FERC Comments on Electric Storage Technologies Due August 9

Just a friendly reminder that the deadline to submit comments to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) on electric storage technologies is just around the corner. In its Request for Comments Regarding Rates, Accounting and Financial Reporting for New Electric Storage Technologies, FERC’s Office of Energy Policy and Innovation seeks comments on the following issues: 

  1. The use of and rate treatment for storage facilities, including when it is appropriate to classify a storage facility as a transmission asset.
  1. The mechanisms by which a storage project that is used for multiple purposes may be compensated. Specifically, FERC seeks comment on whether a storage project may be compensated as transmission (e.g. for supporting unbundled transmission service by supplying reactive power) and also be compensated for providing ancillary services or for enhancing the value of merchant generation (e.g. by shifting output from an off-peak period to an on-peak period).
  1. The possibility of creating a stand-alone contract storage service and whether the storage provider would provide the service of electricity storage, enabling its customers to determine how to use their contracted share of the storage.
  1. Whether new accounting and reporting requirements should be created in order to facilitate cost of service or other rate policies for new storage technologies, such as chemical batteries and flywheels.

In addition to the issues outlined above and other specific questions posed by FERC in its Request for Comments, FERC invites comments on other related aspects of the storage issues not specifically addressed by FERC in the above-referenced document.  Comments are due on Monday, August 9, 2010 and should reference Docket No. AD10-13-000.     

NV Energy Issues RFI for Short Term (1 Month to 3 Years) Energy Supply

 

On August 21, NV Energy issued a press release reminding renewable energy developers of that it has issued a Request of Information (RFI) for renewable energy that can be provided on a short-term basis.  This solicitation is separate from NV Energy's recently announced 2009 Renewable Energy Request for Proposals.  NV Energy will consider proposals for solar, wind, geothermal, biomass and other resources eligible for portfolio energy credits under the Nevada renewable portfolio standard.

NV Energy is now looking for proposals from entities that can deliver renewable energy to its system on or after Oct. 1, 2009 and for a period of one month to three years.

 

Parties interested in submitting a response to the RFI, or those seeking more information related to the RFI or renewable energy laws can contact NV Energy at: ShortTermRFI@nvenergy.com .  In addition, prospective bidders can email any questions to Ron Helbing, rhelbling@nvenergy.com.  

 

Bidders must submit their responses  to NV ENergy's short term renewables solicitaion by 9:00 AM (PPT) on Sept. 2, 2009.     

Is More Bad By-Product News Coming for Biofuels Producers?

(this article was written by my colleague, Rick Goldfarb, and may also be accessed at www.foodliabilitylaw.com)

2008 was a terrible year for makers of ethanol and biodiesel. Huge spikes in the prices of raw materials, natural gas and transportation and drops in the prices they received for their main products have driven many of them to cut back production, shutter plants or even seek bankruptcy protection.  In addition, U.S. biodiesel producers saw themselves faced with an antidumping investigation by the EU that might affect their export market.

If you thought it couldn’t get any worse, hang on.

 

The National Grain and Feed Association reports that at the International Feed Expo in Atlanta on January 27, Dr. Daniel McChesney of the Food and Drug Administration spoke about studies the agency has reviewed concerning distillers’ grains, the main by-product of ethanol, and glycerin, the main by-product of biodiesel. The information presented by the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine is of concern to anyone in the biofuels industry, as well as anyone who feeds livestock or purchases, processes or consumes meat and poultry.

 

The FDA has tested 45 samples of distillers’ grains from ethanol plants and in over half of them detected antibiotics, including virginiamycin, erythromycin and tylosin. NGFA later learned that the concentration of those antibiotics exceeded the level (0.5 ppm) from a letter of no objection relating to virginiamycin issued in 1993 to the predecessor of Philbro Animal Health. There are no safe levels established for the other two antibiotics in feed grain. The FDA has 15 more samples to test and intends to make its final report available this summer.

 

With regard to biodiesel-derived glycerin, Dr. McChesney stated that the FDA does not consider it to be GRAS, or generally recognized as safe, for use as animal feed. Two issues raised concerns: 

 

·         Many samples contained more methanol than the 150 ppm level recognized as safe for animal feed; and

 

·         Samples contained salt in concentrations as high as 16,500 ppm.

 

Accordingly, the FDA will be conducting a safety review of glycerin as a by-product of biodiesel. This will focus on the type of feedstock used, the manufacturing process and how the glycerin is introduced into feed. 

 

Developing markets for by-products has been a significant challenge for the emerging biofuels industry. The latest news of the FDA’s concerns about both distillers’ grains and glycerin will increase those challenges in an already difficult environment.