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

Last year, we reported on the resolution of a longstanding dispute between Xcel Energy and 46 renewable energy generators about the ownership of Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) when the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) is silent. In an Order released September 9, 2010, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission decided that 1) generators own the RECs produced under PPAs signed under the 1978 federal Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA) and 2) Xcel owns the RECs produced under PPAs signed under Minnesota’s 1994 wind and biomass mandates, unless the generator could demonstrate that the PPA was not silent. Today, the Commission released an Order offering more clarity to PPAs in the latter category.

Following the September 2010 Order, two generators (St. Paul Cogeneration LLC and Mission Funding Zeta) with contracts under the wind and biomass mandates sought to demonstrate to the Commission that their PPAs were not silent on REC ownership. Both PPAs at issue contained language allocating to the generator the benefit of “any tax credits, allowances or other credits” related to the generation facility. In today’s order, the Commission determined that this language unambiguously includes RECs. As a result, the Commission found that St. Paul Cogeneration and Mission Funding Zeta own the RECs under the terms of their PPAs.  The Commission also found that Xcel owns the RECs under any remaining unsettled wind and biomass mandate PPAs, unless the generator demonstrates that the PPA is not silent within 30 days.

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

Late last week, an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) found that the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (the “Commission”) is not obligated to consider or apply a county wind ordinance containing siting standards that are stricter than the Commission’s statewide standards. And even if the Commission were obligated to consider and apply the more stringent standards, the ALJ recommended that the Commission be excused from doing so for lack of good cause under the Minnesota Wind Siting Act (the “Act”). The ALJ’s recommendations to the Commission were released at the same time Minnesota legislators are considering a proposed state law that would require larger setbacks for wind turbines from neighboring property lines statewide.

In October 2010, Goodhue County amended its zoning ordinance for wind projects to, among other things, require turbines to be setback 10 rotor diameters (or about half a mile) from dwellings of landowners not participating in the project. In comparison, the project developers proposed setbacks of 1,500 feet from non-participating dwellings and the Minnesota Office of Energy Security recommended this setback distance as a permit condition. State standards typically require setbacks of 750 to 1,500 feet to comply with noise standards. Two weeks after Goodhue County adopted its wind ordinance, the Commission determined that it did not have a sufficient record before it to determine how or whether to apply the county’s standards. To develop that record, the matter was referred to an ALJ at the Office of Administrative Hearings for a contested case proceeding.

The Act provides that a state site permit for a wind project 5 MW or larger is the only site approval required. The state permit supersedes and preempts all local zoning, building, or land use rules, regulations, or ordinances. Local governments retain authority to regulate siting and construction of wind projects 5 MW and smaller. The Act allows counties to assume responsibility for permitting wind projects 5 MW and larger up to 25 MW using general permit standards developed by the Commission. However, the Act includes a provision that allows counties to adopt more stringent standards for wind energy projects 5 MW and larger, which the Commission must consider and apply before granting a site permit in that county unless the Commission finds good cause not to do so. The ALJ found that the Act does not require the Commission to consider or apply Goodhue County’s ordinance and that, even if it did, there would not be good cause to do so. The case now moves back to the Commission for a final decision.

Recent attention to wind siting standards in Minnesota hasn’t been limited to the Goodhue County case. Yesterday, the Minnesota Senate Energy, Utilities and Telecommunications Committee heard wind siting/setback legislation (S.F. 1069) that would require wind turbines to be set back one-half mile or more from property lines of non-participating landowners in townships exceeding certain population densities. The House companion bill (H.F. 811) was heard last week and failed to pass out of committee on a tied vote. The setback requirements proposed in these bills could significantly reduce the amount of land area available for wind development in Minnesota.

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

The California Carbon Capture and Storage Review Panel released its final recommendations last week after nine months of fact-finding and deliberations. The Panel was sponsored by the California Energy Commission, the California Public Utilities Commission, and the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”), with participation from the California Department of Conservation and the California State Water Board. The Panel was formed to review the statutory and regulatory barriers to the use of carbon capture and storage (“CCS”) as a strategy to combat climate change. CCS is a technology with potential to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and industrial sources on a large scale by capturing the emissions and sequestering them in geologic formations underground.

The Panel’s recommendations focus on:

• ensuring that CCS can play a role in meeting California’s greenhouse gas emission (“GHG”) reduction requirements (e.g., the Panel recommends that CARB consider and integrate CCS into its GHG rules);
• addressing regulatory and permitting barriers for CCS projects (e.g., the Panel recommends establishing a coordinated permitting system with the California Energy Commission as the lead agency);
• addressing key legal issues and uncertainties (e.g., the Panel recommends that the legislature declare surface owners to be the owners of subsurface pore space that could be used for carbon dioxide storage); and
• ensuring the safe, equitable, and cost-effective use of CCS in California (e.g., the Panel recommends that the legislature establish that any cost allocation mechanisms for CCS projects be spread as broadly as possible across all Californians).

The Panel was comprised of experts from industry, trade groups, academia, and environmental organizations. Stoel Rives’ Jerry Fish served on the Panel’s Technical Advisory Committee along with representatives from the relevant state agencies and other expert consultants. With assistance from other members of Stoel’s CCS team, he contributed white papers on carbon dioxide pipelines, pore space rights, and enhanced oil recovery issues and advised on the Panel on a variety of property, liability, and regulatory issues for CCS. For more information on CCS or the Panel’s work, please contact:

• Jerry Fish, (503) 294-9620, jrfish@stoel.com
• Sarah Johnson Phillips, (612) 373-8843, sjphillips@stoel.com 
• Eric Martin, (503) 294-9593, elmartin@stoel.com

Read the Panel’s key findings and recommendations after the jump or download the full background report and final recommendations report from the California Climate Change Portal.

• 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

Minnesota Power has announced a request for proposals (RFP) seeking up to 100 MW of wind generation.   Proposals must be for wind generation that is deliverable to Minnesota Power's service territory prior to the expiration of the Federal Production Tax Credit on December 31, 2012.  Minnesota Power serves northeastern Minnesota.  

Details about the RFP and a Model Power Purchase Agreement are available on Minnesota Power's website.

The deadline for submissions is 4:00 pm Central Standard Time on January 5, 2011. 

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