On July 17, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California rendered its decision in U.S. v. California (Case 2:19-cv-02142-WBS-EFB), upholding the agreement between California and the Canadian Province of Québec that links California and Québec’s respective cap-and-trade programs. In its opinion, the District Court rejected the federal government’s claim that the California-Québec agreement is preempted under the Foreign Affairs Doctrine. The District Court ruled earlier this year on the federal government’s other claims, finding that the agreement did not violate either the Treaty or Compact Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. With the decision on July 17, the California-Québec agreement will remain in place, allowing the two jurisdictions to continue to link their cap-and-trade programs. The federal government has not yet stated whether it will appeal the District Court’s decision.
Continue Reading U.S. District Court Upholds California’s Cap-and-Trade Agreement with Québec
Climate Change
Renewable Energy Trending in State Legislative Sessions
State legislatures across the country have been active this spring debating ambitious new targets and renewable energy market reforms, following the successful passage of multiple renewable energy mandates in certain states. Last year California passed SB 100, which sets the target of 100% carbon-free electricity by 2045. At least other three states—Hawaii, New Mexico, and Washington—have also adopted 100% renewable energy targets and, according to Inside Climate News, several other states debated 100% renewable energy legislation this spring including Minnesota, Illinois, Nevada, Maine, and Massachusetts.
Like other states adopting renewable energy mandates, the Washington legislature specifically concluded “that Washington must address the impacts of climate change by leading the transition to a clean energy economy … by transforming its energy supply.” To support this goal, the Act mandates 100% renewable electricity generation by 2045. To help achieve this, section six of the Washington law mandates that utilities must file a
“four-year clean energy implementation plan” by 2022 and every four years after that. Each action plan must include “specific actions to be taken by investor-owned utility[ies] over the next four years … that demonstrate progress toward meeting the standards … of [the] act.” By requiring the utilities to provide relatively frequent updates, the Washington legislature appears to indicate a desire for strong oversight of the transition to 100% renewable electricity generation.
In other states, such as Minnesota, 100% carbon-free targets were the subject of substantial attention and debate but were not ultimately adopted. The Minnesota legislature ultimately passed a jobs and energy omnibus bill in a special session this year with more limited ambition—including provisions for energy storage pilot programs, which will allow public utilities to pursue and recover costs for such programs. The pilot program petitions, at a minimum, must provide: (1) the storage technology utilized; (2) the energy storage capacity and the duration of the output at the capacity; (3) the proposed location; (4) the cost of purchase and installation; (5) the interplay between the storage facility and existing distributed generation resources; and (6) the overall goals of the project.
Continue Reading Renewable Energy Trending in State Legislative Sessions
Key Energy Related Bills Introduced in the 2019-2020 Legislative Session
The 2019-2020 California Legislative Session has reached its first deadline. February 22, 2019 marked the deadline by which bills could be introduced for the first half of the Legislative Session. Lawmakers will begin Spring Recess April 12 and reconvene April 22. The last day for bills to be passed out of the house of origin is May 31, 2019.
Below is a list of some of the key bills Stoel Rives’ Energy Team will be monitoring throughout the Legislative Session. We note that some bills do not contain language beyond the “intent of the Legislature.” However, we will continue to monitor these bills in case of substantive amendments. These bills are set forth separately below under the heading “Legislative Intent.”
The majority of the bills introduced this Legislative Session relate in some way to California’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and move to cleaner sources of generation, including legislation governing electric vehicles, energy storage, and renewable energy. A number of bills introduced in February also attempt to address the impacts of wildfires, or to reduce wildfire risk.
ASSEMBLY BILLS
AB 40 (Ting, D) Zero-emission vehicles: comprehensive strategy.
Status: Introduced December 3, 2018; referred to Committees on Transportation and Natural Resources January 24, 2019.
AB 40 would require by no later than January 1, 2021, the State Air Resources Board to develop a comprehensive strategy to ensure that the sales of new motor vehicles and new light-duty trucks in the state have transitioned fully to zero-emission vehicles, as defined, by 2040, as specified.
Continue Reading Key Energy Related Bills Introduced in the 2019-2020 Legislative Session
California Approves $768 Million for EV Infrastructure
The California Public Utilities Commission (“Commission”) voted recently to approve $768 million in expenditures for electric vehicle infrastructure programs proposed by the state’s three investor-owned utilities (“IOUs”). The programs are part of a directive of SB 350 that requires utilities to undertake transportation electrification activities.
Here is a brief overview of the approved programs:
- Approved at $137 million, SDG&E’s program provides rebates to up to 60,000 residential customers that install Level 2 (“L2”) charging stations, which refer to electric vehicle supply equipment (“EVSE”) connected to a 240-volt outlet.
- PG&E was approved for $22 million to install make-ready infrastructure to support 234 fast charging stations, as well as $236 million to support 6,500 medium- or heavy-duty EVs (like electric buses and trucks).
- SCE similarly received approval for $343 million to install make-ready infrastructure to support 8,490 medium- or heavy-duty EVs.
- In addition, the Commission approved $29.5 million for program evaluation.
Here is our analysis of what the Commission’s order means for the future of EVs and what the industry should be paying attention to:
In terms of charging technology, 150 kW fast charging and residential L2 are the minimum.
The Commission’s order emphasizes the need to use up-to-date technology to ensure some longevity for the investments. For example, in response to PG&E’s proposal for three levels of fast charging stations, the Commission directed the utility to forgo the lowest level and only install customer-side electric infrastructure necessary to support EVSE of 150kW or larger, approving a 25% contingency due to the increased cost of the faster chargers. Additionally, the Commission also noted that participants in rebate programs will be responsible for the full cost of proprietary made-to-order EVSE and make-ready infrastructure, since these are not scalable and may result in stranded assets should the manufacturer go out of business or change technology. In the case of SDG&E’s program, the Commission sided with the utility over concerns raised by stakeholders that Level 1 charging (which uses a standard household 120-volt outlet) is sufficient for residential purposes. SDG&E argued that the more advanced L2 will provide grid benefits by allowing for managed charging when paired with time-variable rates that reflect grid conditions. The Commission also noted the ability of these chargers to provide valuable data on patterns of charging.
Continue Reading California Approves $768 Million for EV Infrastructure
MINNESOTA PAVES THE WAY FOR MORE EV TRAFFIC ON THE ROADS
On May 9, 2018 the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission issued an order approving Xcel Energy’s residential electric vehicle (“EV”) pilot program (the “Pilot”), designed as an alternative to Xcel’s existing EV tariff, concluding that the Pilot will “benefit all ratepayers by aiding Xcel in its efforts to integrate EV load as cost-effectively as possible.” A…
FERC Brushes Away Secretary Perry’s “Resiliency” NOPR, Finding It Legally Deficient
In a move that was widely anticipated across the energy industry, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) today issued an order that terminated a notice of proposed rulemaking that had been initiated in October 2017 in response to a demand by Energy Secretary Rick Perry that FERC enact rules to compensate certain resources for what…
U.S. EPA Moves to Repeal Clean Power Plan
In a much-anticipated move, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing repeal of the Clean Power Plan (CPP). The draft proposed rule outlines EPA’s revised interpretation of its authority under Clean Air Act section 111(d) to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from power plants only within the fenceline. EPA concludes in the proposed rule…
DOE Directs FERC to Enact Special Compensation Rule for Coal Power
By a notice issued yesterday, September 28, Rick Perry, the Secretary of Energy, utilized section 403 of the DOE Act to require FERC to cause organized energy market operators (ISOs/RTOs) to compensate “fuel secure generation”, i.e., coal power, for grid “resiliency”–something that apparently puts Americans at risk despite statements by NERC to the contrary or…
Updates to Energy Related Bills in the 2017-2018 California Legislative Session
Stoel Rives’ Energy Team has been monitoring and providing summaries of key energy-related bills introduced by California legislators since the beginning of the 2017-2018 Legislative Session. Legislators have been busy moving bills through the legislative process since reconvening from the Summer Recess. For any bill not identified as a two-year bill, the deadline for each house to pass the bill and present it to the Governor for signature or veto was September 15, 2017. Below is a summary and status of bills we have been following.
An enrolled bill is one that has been through the proof-reading process and is sent to the Governor to take action. A two-year bill is a bill taken out of consideration during the first year of a regular legislative session, with the intent of taking it up again during the second half of the session.
- Of particular note here is SB 100, California’s pitch for 100 percent renewable energy, failed to move to the next stage of the process and is kicked to next year.
- Our next blog post, after October 15, will provide an update on whether those bills sent to Governor Brown were signed or vetoed.
Continue Reading Updates to Energy Related Bills in the 2017-2018 California Legislative Session
California Extends Cap-and-Trade Through 2030
On July 25, 2017, California Governor Jerry Brown signed legislation extending the state’s cap-and-trade program through 2030. The signing ceremony for Assembly Bill (AB) 398 included former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who signed the first state statute authorizing cap-and-trade in 2006, AB 32. The ceremony cemented the deal that Governor Brown struck with California lawmakers, passing AB 398 with bi-partisan support and a two-thirds majority of the Legislature. In contrast to the passage of Senate Bill 32 in 2016, which extended California’s greenhouse gas reduction (GHG) targets through 2030 with the enactment of one simple sentence into statute, AB 398 stretched for pages. AB 398 provided many details to be incorporated into the cap-and-trade regulation by the California Air Resources Board (ARB), the agency in charge of implementing cap-and-trade, and laid out requirements to mitigate the impacts of GHG regulation on regulated industry and increase in-state benefits.
Among the more note-worthy provisions of AB 398 were (1) a price ceiling on cap-and-trade allowances, (2) limitations on the use of offsets, particularly from out-of-state projects, and (3) a continuation of previous allowance allocations to vulnerable industries. ARB will also report to the Legislature by the end of 2025 on statutory changes needed to reduce leakage, including a potential border carbon adjustment. Outside of the cap-and-trade regulation itself, the bill provides support to regulated entities with relief from sales and use taxes and prohibits local air districts from enacting additional GHG emissions reduction requirements.
In crafting the AB 398 deal, proponents of the bill wisely secured the votes necessary to pass the bill with a two-thirds majority and avoid the question whether cap-and-trade auctions post-2020 would be an unlawful tax under Proposition 26. The most recent cap-and-trade litigation in California Chamber of Commerce v. ARB and Morning Star Packing Co. v. ARB avoided this question, given that the original statute authorizing cap-and-trade, AB 32, was passed before Proposition 26 was voted in. Proponents also secured support from sources as disparate as the California Chamber of Commerce, California Manufacturers and Technology Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Environmental Defense Fund. Nevertheless, I would not rule out further judicial tangles on the implementation of AB 398 with amendments to the cap-and-trade regulation.
Continue Reading California Extends Cap-and-Trade Through 2030