission investment.

Read more on each of FERC's Approved Transmission Rate Incentives

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Following up on my blog Thursday, all three of California's major investor-owned utilities, Pacific Gas & Electric ("PG&E"), San Diego Gas & Electric ("SDG&E"), and Southern California Edison ("SCE") have issued their 2011 requests for offers ("RFO") and requests for proposals ("RFP") for eligible renewable resources, triggering their timelines for new contract proposals.

Information on PG&E's RFO, issued Wednesday May 11, can be found here.  PG&E will hold a bidders conference on May 19.  According to the current schedule, offers must be received by noon on June 15.

Information on SDG&E's RFO, issued Thursday May 12, can be found here.  SDG&E will hold a pre-bidders conference in San Diego on June 2, and another one in El Centro on June 6.  According to the current schedule, offers must be received by noon on July 12.

Information on SCE's RFP, issued Friday May 13, can be found here.  SCE will hold a proposal conference on May 26.  According to the current schedule, offers must be received by 1:00 p.m. on June 27.

 

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Stoel Rives attorney Heath Curtiss, one of the
co-authors of "Federal Land Issues with Siting
and Permitting" in our Law of Wind, describes
a Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") plan to
protect certain land suitable for renewables
development from the location of mining claims :

As many of our clients with right-of-way (“ROW”) applications pending before BLM know, mining claims located prior to a final ROW grant can prove difficult obstacles to clear in the context of project permitting, finance, and development.  Unfortunately for renewables developers, mining claims are easy to locate, and difficult to invalidate.  This gives mining claimants leverage vis-à-vis other public land developers.  As one might expect, with the recent uptick in renewable ROW applications, we’ve also seen an increase in mining claims.  According to BLM, over the last two years, 437 new mining claims were located within wind energy ROW application areas on BLM lands, and another 216 new mining claims were located within solar energy ROW application areas.

In an effort to address such conflicts, on April 25, 2011, BLM published notice of an Interim Rule effective immediately, and a nearly identical proposed rule, that gives BLM the ability to segregate lands included within wind and solar ROW applications, or lands that BLM identifies for potential wind and solar ROWs.  Once segregated, such lands would no longer be subject to appropriation under the appropriations laws, including location under the General Mining Law of 1872.  Segregation would not, however, explicitly restrict leasing under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, or sales under the Materials Act of 1947, presumably because those acts already give BLM significantly more discretion to balance competing uses.  Likewise, neither the interim nor proposed rule purport to affect existing mining claims.

The foregoing segregation would take effect once BLM publishes notice in the Federal Register, and would terminate on the earliest of (i) a decision to grant or deny the ROW application, (ii) automatically at the end of the segregation period, not to exceed 2 years from the date of publication, or (iii) upon publication of a notice of termination.

BLM is accepting comments on the interim and proposed rules until June 27, 2011.

 

 

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On April 11, 2011, FPL Energy, LLC, et al., filed with the Texas Supreme Court a petition for review of the Texas Court of Appeals’ decision FPL Energy, LLC, v. TXU Portfolio Management Company, L.P. The case illustrates the significant economic impact that curtailment can have on variable energy resources. For a detailed description of the case and its implications, see our Renewable + Law Blog entry on the Court of Appeals’ decision here.

The petition for review focuses on the question of whether the Court of Appeals was correct in enforcing the liquidated damages provisions contained in three wind energy power purchase agreements. The pertinent provisions in each PPA required the petitioners to pay $50 for every MWh that the plants fell short of achieving the their minimum REC output guarantees—the Court of Appeals’ holding meant that the petitioners owed TXU roughly $29 million in shortfall damages for a four year period of curtailment imposed by the transmission provider (ERCOT), on top of the pain of losing the contract price and the production tax credit on each MWh of energy curtailed.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 

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. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Two bills were introduced in the Idaho legislature last week, both of which could significantly impact the wind industry in Idaho.  The first, H250, extends a sales or use tax rebate available to purchasers of qualifying machinery and equipment used in generating electricity from renewable resources.  The rebate is currently set to expire as of July 1, 2011.   Under the proposed legislation, the rebate would be extended for such purchases but only if the purchaser achieves commercial operation by December 31, 2014. 

 

The second bill, H265, would impose a moratorium on the construction of new wind projects in Idaho for two years and directs the Interim Energy Committee to meet during that time and report on various wind related issues, including the impact of wind on power rates and the ability of utilities to integrate wind into their systems.  The relevant moratorium language is excerpted below.  Although initial reports of the bill stated that it would not apply to wind projects that are already under construction or have permits, that is not how the legislation is written.  As proposed, it prohibits municipalities, counties and state agencies from "granting approval or issuing any new licenses or permits for the construction or operation of wind turbines that exceed one hundred (100) feet in height and have a nameplate capacity that exceeds one hundred (100) kilowatts."  A plain reading of this language means that a fully developed and "almost" fully permitted project with wind turbines already delivered on-site could be subject to the moratorium because of the inability to obtain building or other ministerial permits, which some Idaho counties require as each individual turbine is constructed. 

 

We'll continue to monitor closely as the future of Idaho's wind industry is debated by the legislature.

 

61-1802.  MORATORIUM ON CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN INDUSTRIAL WIND FARMS AND WIND TURBINES FOR A TIME CERTAIN.  (1)  From the effective date of this act until July 1, 2013, municipalities, counties and state agencies are prohibited from granting approval or issuing any new licenses or permits for the construction or operation of wind turbines that exceed one hundred (100) feet in height and have a nameplate capacity that exceeds one hundred (100) kilowatts.  Projects that have been approved and for which the statute of limitations for legal proceedings of the state of Idaho against the project expire without any legal action against the project shall be allowed to be constructed.  Projects for which legal proceedings are pending shall not be allowed to be constructed until the legal proceedings are complete and a court of competent jurisdiction finds that construction may proceed.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Through industry presentations and publications as well as through our blog, our energy attorneys are dedicated to helping you stay informed and knowledgeable about legal developments that affect your business.

Visit our website for the latest calendar of events. Upcoming highlights include:

Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America 2011
March 8-10, 2011 – Tampa, FL
Featuring speakers Bill Holmes, Greg Jenner, David Benson and Ramona Monroe. Visit us at booth #726 in the Exhibit Hall.

Tax Equity Financing for Renewables
March 16 - Webinar
This webinar, part of EUCI's Law of Renewable Energy Series, is instructed exclusively by Stoel Rives Partners Gary Barnum, Greg Jenner, Kevin Pearson, and Moderated by Ed Einowski. It will provide a refresher on the 1603 grant, the PTC and the ITC, and discuss the requirements and complexities of bonus depreciation, and the opportunities to utilize New Market Tax Credits.

Biomass for Power, Fuels and Chemicals
March 21-22 – Minneapolis, MN
Visit with Mark Hanson, Jennifer Martin, Bill Holmes, and John Eustermann, who will cover topics from PPAs and feedstock agreements to project due diligence and case studies.

Solar Power Finance & Investment Summit
March 22-24 – San Diego, CA
Join speakers Morten Lund and Howard Susman along with Julia Pettit, David Quinby, Brian Nese, Jennifer Martin, Kristen Castaños, Greg Jenner and David Benson in sunny San Diego – save 15% on conference registration with code 111561

Solar EPC and Long-Term Component Supply
March 28 – Webinar
Stoel Rives Partners Ed Einowski, David Hattery and Morten Lund will serve as the exclusive instructors for this webinar, part of the Law of Renewable Energy Series presented by EUCI.

National Hydropower Association's Annual Conference
April 4-6 – Washington, DC
Cherise Oram will discuss how best to navigate the Endangered Species Act at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licensing, relicensing and mid-license stages as she presents, "Working Toward Successful ESA Outcomes."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The second of two bills that would drastically impact the Washington State Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) was recently introduced in the Washington State Legislature.  HB 1890 would cut in half the amount of energy utilities are required to obtain from new renewable resources, and also allow them to offset renewable energy requirements with energy from fresh water sources and sources that predate March 31, 1999.

Currently, electric utilities in Washington that serve more than 25,000 customers are required to obtain the following percentages of their electricity from new renewable resources:

• At least 3% by January 1, 2012
• At least 9% by January 1, 2015
• At least 15% by January 1, 2020

This has been the case since the passage of the Washington Energy Independence Act (EIA) in 2006. HB 1890 would cut these percentages in half -- requiring eligible utilities to acquire only 1.5% of their energy from renewable sources by 2012, only 4.5% by 2015, and only 7.5% by 2020. 

In addition, the EIA treats as eligible only incremental electricity produced as a result of efficiency improvements completed after March 31, 1999 and excludes energy from fresh water resources.  HB 1890, however, would count as eligible all electricity from an existing generation facility powered by a fresh water renewable resource that commenced operation before March 31, 1999.  In other words, fresh water energy resources that have been operating since before March 31, 1999 -- and are unchanged and unimproved since that time -- would count toward the RPS. 

For more information on this bill including its full text, see the Washington State Legislature website.

Washington HB 1890 is sponsored by Rep. Brad Klippert (R-8th Dist.), Rep. Jan Angel (R-26th Dist.), Rep. Dan Kristiansen (R-39th Dist.), Rep. Shelley Short (R-7th Dist.), Rep. Larry Haler (R-8th Dist.), Rep. Barbara Bailey (R-10th Dist.), and Rep. Jim McCune (R-2nd Dist.).  It was introduced and referred to the Environment Committee on February 8, 2011. 

Another bill that would essentially wipe out the Washington State RPS altogether was introduced earlier this session.  The blog post on that bill, SB 5563, is available here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Obama Administration last week released its proposed budget for 2012, which includes a number of tax proposals that could have a direct impact on the financing of renewable energy projects. Some of the more significant proposals include extension of the grant in lieu of tax credits, an additional allotment of qualified advanced energy manufacturing project credits, replacement of the deduction for energy-efficient commercial buildings with a tax credit, and an extension of the new markets tax credit.

For a more thorough discussion of these and other proposals, click here .

Please contact one of the attorneys listed below if you have questions.

Chris Heuer at (503) 294-9206 or ckheuer@stoel.com
Greg Jenner at (612) 373-8857 or gfjenner@stoel.com
Adam Kobos at (503) 294-9246 or ackobos@stoel.com
Carl Lewis at (206) 386-7688 or cslewis@stoel.com
Kevin Pearson at (503) 294-9622 or ktpearson@stoel.com

IRS Circular 230 notice: Any tax advice contained herein was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by you or any other person (i) in promoting, marketing or recommending any transaction, plan or arrangement or (ii) for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a long-awaited announcement, last week the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities adopted rules to codify the State’s Offshore Wind Economic Development Act. The new rules provide the process for an applicant to submit project information and to propose a pricing method and structure for Offshore Renewable Energy Credits (ORECs) for the Board’s consideration. If approved, each retail provider of electricity in New Jersey will be required to buy Board mandated levels of ORECs in proportion to retail sales.

The application process requires detailed disclosures concerning the proposer’s business information, its collective project experience, and key employees. A proposal must describe the proposed technology, the anticipated schedule for completion, the financial details of the project including a specified cost-benefit analysis, and documentation that the project has applied for all applicable State and federal grants, rebates, tax credits and other incentive programs. In addition, the applicant must describe its anticipated operations and maintenance plan, its decommissioning plan and must provide segregated decommissioning funds. Upon receipt of completion of application, the Board shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application within 180 days. Perhaps the most complex aspect of the required application is the cost-benefit analysis. The rules suggest the use of one of four listed input-output models, but will allow applicant to us any model that successfully calculates the economic benefit that the proposed project will bring to the State of New Jersey. The Board will assess the net economic benefit, with a “particular emphasis” on in-state manufacturing employment, as well as the net environmental benefit of the project in terms of anticipated reductions in carbon dioxide and air emissions. The rules also allow the Board to perform its own net benefit analysis, which may result in additional conditions of approval.

Separately, even before the Board issued its rules, Fishermen’s Energy of New Jersey, LLC filed an application for the first phase of its proposed 300MW project offshore Atlantic City.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On Monday February 7, 2011, the DOE issued an ambitious plan to spur development of offshore wind facilities in federal and state waters off the eastern seaboard. The report identifies the key challenges to widespread development are reducing both the cost and the timeline of project development. It estimates that the current cost of offshore facilities must be cut by more than half from the current installed capital cost of $4,250 per kW in order to achieve the report’s goal of 54 GW of offshore power by 2030.

In an effort to drive this massive effort forward, the DOE offers $50.5 million in grants for the development of tools and hardware in wind turbine factories, market studies and research on electrical infrastructure and funding for research into next-generation wind-turbine drive trains. Perhaps more importantly, the report designates four “Wind Energy Areas” for expedited approval evaluation and possible lease offerings by the end of 2011 or in early 2012. The report promises that this “Smart from the Start” program will accelerate the leasing process by cutting the current approval timeline of 7 to 10 year in half.

Most notably, the National Offshore Wind Strategy presents the eastern United States with tremendous potential to generate significant economic activity through the installation of facilities that will produce clean, renewable energy. The industry will benefit from the program outlined in this report, particularly if it is followed by an extension of tax credits applicable to these types of renewable energy projects.

Click here for the complete National Offshore Wind Strategy: Creating an Offshore Wind Industry in the United States.

Click here for more information on the Smart from the Start Initiative.

Click here for a map of the mid-Atlantic WEA’s.

More information is available at: http://www.boemre.gov/offshore/RenewableEnergy/index.htm andwww.windandwater.energy.gov.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Business law publisher Law360 recently announced that Bill Holmes, Partner in the firm’s Energy Development practice, has been selected to serve as a member of Law360’s 2011 ENERGY Editorial Advisory Board. Holmes was one of 12 board members selected from over 1,000 attorney candidates. The board will review feedback from readers of the Energy Law360 publication and discuss topics for future coverage.

Read the Law360 press release (subscription required)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

From our colleage Seth Hilton:

In 2006, Assembly Bill (AB) 1969 ushered in the era of the Feed In Tariff (FIT) in California. AB 1969 added section 399.20 to the Public Utilities Code, which allowed for tariffs and standardized contracts for eligible renewable resources up to 1.5MW owned by, and located on, public water and wastewater treatment facilities. In 2007, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) expanded the program to all utility customers. In 2008, Senate Bill (SB) 380 established a standard tariff for all utility customers and applied that tariff to San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) in addition to Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and Southern California Edison (SCE).

Also in 2008, the CPUC adopted the final tariff structure and standardized contracts. The pricing for the tariffs was set at the market price referent (MPR), as adjusted by time of use (TOU) factors. A more detailed description, and the MPR and TOU tables, is available here. The total cap of the program is currently 500MW divided between SCE, PG&E, and SDG&E.

In 2009, SB 32 was signed into law, which, among other things, increased the eligible project size to 3MW. SB 32 went into effect on January 1, 2010. However, the CPUC has not yet fully implemented these amendments to the FIT program.

On January 27, 2011, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Anne E. Simon released a ruling setting the briefing schedule in response to the CPUC’s implementation of SB 32. The ruling states that respondents must, and other parties may, file briefs on such issues as eligibility, program size and requirements, and the setting of the tariff price, or any other issue they believe to be “relevant to the Commission’s implementation of SB 32.”

ALJ Simon’s ruling further stated that parties may also file, as a separate action in their brief, a request for any “further activities” they believe should be conducted (i.e., workshops, hearings, etc.).

Filed briefs must be no more than 50 pages and must be filed and served by respondents, and may be filed and served by other parties, no later than March 4, 2011. Reply briefs, which can be no more than 25 pages, must be filed by served no later than March 22, 2011.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Idaho Public Utilities Commission (the “Commission”) heard oral arguments today on the Joint Petition filed by Idaho Power, Avista Corporation and PacifiCorp d/b/a Rocky Mountain Power (collectively the “Utilities”) in Docket No. GNR-E-10-04, requesting that the Commission address various issues related to avoided costs for PURPA Qualifying Facilities (“QFs”), including ownership and valuation of Renewable Energy Credits, system reliability, lack of a standard contract template, and the increased size and scale of QF projects. Specifically, the Utilities are seeking an order reducing the published avoided cost rate eligibility cap for Idaho QFs from the current 10 aMW level to 100 kW. On December 3, 2010, the Commission issued a Notice of Joint Petition and Order No. 32131 (the “December 3rd Order”), denying the Utilities’ request to immediately reduce the eligibility cap, and breaking the proceeding up into two phases. In the first phase, the Commission will address whether the eligibility cap should be reduced temporarily, pending a decision on the broader avoided cost issues in phase two.

Today’s hearing focused solely on the Utilities’ request to reduce the eligibility cap, during which the Commission sought discussion on the appropriateness of exempting non-wind QF projects from the reduced eligibility cap, and the consequences of disaggregation (i.e., dividing larger wind projects into multiple 10 aMW projects in order to qualify each for the published avoided cost rate). The Utilities argued that temporarily reducing the eligibility cap while addressing the other avoided cost issues is the simplest and most effective way to proceed and would address one immediate concern – the large number of currently proposed contracts, which the Utilities argue are not from small, unsophisticated developers, but instead are from large scale wind projects that are being disaggregated to meet the 10 aMW cap. Each of the Utilities agreed that although the magnitude of the problem is related to wind resources, the reduction, if granted, should apply to all QF projects. Commission Staff testified in support of a reduction in the eligibility cap, but argued that the reduced cap should apply to wind resources only. Recent industry publications have reported that Commission Staff may be willing to consider instituting a rule that requires disaggregated facilities to be located at least five miles apart (rather than the current one-mile rule provided for under FERC regulations); however, that option wasn’t raised at the hearing.

The hearing room overflowed with the more than a dozen parties who have intervened in the case, whose interests and testimony varied, but each warned of the chilling effect of such reduction on development of renewable energy projects in Idaho and the need for further evidentiary hearings to resolve the issues presented. The Commission seemed sensitive to the impact of any temporary cap reduction, particularly on projects currently under development, and the need to resolve the broader avoided cost issues quickly. However, all parties agreed that such proceedings would not be quick, and would take six months to a year to resolve. Such a delay could certainly kill a project under development, and would undoubtedly dissuade new developments in Idaho in 2011.

The Commission did not say when to expect an order on the temporary reduction, only that they would issue one as soon as possible. Pursuant to the Commission’s December 3rd Order, any order reducing the eligibility cap will have a retroactive effective date of December 14, 2010.

For more information, or if you have questions regarding the Commission’s proceeding and the impact it may have on renewable energy development in Idaho, feel free to contact Teresa Hill at tahill@stoel.com or Chad Marriott at ctmarriott@stoel.com.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

Through industry presentations and publications as well as through our blog, our energy attorneys are dedicated to helping you stay informed and knowledgeable about legal developments that affect your business.

Visit our website for the latest calendar of events. Upcoming highlights include:

Wind & Solar Integration Summit
January 24-26 – Scottsdale, AZ
Featuring speakers Stephen Hall, Ed Einowski, Bill Holmes, Jennifer Martin and Dina Dubson – use Infocast conference code 110808 for a 25% registration discount.

Electricity Storage: Business and Policy Drivers
January 24-26 – Houston, TX
Bill Holmes and Edna Vassilovski will discuss “Due Diligence Considerations in Electric Energy Storage Business Relationships” at this post conference workshop on 1/26.

Wave Energy in the U.S. Today
February 1 – via teleconference or at Stoel Offices in Portland, Seattle, and Sacramento
Chad Marriott will serve as a panelist for this teleconference presented by the American Bar Association's Renewable, Alternative, and Distributed Energy Resources Committee.

Wind Power Finance & Investment Summit
February 2-4 – San Diego, CA
Join conference speakers Duff Bryant and Greg Jenner along with Ed Einowski, Julia Pettit, Howard Susman, Morten Lund and David Quinby at the Rancho Bernardo Inn – Use Infocast conference code 110166 for a 15% registration discount.

Geothermal Energy Finance Forum
February 9 – New York, NY
Visit the Big Apple with Gary Barnum and John McKinsey, conference speaker and Geothermal Energy Association Board Member.

Next Generation Bio-Based Chemicals Summit
February 14-17 – San Diego, CA
Network with industry leaders and Stoel Rives speakers John Eustermann, David Quinby, and Edna Vassilovski – use Infocast conference code 111016 for a 15% registration discount.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As we approach the beginning of a new year, financing options for energy projects (both conventional and renewable) under the current economic conditions continue to be a challenge and a focal point for the energy industry.  In order to gear up for financing opportunities in 2011,  I, along with my colleagues Marcus Wood, Graham Noyes and Adam Kobos, will be heading to the Big Easy for Projects & Money 2011.  Stoel Rives is proud to be a Gold Sponsor at this engaging conference, where Capital Providers, Project Developers and other dealmakers in the financing community will gather together to share information, discuss deal leads and capitalize on new market opportunities.

Projects & Money incorporates its comprehensive market updates with networking opportunities, introductions to new project developments, and interactive multimedia components. Presentations from industry professionals provide an inside look at some of the most ground-breaking deals of 2010, examine the trends they reveal, and provide a better understanding of what it takes to make deals happen.

Stoel Rives attorney Graham Noyes will present "DOE's Loan Guarantee Program: Crucial Financing Mechanism or a Costly Distraction?" on Tuesday, January 11, at 1:30 p.m. during the Pre-Summit Briefing.

On Wednesday, January 12, Partner Marcus Wood will moderate the discussion panel, "Transmission Outlook," at 2:15 p.m. during Track II: Project Sector Outlooks.

Hope to see you there!

To learn more about the conference or to register online, please visit: http://www.infocastinc.com/index.php/conference/416

Projects & Money
When: January 11-13, 2011
Where: Harrah's New Orleans – New Orleans, LA

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On Friday, December 16, 2010, the California Public Utilities Commission unanimously approved a decision ("Final Decision") ordering a new tariff for a procurement protocol called the Renewable Auction Mechanism, or RAM. RAM applies to California's three largest investor-owned utilities ("IOUs"). All renewable energy projects up to 20 MW that are located in the service territory of one of the IOUs are eligible for RAM. The program authorizes the IOUs, on an interim basis, to acquire up to 1,000 MW of renewable generation, with each IOU allocated a portion of the 1,000 MW cap.

RAM will consist of two auctions per year. Twenty-five percent of the total program allocation will be offered in each auction; unsubscribed capacity and drop-out capacity is added to the next auction. Auctions for all three IOUs will be conducted simultaneously, and a project may bid into all three auctions. If a project is selected in more than one auction, however, it must notify all affected IOUs which one shortlist it will accept within 10 days of its notice that it was selected in multiple auctions.

To continue reading, click here.

If you have any questions about the issues of this update, please contact:

Seth Hilton at (916) 319-4749 or sdhilton@stoel.com
Morten Lund at (858) 794-4103 or malund@stoel.com
Brian Nese at (858) 794-4102 or bjnese@stoel.com

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Yesterday, December 16, 2010, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) conditionally approved a proposal by the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator (MISO) that significantly changes how large transmission upgrades are funded across the MISO region.

MISO’s proposal creates a new category of transmission projects called Multi-Value Projects (MVPs) for upgrades that are determined to enable reliable and economic delivery of energy in support of public policy mandates or laws that address transmission reliability and congestion across multiple transmission zones.

MISO’s proposal is effective as of July 16, 2010 and thus applies to transmission projects identified in Appendix A of 2010 MISO Transmission Expansion Plan (MTEP).

To continue reading, click here.

If you have any questions about the order, how it may affect your generation or transmission project, or wind energy development in the Midwest, please contact one of the following attorneys:

Minneapolis, MN
Mark Hanson at (612) 373-8823 or mjhanson@stoel.com
Kevin Johnson at (612) 373-8803 or kdjohnson@stoel.com
Kevin Prohaska at (612) 373-8805 or krprohaska@stoel.com
David Quinby at (612) 373-8825 or dtquinby@stoel.com
Joe Thompson at (612) 373-8822 or jrthompson@stoel.com
Sarah Johnson Phillips at (612) 373-8843 or sjphillips@stoel.com

Portland, OR
Jennifer Martin at (503) 294-9852 or jhmartin@stoel.com
Marcus Wood at (503) 294-9434 or mwood@stoel.com
Sara Bergan at (503) 294-9336 or sebergan@stoel.com
Jason Johns at (503) 294-9618 or jajohns@stoel.com

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 

On Tuesday, December 7, 2010, U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, together with several other  government agencies, announced a Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Export Initiative.

 

The Initiative brings together the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee Working Group on Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency,  the Export-Import Bank of the United States, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation,  the U.S. Trade and Development Agency, and the Office of the United States Trade Representative.  This coordinated effort is the first of its kind.

 

The goal is to promote and increase renewable energy and energy efficiency exports as part of a cohesive program during the next five years.  The U.S. Government plans to offer new financing products for exporters and facilitate market access, among other things.

 

See http://export.gov/reee for the  report released on Tuesday by the Commerce Department.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

An update on Oklahoma from Laura Suesser and Sara Bergan:

The Oklahoma legislature passed three bills (H.B. 2973, S.B. 1787, and H.B. 3028) in 2010 that affect the renewable energy industry. Two have already gone into effect and the third will go into effect on January 1, 2011. A summary of each bill is included below.

The Oklahoma Wind Energy Development Act (the “Act”), H.B. 2973, becomes effective on January 1, 2011 and will be codified in Okla. Stat. tit. 17 §§160.11-17 (2010). The Act includes the following:

• Decommissioning: Decommissioning requirements apply to any wind energy facility entering into or renewing a power purchase agreement (PPA) on or after January 1, 2011. If energy is not being sold under a PPA, the requirements apply to wind energy facilities which commence construction on or after January 1, 2011. The requirements include:
  • Restoration: Owners of a wind energy facility must remove wind energy equipment (to a depth of 30”) and restore land surfaces to substantially the same pre-construction condition (excluding roads) within 12 months of abandonment of a project or the end of the useful life of the equipment.
  • Cost Estimate and Posting of Financial Security: After the 15th year of operation, facility owners must file a professional estimate of the decommissioning costs together with a financial security (either a surety bond, collateral bond, parent guaranty or letter of credit) to cover such costs. Those failing to so file may incur an administrative penalty of up to $1,500/day.
•  Payment Statements and Access to Records: Any owner or operator making payments to landowners based on the amount of electrical energy produced is required to deliver a statement to the landowner, within 10 business days of payment, explaining the payment calculation and a means for the landowner to confirm its accuracy. Landowners have the right to inspect owner/operator records to confirm the accuracy of payments for up to 24 months following payment. Records must be made available for review within the state of Oklahoma.  
•  Insurance:   Owners or operators are required to obtain commercial general liability insurance policy with limits consistent with prevailing industry standards (or a combination of self insurance and excess liability insurance policy), which name the landowner as an additional insured and certificates of insurance must be delivered to landowner prior to commencing construction of the facility.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A legal update from our colleagues Seth Hilton, John McKinsey and Allison Smith:

The results are in on the California election, and it's supportive of renewable energy. The two most important developments: Jerry Brown prevailed over Meg Whitman in the gubernatorial race and Proposition 23 failed. The election appears to have been, in part, an affirmation of California's quest to expand its use of renewable energy.

Proposition 23 would have suspended the California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) until the state's unemployment rate dropped to 5.5% or less for four consecutive quarters. Given that California's current unemployment rate is about 12% and the unemployment rate has been below 5.5% for four consecutive quarters only three times since 1980, Proposition 23 would have likely halted the implementation of AB 32 indefinitely. AB 32 mandates a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. More importantly for the renewably energy industry, the current mandate for 33% of the state's electricity to come from renewable energy resources by 2020 hinges almost entirely on AB 32. The California Air Resources Board (ARB), pursuant to its authority under AB 32 and following the edict of Governor Schwarzenegger's Executive Orders S-21-09 and S-14-08, is implementing a "33% by 2020" renewable energy standard (RES).

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Don't forget that the deadline for Phase I grant applications under the U.S. Department of Energy's ("DOE") Small Business Innovation Research ("SBIR") and Small Business Technology Transfer ("STTR") programs is 8:00 p.m. Eastern, November 15, 2010.  Qualified small businesses with strong research capabilities in science or engineering in any of the research areas identified in the September 28, 2010 Funding Opportunity Announcement are encouraged to apply.  Phase I grants of up to $150,000 will be awarded in FY 2011 under the SBIR; and grants of up to $100,000 will be awarded under the STTR. 

The Phase I Technical Topics document lists several areas of particular interest for the renewable energy industry.  Note that the following is not an exhaustive list.  The full list and descriptions can be found in the Phase I Technical Topics document.

• Advanced Cooling and Waste Heat Recovery: Advanced Cooling; Advanced Waste Heat Recovery; Geoexchange heat pump (GHP) component R&D; Innovative GHP System/Loop Designs.

• Production of Bioenergy and Biofuels from Cellulosic and Non-Food Biomass:  Biomass Feedstock Stabilization and Drying; Biomass Torrefaction; Sugar Catalysis to Advanced Biofuels and Chemical Intermediates; Pyrolytic Thermal Depolymerization.

• Hydrogen and Fuel Cells:  Reducing the Cost of High Pressure Hydrogen Storage Tanks; Fuel Cell Balance-of-Plant; Demonstration of Alternative-Fuel Fuel CElls as Range Extenders.

• Innovative Solar Power:  High Efficiency, Low Cost Thin Film Photovoltaics; Low Cost Building Integrated Photovoltaics; Static Module PV Concentrators; Solar-Powered Water Desalination; Distributed Concentrating Solar Power ("CSP").

• Advanced Water Power Technologies: Pumped Storage Hydropower; Advanced Hydropower Systems; Wave and Current Energy Technologies; Advanced Component Design for Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Systems.

• Wind Energy Technologies: Transportation and Assembly of Extremely Large Wind Turbine Components for Land-Based Wind Turbines; Wind Energy Capture in Non-Conventional Wind Resources; Offshore Grid Infrastructure Hardware Development; Offshore Mooring and Anchoring Technology.

Detailed descriptions of each subtopic are included in the Phase I Technical Topics document.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Join Stoel Rives renewable energy partners Bill Holmes, Marcus Wood and Edna Vassilovski for this EUCI-sponsored webinar on Wednesday, October 20. They will be speaking on the Legal Implications of Energy Storage. This webinar will appeal to anyone involved in and with renewable energy.

• Overview of the role of energy storage in the overall energy system
• Intellectual property issues: invention and use of advanced storage technologies
  • Patent law basics
  • Licensing agreements
• Is energy storage transmission or generation?
  • Legal impact of adding to the distribution system, the bulk transmission system, or both
• Energy storage tolling agreements
  • Basic terms and conditions
• Incorporating storage into renewable energy development plans

When:

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 2:30 p.m. ET; 11:30 a.m. PT

For more information about this webinar and to register, please click here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Here's an Energy Law Alert prepared by Seth Hilton, John McKinsey and Stephen Hall:

Last Thursday evening, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) unanimously adopted its Renewable Energy Standard (RES), mandating that California's electric utilities—both public and investor-owned—procure 33% of their electricity from renewable resources by 2020. The RES was adopted pursuant to the authority granted the ARB in AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which vested the ARB with the authority to promulgate regulations to reduce California's greenhouse gas emissions. The RES requires utilities to submit plans by July 2012 on how they will comply with the new regulations. The regulation includes several multi-year compliance intervals—from 2012 to 2014 the RES is 20%, from 2015 through 2017 it is 24%, from 2018 to 2019 it is 28%, and from 2020 forward the RES remains at 33%. The RES is met through the retirement of Western Renewable Energy Generation Information System (WREGIS) certificates; unlike the current 20% Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) that applies to investor-owned utilities, there is no requirement that any energy be delivered to California. WREGIS certificates may be retained or traded for up to three years, utilities may also bank those certificates for RES compliance indefinitely. The RES also provides that ARB will conduct comprehensive reviews of the program by December 31, 2013, 2016, and 2018, and that those reviews may trigger modifications to the RES.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Following our post from a couple weeks ago, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission released its Order today regarding ownership of renewable energy credits in a group of "silent" power purchase agreements (Docket No. 08-440). The Order is available here and our previous post describing its substance is here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

An alert written by Stoel Rives partner Seth Hilton:

Last night, the California legislature failed to pass Senate Bill 722—the 33% Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) legislation—by the close of the legislative session. The bill would have increased California’s RPS to 33% for both investor-owned and publicly owned utilities. It would also have placed limits on the use of renewable resources located out-of-state to meet California’s RPS—utilities would have been required to meet a certain percentage of their RPS obligations through resources whose first point of interconnection was a California balancing authority, or whose power is transmitted to California through a dynamic transfer arrangement or scheduled hourly or inter-hourly into California. The proposed legislation also would have authorized the use of renewable energy credits (RECs)—the environmental attributes of renewable power separated from the power itself—for RPS compliance, but would have imposed limits on the amount of RECs that could be used to meet the utilities’ RPS obligation.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Tuesday's Wall Street Journal included an editorial by Robert Bryce titled "Wind Power Won't Cool Down the Planet," claiming that wind power does not reduce carbon pollution, based on fossil fuel industry studies.  In response to Bryce's editorial, Renewable Northwest Project has released a statement from Ken Dragoon, RNP research director, countering Bryce's claims with facts from independent sources. (http://www.rnp.org/index.php?q=node/1001)

American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) has also issued a similar statement.  http://awea.org/newsroom/pdf/08-27-10-Wind_and_emissions_response.pdf.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last week, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission resolved a longstanding dispute over who owns Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) when the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) is silent.  Following the establishment of an REC tracking system for Minnesota, Xcel Energy asked the Commission to clarify ownership of RECs associated with 46 wind, biomass, hydro, and landfill gas facilities totaling 467.5 MW.  These PPAs were written before the concept of RECs existed. 

On August 17, 2010, the Commission resolved the dispute partially in favor of Xcel and partially in favor of the generators.  The Commission divided the disputed PPAs into two categories: 1) PPAs signed under 1978 federal Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA) and 2) PPAs signed under Minnesota’s 1994 wind and biomass mandates (Minn. Stat. §§216B.2423 and 216B.2424).

For the PURPA contracts, the Commission decided that the generators are the rightful owners of RECs because they had only been paid avoided cost with no premium for the electricity being from renewable sources.

For the wind and biomass mandate PPAs, the Commission favored Xcel and decided that the utility had acquired ownership of the RECs, unless the generator can make a showing that the PPA is not silent on REC ownership.  For this category, the Commission reasoned that Xcel had contracted to buy electricity that would meet specific renewable mandates.  Without the RECs, the electricity would not satisfy the renewable mandates.

The Commission exempted two PPAs close to being privately settled from its decision as well as 13 PPAs that were already privately settled.

Filings related to the "silent PPAs" dispute can be found by searching for Docket No. E-002/08-440 in Minnesota’s eDocket system.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There has been a wave of good and bad news this past week regarding the DOE's Loan Guarantee Program.  On the positive side, Secretary Chu announced on Friday that the Department would be adding an additional compliance period for the Innovative Solicitation.  The current deadline for the Part I application under the program is August 24th.  Secretary Chu announced the applications would be accepted until October 5th thus providing six more weeks of time to applicants.  Secretary Chu did not extend the Part II deadline and cannot extend the September 30, 2011 start construction deadline as that deadline was established by the Stimulus Bill itself.  Still, the extension was generally viewed as a respite and perhaps an indication of a willingness to further extend the program.

On the bad news side, the Senate approved the FMAP state aid bill to avert teacher layoffs and pay for Medicaid which is to be funded in part by taking $1.5 billion in funds that the Stimulus Bill appropriated to the DOE Loan Guarantee program.  Clearly driven by Pay-Go requirements, this is a reminder of the $2.0 billion fleecing that the Loan Guarantee Program suffered when Cash for Clunkers program was passed.  While it has been promised that the funds will be restored, the fact that the Cash for Clunkers funding has not yet been restored raises concern about whether the restoration will occur. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

From our colleague Edna Vassilovski:

On July 29, 2010, the following U.S. patent applications were published relating to biofuels:

U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 20100191022 (Undisclosed assignee) relates to the use of Arundo donax feedstock in a gasification process to produce ethanol. According to the application, ethanol is produced substantially without by-products except for an ash stream of the inorganic plant nutrients.

U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 20100191008 (Energy & Environmental Research Foundation Center) relates to a process for the simultaneous production of chemical feedstocks and fuel blendstocks such as jet fuel from biomass feedstock, and specifically from unsaturated and polyunsaturated vegetable oils and/or algal oils. The process involves integrating metathesis reactions with other processes to produce suitable chain-length fuel components and chemicals.

U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 20100191004 (Sartec) relates to the use of certain metal oxides to catalyze the production of pentose and hexose derivatives from carbohydrates. Embodiments include the use of alumina, hafnia, titania and zirconia to catalyze the production of 5-hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) or a biofuel from glucose, sucrose, fructose, and cellulolose at a temperature of greater than 100 degrees C.

U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 20100190259 (Undisclosed assignee) relates to a recombinant thermophilic, Gram-positive bacterium, a strain of B. thermoglucosidasius, having an ldh (lactate dehydrogenase) mutation and in which the stability of the ldh mutation has been enhanced. The application also relates to a process for improving the stability of the mutation by specific homologous recombination between a plasmid and the insertion sequence within the ldh gene. According to the specification the strain is useful for producing of ethanol in fermentation.

US Pat. Pub. No. 20100190226 (Iogen Energy Corporation) relates to a process for feedstock pretreatment. The process involves wetting grasses, cereal straws or stover of a particular length, pressing the wet feedstock through one or more roll presses, slurrying the pressed feedstock, and subjecting the slurried feedstock to dilute acid pretreatment to produce pretreated feedstock. According to the specification, the process allows for the crushing and shearing of feedstock and the removal of much of the soluble salts, proteins, sugars, alkaline compounds and organic acids from the feedstock.

U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 20100189076 (Verenium) relates to lignocellulolytic enzymes that hydrolyze sugarcane bagasse. According to the specification, the enzymes hydrolyze soluble cellooligsaccharides and arabinoxylan oligomers into monomer xylose, arabinose and glucose.

U.S. Pat. Pub. Nos. 20100187822 and 20100187818 (Louisville Clean Energy) relate to a combined heat and power production system, which improves the energy efficiency of individual production systems in the combination. Specifically, gasification, combined heat and power/combined-cycle, methane reactor, biodiesel, and ethanol fermentation methods of energy production are combined such that waste heat from one method serves directly as the heat reservoir for a successive method.

U.S. Pat. Pub. Nos. 20100186736 and 20100186735 (SunOpta BioProcess Inc.) relate to a method and apparatus for conveying cellulosic feedstock. The ‘736 application discloses an apparatus comprising a holding tank having an inlet and an outlet, wherein the outlet is at an elevation below the inlet, and at least one screw conveyer having a variable pitch along its length. In operation, the apparatus withdraws cellulosic feedstock from the tank in a direction transverse to the direction of travel of the feedstock through the tank. According to the specification, embodiments of the invention enable actively withdrawing feedstock from different portions of the outlet, preferably evenly from across the outlet, leading to a achieving a generally uniform residence time of feedstock in the tank. The ‘735 application discloses a similar apparatus but which includes two conveyers, the first conveyer delivering a first portion of the feedstock in a first direction, and the second conveyer delivering a second portion of the feedstock in a second direction.

U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 20100186291 (China Fuel (Huabei) Bioenergy Technology Development Co., Ltd.) relates to a process for producing biofuel via co-gasification of cellulosic biomass and coal in the presence of a catlyst. According to the specification, the process is a highly effective method of producing biofuel because the mixed use of cellulosic biomass and coal provides syngas, with a composition approaching the optimal ratio for producing methanol and ethanol, in a one-step gasification. The specification also suggests that co-gasification can reduce the ash fusion temperature of coal.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

From our colleague Sarah Johnson Phillips:

Last month, Governor Pat Quinn of Illinois signed two pieces of legislation expanding state policies that encourage investment in the state’s renewable energy sector.

H.B. 4797 extends the Illinois program providing for uniform statewide property-tax assessment of wind energy systems through 2016. Prior to 2007, assessments were made based on a county-by-county basis, which created significant inconsistency across the state. The uniform program allows wind projects to anticipate operating costs.

H.B. 4758 expands Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing opportunities to unincorporated areas of the state. PACE programs allow local governments to issue bonds to help finance energy improvements on homes and businesses. The PACE funding is then repaid by property owners through a surcharge on their property tax bills. At least 23 states have authorized PACE programs since 2008. Illinois first adopted PACE enabling legislation in August 2009 (SB 583) and now expands access to the program in 2010.

While popular, PACE programs around the country are facing an uncertain future following actions by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac that have effectively shut down many programs. At issue is the fact that under most PACE programs, a lien is placed on the property that has priority over the mortgage. FHFA is characterizing these liens differently from routine tax assessments, arguing that they pose “unusual and difficult management challenges for lenders, servicers, and mortgage securities investors” that justify calling a halt to PACE financing while these concerns are addressed. The State of California has sued Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for blocking its PACE program.

But despite the near standstill in implementation, Illinois and other states (including Minnesota and Missouri) have continued to authorize and expand PACE programs this year.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On July 27, 2010, the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas, issued its decision in TXU Portfolio Management Company, L.P., v. FPL Energy, LLC, et al., 2010 Tex. App. Lexis 5905 (2010).  The case arose when three FPL wind farms (the "Wind Farms") located in the McCamey area of West Texas experienced ERCOT-imposed generation curtailments imposed by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas ("ERCOT") during 2002-2005.  The Wind Farms had each entered into a power purchase agreement (“PPA”) with TXUPM under which they agreed to deliver a minimum quantity of energy and renewable energy credits (RECs) each year. Because of the deficiencies caused by the ERCOT generation curtailments, TXUPM sued the Wind Farms for deficiency damages under the PPAs.  The Wind Farms counterclaimed, asserting that TXUPM materially breached each of the PPAs by failing to insure enough "transmission capacity" to allow the three wind farms to generate and deliver all of the electricity they were theoretically able to generate given wind conditions.

Section 2.03 of the PPAs required TXUPM to arrange for "all services, including without limitation Transmission Services . . . necessary to deliver Net Energy."  The Texas Court of Appeals concluded that this provision required TXUPM to supply transmission service sufficient to accept delivery of energy actually generated by the project and delivered to the interconnection point.  Contrary to the Wind Farms' argument, however, Section 2.03 did not require TXUPM to make sure there was enough transmission capacity in the McCamey area to make sure that the three wind plants could in fact generate every MWh they were theoretically capable of generating given wind conditions. 

This outcome is not too surprising--it would have been very unusual had the Court of Appeals concluded that an offtaker's duty to supply transmission services at the delivery point amounted to an implied duty to arrange for the construction of (very expensive) transmission infrastructure sufficient to avoid generation curtailments.  Utilities everywhere can breathe a sigh of relief that the Court of Appeals did not read this duty into the PPAs. 

The fact that the Wind Farms had failed to deliver enough output to meet the annual minimum quantities specified in  the three PPAs was not in dispute.  Since the court concluded that TXUPM had not breached the PPAs by failing to supply transmission capacity, the only remaining question was the calculation of damages. 

Stepping away from the court’s decision for a moment, though, it’s worth noting that there's a separate provision that is typically included in PPAs for intermittent renewable energy, and it apparently was not included in the three PPAs in dispute here, perhaps because of their 2000-2001 vintage.  An annual minimum output guarantee requires a wind developer to take both mechanical availability risk and wind risk--the plant's output can be reduced below the minimum level if the wind doesn't blow as hard or as often as expected, or if the wind turbines and other equipment are not available as often as they should be.  However, these risks are to some extent within the developer's control--wind risk can be addressed by thorough wind studies, and mechanical availability can be managed using the developer’s O&M program.   Generation and transmission curtailment, on the other hand, are typically outside the developer's control and can be affected by delays in completing transmission infrastructure, additions of other intermittent resources to the grid, routine maintenance of the transmission system, emergencies and other factors. 

Recognizing this, renewable energy PPAs usually provide that curtailed energy is counted as if it were generated for purposes of determining  whether a plant has achieved its output guarantees.  Although the requisite language is often omitted from utility pro forma renewable PPAs, most utilities are willing to agree if pressed that energy that could have been generated but for curtailment(s) should be counted as if it were generated for purposes of testing the project’s output guarantee. There may be a little scuffling over the proper method for calculating the quantity of energy and RECs that would have been generated “but for” the curtailment, but the real fight is usually over whether the PPA is in whole or in part a "take or pay" contract in which the utility is required to pay for some or all of the output that is actually curtailed. Cf. FPL Energy Upton Wind I, L.P., v. City of Austin, 240 SW3d 456 (2007), reh’g denied 2007 Tex App LEXIS 9306 (Tex App Amarillo 2007) (the Texas Court of Appeals ruled that ERCOT-imposed curtailments are not the same as voluntary economic curtailments by the power purchaser under a PPA and thus are not curtailments that the purchaser must pay for).

In any case, the Wind Plants in this case did not receive credit for curtailed energy under the three PPAs, so the court considered the deficiency as a given and turned to calculating the amount of damages.  The three PPAs had hard-wired $50/MWh as the liquidated damage payment due for each MWh of deficiency below the annual output guarantee.  This number was based on the per MWh penalty the Texas PUC was expected to impose, as of the time the PPA was entered into, on utilities that failed to secure enough renewable energy.  The Wind Plants argued that this amount bore no resemblance to TXUPM's cover damages at the time of the alleged breach and had persuaded the trial court to declare the liquidated damages clause to be unenforceable.  The Texas Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the Wind Farms had failed to prove (1) that a measure of damages was ascertainable when the PPAs were entered into, or (2) that the $50/MWh rate was an unreasonable estimate of TXUPM's actual damages. 

Using the deficiency rate of $50/MWh and the Wind Farms' total net deficiencies of 580,465 MWh for 2002 through 2005, TXUPM claimed $29,023,250 in deficiency damages.  Bear in mind that these are just the deficiency damages, and thus only a part measure of the pain the plants suffered--they also had to forego a sale at the contract price and lost a Production Tax Credit (PTC) on each MWh curtailed.  For utilities that are slow to acknowledge that curtailment risk is an important issue for the intermittent energy developer, this case offers a very succinct $29 million dollar explanation of why developers, lenders, and equity care so much about the topic.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Governor Tim Pawlenty signed into law the Small Business Investment Tax Credit, also known as the “Angel Tax Credit,” on April 1, 2010.   The Angel Tax Credit is expected to stimulate investment in Minnesota businesses utilizing or developing new technologies, including those related to renewable energy and energy efficiency and conservation. Qualified investors are eligible for a 25 percent individual tax credit (maximum of $125,000 per year per individual or $250,000 per year for those married and filing jointly) for an investment made in a qualified small business. A total of $11 million in credits is currently allocated for 2010. The Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED), which will administer the program, recently made available the application requirements and certification forms on its website. 

Qualified Investors

The following is a general list of criteria for investors to consider in whether they may qualify for certification under the Angel Tax Credit program:

• Be a natural person.
• Meet the requirements of an accredited investor under Regulation D.
• If not an accredited investor, be a non-accredited investor investing in exempt filings per Minn. Stat. 80A.46 (13) or (14) or Minn. Stat. 80A.50 (b).
• Not receive more than 50 percent of their annual gross income from the business.
• Be certified by DEED before investment is made. Non-accredited investors making exempt transactions may file for certification within 30 days of making investment. There is a certification filing fee of $350.
• Make a minimum qualifying investment of $10,000. Three or more investors may join to create a fund. Funds have a minimum investment of $30,000, which may be divided among investors as the fund wishes.

Qualified Businesses

A qualified business must be engaged in technological innovation in Minnesota through the use or research and development of proprietary technology in specified “qualified high technology fields” which include aerospace, agricultural processing, renewable energy, energy efficiency and conservation, environmental engineering, food technology, cellulosic ethanol, information technology, materials science technology, nanotechnology, telecommunications, biotechnology, medical devices, pharmaceuticals, diagnostics, biologicals, chemistry, or veterinary science. The following is a general list of criteria for businesses to consider in whether they may qualify for certification under the Angel Tax Credit program:

• Be headquartered in Minnesota.
• Have a minimum of 51 percent of employees and 51 percent of payroll in Minnesota.
• Have fewer than 25 employees.
• Pay employees annual wages of at least 175 percent of poverty level, currently $18.55 per hour. Does not apply to business’ executives, officers, board members, 20 percent-plus owners.
• Not have been in operation for more than 10 years.
• Not previously have received private equity investments of more than $2 million.
• Not have been disqualified from investment under Minn. Stat. 80 A.50 (b)(3) Small corporation offering registration disqualifications.
• Not have generated more than $4 million in investments that have received an Angel Tax Credit. The Angel Tax Credit is capped at $1 million per business.
• Be certified by DEED before investment is made. The certification filing fee is $150.

For more information on the Minnesota Angel Investment Tax Credit, please visit the Angel Tax Credit section of the DEED website.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The EPA has issued proposed RFS2 rules for 2011 that provide some indications that the agency is dedicated to jump starting the advanced biofuels industry.  Most notably, the EPA held fast to an overall mandate of 13.95 billion gallons of renewable fuel.  While the agency intends to deviate downward on cellululosic biofuels with a cut of 90% or more anticipated, the proposed rule maintains the overall Advanced biofuel mandate at 1.35 billion gallons and the Biomass-based diesel requirement at 800 million gallons.  Thus the agency is paying significant attention to the existing capacity of the biodiesel industry despite the lack of approval for the blender's credit six months into the year.  Biofuel supporters hope that this policy gap will be addressed shortly or that RIN values will continue to increase for Biomass based diesel.  

The proposed rule contains two other notable components:  tentative but retroactive RIN credit for canola, sorghum, pulpwood and palm oil biofuel producers; and a petition process for foreign countries to avoid the onerous feedstock obligations that now apply in favor of the aggregate approach available within the US.  The referenced feedstocks have been under consideration by EPA for Life Cycle Analysis since prior to the original RFS2 Final Rule was released but the work has still not been completed.  The severe challenge for this group of biofuel producers is that EPA has previously indicated that RIN generation would trigger only when the pathway was certified.  EPA's proposed new flexibility is an improvement but still falls short of providing full RIN value for these producers due to the lag time and uncertainty associated with the approach.  The proposed petition process for foreign countries is an apparent attempt to level the playing field for foreign producers who now must trace and certify feedstocks such as soy and corn in a manner not required within the US.

The rules will be published in the Federal Register shortly and the public comment period will likely run to approximately August 13th.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 

To follow up on my colleague Janet Jacobs' blog on this exciting topic, here's some more detailed information about the MOU, especially as it relates to marine and hydrokinetic ("MHK") technologies:

 

The United States Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (“EERE”) and the United States Department of the Interior’s newly-renamed Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (“BOEMRE”) (see Note below) signed a Memorandum of Understanding for the Coordinated Deployment of Offshore Wind and Marine and Hydrokinetic Energy Technologies on the United States Outer Continental Shelf (the “MOU”).

 

The purpose of the document is to prioritize and facilitate environmentally-responsible deployment of commercial-scale offshore wind and MHK energy technologies on the Outer Continental Shelf (the “OCS”) through collaborative efforts.  In a recent blog, I mentioned that the DOE has committed $15.36 million to help researchers and developers alike to bring various MHK technologies closer to commercial deployment.  This MOU represents yet another effort to spur the growth of the burgeoning offshore renewable energy industry.

An interagency working group has been tasked with developing an action plan that addresses the deployment of offshore renewable energy projects, including both offshore wind and MHK technologies, within 30 days.  The action plan will outline how the BOEMRE and EERE can work together to streamline leasing and regulatory processes on the OCS for those sites with high energy resource potential.  The MOU also outlines how the agencies will share information and undertake collaborative activities such as stakeholder engagement, technical and environmental research, joint evaluation of standards and timelines for development, and the dissemination of information to decision makers. 

Note:  On June 21, 2010, DOI Secretary Ken Salazar issued Order 3302 renaming the Minerals Management Serivce the BOEMRE.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

From our colleagues Beverly Pearman and Jeremy Sacks:

Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (“DPU”) has modified the two programs challenged by TransCanada Power Marketing Ltd. (“TransCanada”) in a federal law suit. TransCanada filed its complaint on April 16, 2010, alleging that portions of the Green Communities Act that were intended to increase in-state renewable energy resources were unconstitutional because they favor Massachusetts producers in violation of the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause generally prohibits states from enacting laws that burden out-of-state businesses in order to give a competitive advantage to in-state businesses.

The first modification came in early June as a result of settlement negotiations. Massachusetts modified the Solar Carve-Out program to grandfather in rates for Alternative Compliance Payments (“ACP”) that were contractually committed or renewed before January 1, 2010. ACP are paid by electric companies that do not hold the required amount of Solar Renewable Energy Credits (“SRECs”) that must be produced only by facilities located in Massachusetts. In exchange for this rule change, TransCanada dismissed its claims challenging the Solar Carve Out on June 9, 2010, but continued to press forward with its Commerce Clause challenge to a Request for Proposals for Long-Term Contracts for Renewable Energy Projects (the “RFP”) issued by the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (“DOER”) this year.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

From our colleagues Beverly Pearman and Jeremy Sacks:

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. and Mitsubishi Power Systems Americas, Inc. v. General Electric Company

On May 20, 2010, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (“MHI”) and Mitsubishi Power Systems Americas, Inc. (“MPSA”) (collectively “Mitsubishi”) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas contending that General Electric Company (“GE”) is engaged in a scheme to monopolize the sale of variable speed wind turbines in the United States in violation of state and federal statutes. They seek a compensatory damages award in excess of $100 million, an award of treble damages, punitive damages, and a permanent injunction prohibiting further litigation by GE for infringement of specified patents that GE claims to own. Mitsubishi’s claims are brought pursuant to Section 2 of the Sherman Act, Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, and a state law claim of tortious interference with contractual and prospective business relationships.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

We are pleased to announce that the first edition of THE LAW OF BIOMASS is available now. THE LAW OF BIOMASS is a guide which contains insights and lessons that our team has developed through our position as a market leader in renewable energy legal issues. THE LAW OF BIOMASS focuses on electricity generated from biomass sources. As changes in the energy markets and views on natural resources create a compelling case for renewable and sustainable energy, biomass is emerging as a positive solution.

We hope that you find THE LAW OF BIOMASS useful. To request a copy of THE LAW OF BIOMASS, please visit our website: http://www.stoel.com/lawofseries.aspx.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This year's International BIOMASS Conference and Expo will be held in Minneapolis, Minnesota on May 4-6.  The 6 program tracks will provide specified topic panels and discussions on Crop Residues, Dedicated Energy Crops, Forest and Wood Processing Residues, Livestock and Poultry Wastes, MSW and Urban Wastes as well as Food Processing Residues.

Please join Mark Hanson, Jennifer Martin, David Quinby, Kevin Johnson, Kevin Prohaska, Joe Thompson, Edna Vassilovski, Mary Sennes, Katie Roek , Bill Holmes and Debra Frimerman for a Stoel Rives-sponsored lunch on Day 1 of this year's International Biomass Conference or stop by Booth #609 in the Expo to speak with our attorneys.   We'll also be debuting our new Law of Biomass, the latest installment in the highly regarded Stoel Rives' "Law of" series, and complimentary copies of the new book will be on offer at our booth.

David Quinby, partner in the Minneapolis office, will moderate Track 4: Livestock & Poultry Waste: Downstream Approaches to Upgrading Biogas Quality, Wednesday, May 5 at 3:30 p.m. and Jennifer Martin, partner in the Portland office, will present as part of the Bonus Panel: Biomass to Energy Projects: Key Issues to Consider in Power Purchase and Feedstock Agreement, Thursday, May 6 at 1:30 p.m.

We look forward to seeing you at the Conference! To learn more or to register for this event, please visit: http://biomassconference.com/ema/DisplayPage.aspx?pageId=About.

•  When: 5/4/2010

•  Where: Minneapolis Convention Center, Minneapolis, MN

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Today, the U.S. Department of Energy (the "DOE") released the long-awaited Financial Assistance Funding Opportunity Announcement ("FOA") titled "Marine and Hydrokinetic Technology Readiness Advancement Initiative."  Federal funding for this initiative for fiscal year 2010 is expected to be up to $15.36 million, with the possibility of continued funding at, or near, that level for up to an additional two years.  (Because all federal funding is subject to annual appropriations, these figures should be treated as estimates.)

The DOE has recognized that marine hydrokinetic ("MHK") technologies can provide renewable, environmentally responsible, and predictable baseload electricity to load centers along the nation's coastlines.  And to help accelerate the development and deployment of these technologies, the DOE intends to advance the technological and operational readiness of MHK systems and components across a range of technology readiness levels ("TRLs") through this Funding Opportunity Announcement.

Although TRLs have been used for years by both NASA and the Department of Defense to develop advanced, mission-critical systems, this is the first time TRLs have been used by the DOE to assess the technological readiness of new renewable energy technologies.  Recognizing that MHK devices and components are still largely in the early stages of research and development, the DOE has adopted a simplified TRL structure for purposes of this Funding Opportunity Announcement.  The DOE is seeking applications in two topic areas: (1) MHK Technologies Concept Development (TRLs 1-3) and (2) MHK Technology Readiness Level Advancement (TRLs 4-9). 

Funding will be made available in each topic area for both "systems" and "components."  The DOE organized and grouped the TRLs into four discrete funding categories:

1. Discovery / Concept Definition / Early Stage Development, Design and Engineering (TRL 1-3);
2. Proof of Concept (TRL 4);
3. System Integration and Technology Laboratory Demonstration (TRL 5/6); and
4. Open Water System Testing, Demonstration, and Operation (TRL 7/8).

Each category has prescribed funding levels and project performance periods.  A brief summary of the expected number of awards in each topic area and the associated expected federal funding is included below.  For a complete funding breakdown for systems and components, see the Funding Opportunity Announcement.

Topic Area Summary

Topic Area	Period of Performance	Expected Number of Awards	Total  Estimated Federal Funding	Estimated FY 2010 Federal Funding
MHK Technologies Concept Development (TRLs 1-3)	12 months	8    (4 systems, 4 components)	$1.6M	$1.6M
MHK Technology Readiness Level Advancement (TRLs 4-9)	18-36 months     (see FOA)	18    (11 systems, 7 components)	$36.72M	$13.76M

 

Applications are due to DOE by 11:59 PM Eastern Time on June 7, 2010.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On March 11, 2010, I posted a blog about the U.S. Department of Energy's (the "DOE") upcoming Funding Opportunity Announcement ("FOA") for hydrokinetic technology development.  The DOE issued a Notice of Intent announcing the FOA earlier that week.  To access the Notice of Intent, click here, and enter "hydrokinetic" in the search field. 

The DOE was expected to issue the FOA by March 31, 2010.  This blog is intended as a reminder that all interested parties should make sure they have followed the necessary steps to apply or submit questions regarding the FOA.  For official procedures, see the Notice of Intent.

To respond to FOAs, either as an applicant to to submit questions, parties must first be registered with FedConnect.  In order to register for FedConnect, a party must:

• Have a Duns and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (a "DUNS Number").  If you do not know your company's DUNS Number or if your company does not have one, you can search for it or request one here; and
• Be registered with the Central Contractor Registry (the "CCR").  If you are not currently registered for the CCR, you can register at the CCR website.

If you are the first person to register in your company for FedConnect, you will need your company's CCR MPIN.  If your company is already registered with the CCR, then you can find out who has your CCR MPIN by going to the CCR website and clicking "Search CCR."  A company's CCR must be updated annually.  To update your company's CCR, visit the CCR renewal website.

NOTE:  CCR and FedConnect registration can take at least 21 days to complete.  Since the DOE is expecting a quick turnaround on the FOA once it is released, interested parties should begin the registration process as soon as possible.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Nevada State Office of Energy (“NSOE”) announced on March 16, 2010, that is it has issued a Request for Proposals (“RFP”) for renewable energy projects under the $8M+ Revolving Loan Program. Projects must be no more than 60kW in size for solar PV and 20kW maximum for wind turbines and solar thermal. Loan terms will be less than 15 years and interest rates three percent or lower. Applicants may apply for a minimum of $200,000 and a maximum of $1,645,000, and must be able to enter a loan contract prior to June 30, although projects may begin after that date. It is the intent of the RFP to approve a minimum of five applications. The solicitation may close at any time upon determination by the Director of the Nevada State Office of Energy that a sufficient number of qualified applications have been received to satisfy the needs of the RFP. If the RFP fails to produce a sufficient number of eligible applicants the Director may consider granting loans exceeding the published maximum amount.*

Interested parties should go to http://energy.nv.gov/recovery/RevolvingLoan.htm or contact Robert Nellis, Energy Program Manager at (775) 687-1850 x7304 for more information.

 

*Request For Proposal No. 0001 for ARRA Revolving Loan Program For Renewable Energy Systems Release, dated March 15, 2010.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On March 24, 2010, three federal agencies announced a Memorandum of Understanding for Hydropower (the “MOU”) that impacts developers of traditional hydropower, hydrokinetic, pumped storage, and small-scale hydropower facilities. The Department of Energy (“DOE”), the Department of the Interior (“DOI”), and the Department of the Army, through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) (collectively, the “Agencies”), signed the MOU to "meet the Nation’s needs for reliable, affordable, and environmentally sustainable hydropower by building a long-term working relationship, prioritizing similar goals, and aligning ongoing and future renewable energy development efforts" between the agencies. The MOU comes at a time when industry representatives and eleven U.S. Senators are requesting that DOE support a $200 million appropriations request for the advancement of both conventional and advanced waterpower technologies.

 In this “new approach to hydropower,” the Agencies intend to focus their collective efforts on advancing sustainable, low-impact, and small hydropower projects and promoting the goal of energy efficiency through water conservation or improved water management. Operating under the MOU, the Agencies will work together to advance four primary objectives:

• Support the maintenance and sustainable optimization of existing Federal and non-Federal hydropower projects;
• Elevate the goal of increased hydropower generation as a priority of each Agency to the extent permitted by their respective statutory authorities;
•  Promote energy efficiency; and 
• Ensure that new hydropower generation is implemented in a sustainable manner.

For more information on the MOU, including potential next steps for the Agencies, read the Energy Law Alert by Stoel Rives attorneys Cherise Oram, Michael O'Connell, and Chad Marriott posted here.

If you would like to sign up to receive our Energy Law Alerts when they are released, click here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On Thursday March 11, 2010, the California Public Utility Commission (the "CPUC") created a market for tradable renewable energy credits ("TRECs") in the state.  That's big news.  In its 149-page decision, the CPUC stated that investor-owned utilities ("IOUs"), energy service providers, and community choice aggregators may now use TRECs to comply with California's ambitious renewable portfolio standard ("RPS").  These entities are now permitted to purchase a portion of their RPS compliance from generation sources other than those they own (e.g., distributed solar generation facilities within the state and certain out-of-state facilities).

 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Proposed legislation in the Senate would greatly limit the effectiveness of the grant in lieu of tax credits for renewable energy projects under section 1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

The section 1603 grant currently applies to renewable energy projects, such as wind, solar, geothermal and biomass, that are placed in service before 2011 or for which construction begins in 2009 or 2010 (and that are placed in service by certain dates). In its current form, if a project qualifies for the grant, the Treasury Department is required to pay the grant.

Expressing concern that a significant portion of the grants paid so far have gone to non-U.S. companies,  Senator Charles Schumer (NY) and three other Democratic senators have sponsored a bill that would make payment of the grant subject to the discretion of the Treasury Department. It also would make the grant subject to the Buy American requirements of the stimulus bill, and would require that Treasury conduct an analysis of the "domestic job preservation and creation provided by" a project for which a grant application is submitted.

Various trade associations involved in renewable energy (such as AWEA, GEA and SEIA) are taking immediate action to register their opposition. Their focus will be on the incorrect assumptions underlying the proposal (for example, that it does not create U.S. jobs) and that, if enacted, it likely would destroy the effectiveness of the program.

We encourage our readers to register their strong opposition with their members of Congress and with the trade associations with which they are associated. The more opposition that is registered, and the longer the proposal drags out, the less likely it is to be enacted. 

Read the March 4, 2010 Stoel Rives Law Alert on this proposed legislation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On February 10, 2010, the Oregon House passed HB 3680, which if enacted would substantially curtail the BETC for certain renewable energy projects. HB 3680 would impose an overall statewide cap, on the amount of potential tax credits that the Department of Energy could certify. The statewide cap would be $300 million for the 2009-11 biennium, and $150 million for the year beginning July 1, 2011 and ending June 30, 2012. HB 3680 would also authorize the Department of Energy to write rules relating to the priority to be given if applications for preliminary certification exceed those caps. In addition to the overall cap discussed above, HB 3680 would also impose the following cutbacks for large wind facilities (more than 10 megawatts):

• For facilities that obtain preliminary certification between January 1, 2010 and January 1, 2011, the BETC would be limited to $3.5 million
   
• For facilities that obtain preliminary certification between January 1, 2011 and January 1, 2012, the BETC would be limited to $2.5 million
   
• For facilities that obtain preliminary certification after January 1, 2012, the BETC would be limited to $1.5 million

HB 3680 would adopt several criteria implemented by the Department of Energy in the Temporary Rules adopted in November 2009, and would modify the definition of a “transportation facility” to include efficient truck technology for commercial motor vehicles. These provisions would apply retroactively to July 1, 2009. HB 3680 would also allow the Department of Energy to suspend or revoke a final certificate if a facility is no longer operating. This provision would apply retroactively to January 1, 2009. Finally, HB 3680 would extend the sunset date to January 1, 2014, for renewable energy resource equipment manufacturing facilities, but would not extend the sunset date for other facilities.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Congress is considering a complete rewrite of the 1603 grant program.  Some of the changes being considered are very helpful while others would be extremely troubling.  Please continue reading to get the full story ...

 

 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link