Regulation

Subscribe to Regulation

During its May 18 voting meeting, the California Public Utilities Commission (Commission) voted to open a new rulemaking proceeding that will consider improvements to its permitting procedures for electric infrastructure projects that fall under its jurisdiction.  The Commission’s action is driven by increased legislative and policy interest in reducing barriers to energy infrastructure development to…

On October 21, 2021, the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) approved a rule that creates requirements for power companies to better prepare for winter weather. The rule stems from the Texas Legislature’s passage of Senate Bill 3 (S.B. 3) in response to the devastation caused to the energy grid by Winter Storm Uri.

S.B. 3, effective June 8, 2021, is a multi-pronged law that attempts to make the Texas energy system more resilient to the effects of extreme winter weather events. Key to S.B. 3 is a requirement that the PUCT implement winter weatherization requirements so that each of the entities providing electric generation service must implement measures to prepare its generation assets to provide adequate electric generation service during a weather emergency. The new rule, codified as 16 Texas Administrative Code §25.55,  requires electric generators and transmission service providers (TSPs) (collectively, generation entities) to implement the winter weather readiness recommendations identified in the 2012 Quanta Technology Report on Extreme Weather Preparedness Best Practices and the FERC/NERC 2011 Report on Outages and Curtailments During the Southwest Cold Weather Event on February 1-5, 2011. The rule also requires affected entities to fix any known, acute issues that arose from winter weather conditions during the 2020-2021 winter weather season. The deadline for implementation of many components of the new rule is December 1, 2021.
Continue Reading Public Utilities Commission of Texas Adopts New Winter Weatherization Rules in Response to Winter Storm Uri

Earlier this month, the Fish and Wildlife Service (“Service”) published a final rule revoking the Trump Administration’s rule on incidental take under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (“MBTA”), as well as an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (“ANPR”) aimed at codifying the Biden Administration’s interpretation of the MBTA’s incidental take provision and creating new incidental take regulations.

The MBTA prohibits the “take” of over 1,000 species of migratory birds, but the reach of the MBTA’s take prohibition, including whether it applies to “incidental” take from otherwise lawful activities, is unsettled and subject to a current split in the federal circuit courts. The Trump Administration rule, published on January 7, 2021, largely reflected the Fifth Circuit’s view that the MBTA only prohibits “intentional acts” that directly kill migratory birds. We anticipate that the Biden Administration rule will take the position endorsed by the Tenth Circuit and articulated in the Obama Administration’s M-Opinion that the MBTA prohibits non-purposeful take of migratory birds, nests, and eggs that occur incidental to lawful activities.
Continue Reading Biden Administration Revokes Trump Administration MBTA Rule and Initiates Rulemaking for MBTA Incidental Take Permitting Program

On September 24, 2021, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued an order (176 FERC ¶ 61,207) approving tariff revisions to amend the California ISO’s (CAISO) interconnection procedures for its current queue cluster (Cluster 14).  The CAISO had requested changes to its interconnection procedures due to the massive increase in the number of interconnection requests it received this year—373 interconnection requests representing 150,000 megawatts of generating capacity, as compared to the 155 requests in 2020.  Prior to 2021, the average number of interconnection requests that the CAISO received each year over the past 10 years was 113.  The volume of interconnection requests in 2020 caused the CAISO to issue a market notice to delay the publication of Phase I interconnection study results by one month, pursuant to its tariff authority to extend the timing for providing study results under Sections 6.6 and 8.5 of its Generator Interconnection and Deliverability Allocation Procedures (GIDAP, Tariff Appendix DD).

Rather than rely on these tariff provisions to extend the study timelines for Cluster 14, however, the CAISO sought approval to establish extensions for various interconnection deadlines early in the process, to provide generators with advance notice of the timing for Cluster 14.  Per the approved tariff revisions, Cluster 14 deadlines will be extended as follows:…
Continue Reading FERC Approves Changes to CAISO Interconnection Procedures; Next Queue Cluster Application Window Not Scheduled to Open Until 2023

In June 2021, the California Public Utilities Commission (Commission) issued its Mid-Term Reliability Procurement Decision, Decision (D.) 21-06-035, which directed load-serving entities subject to its jurisdiction (investor-owned utilities, community choice aggregators, and energy service providers) to procure at least 11,500 megawatts (MW) of net-qualifying capacity (NQC) for reliability for the period 2023 through 2026.  The decision established cumulative annual procurement requirements: 2,000 MW in 2023, 6,000 MW in 2024, 1,500 MW in 2025, and 2,000 in 2026.  The decision also states that the Commission expects all of the resources procured pursuant to that decision to be zero-emitting, unless they otherwise qualify under renewables portfolio standard eligibility requirements (biomass, for example). …
Continue Reading CPUC Issues Net-Qualifying Capacity Values to Be Used for Mid-Term Reliability Procurement

As a follow up to our post here, the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued a decision on August 23 affirming the MPUC’s decisions related to the Nemadji Trail Energy Center natural gas plant (NTEC) that will be constructed in Superior, Wisconsin.  Applying a deferential standard of review, the Court analyzed the appeal (on remand…

As a follow up to a previous post the Minnesota Supreme Court issued its decision on April 21, 2021, reversing the Minnesota Court of Appeals and remanding the matter for further review.  In so doing, the Court concluded that the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission properly concluded that MEPA review was not required.

The Court first…

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

On February 20, 2020, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)  unanimously approved a proposed rule that would revise certain reporting requirements for financially-settled offtake contracts that qualify as “swaps” under the Commodity Exchange Act (as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act), such as proxy revenue swaps, fixed-volume price swaps and certain virtual PPAs.  Many counterparties to…

On December 23, 2019, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed and remanded a decision by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (the “Commission”) approving affiliated-interest agreements permitting Minnesota Power and its Wisconsin affiliate to move forward with the construction of a large natural gas facility – the Nemadji Trail Energy Center (“NTEC”) – in Superior, Wisconsin (the “Order”). The result of the Order may complicate the already complex issue of state permitting, specifically a state’s ability to regulate activity occurring in another state.

Honor the Earth and certain Clean Energy Organizations sought additional review of the Commission’s order based on concern about the lack of a Commission-ordered environmental assessment worksheet (“EAW”) pursuant to the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (“MEPA”). During the initial Commission proceeding, Minnesota Power, and indeed the Commission, determined that an EAW was not necessary because (1) MEPA does not apply to the affiliated-interest agreements because NTEC does not meet the definition of “project” under MEPA, and (2) the Commission does not have authority to order an EAW for a project located in Wisconsin. In its Order, the Court of Appeals addresses each point, in turn.

The Order holds that MEPA applies to affiliated-interest agreements. Contrary to the Commission’s interpretation, the Court of Appeals concludes that the NTEC affiliated-interest agreements are “projects” as defined by MEPA. The Court’s definition of “project” is “a definite, site-specific, action that contemplates on-the-ground environmental changes.” The Order notes that the construction and operation of NTEC are definite and site-specific actions that will affect the immediate location as well as the surrounding environment (including Minnesota – 2.5 miles away – and Lake Superior). The Court went on to note that because the construction of NTEC is an environmentally significant event that may not occur without Commission approval of the affiliated-interest agreements, Commission approval of such agreements constitutes indirect governmental action manipulating the environment and triggering MEPA. Therefore, the Court concluded that MEPA “applies to the governmental action of approving the NTEC affiliated-interest agreements.”…

Continue Reading Minnesota Court of Appeals Determines MEPA Review Required for Wisconsin Natural Gas Generating Facility