Regulation

Subscribe to Regulation via RSS

If you’re looking for a new cleantech startup idea, the San Diego Regional Energy Innovation Network (SD-REIN) recently released a report that identifies cleantech market opportunities in the Southern California region.

The report, entitled “Regional Energy Technology Priorities and Needs,” was presented at an SD-REIN meeting on March 9, 2017. It will be…

February 17, 2017 marked the deadline by which legislators had to introduce bills for the first half of the 2017-2018 Legislative Session. The Stoel Rives’ Energy Team has been and will continue to monitor bills throughout the two-year session and will provide periodic updates as to the status of those bills. Most noteworthy here is SB 584 which would require 100% of all electricity sold in California at retail to be generated by eligible renewable energy resources by December 31, 2045. A summary of SB 584 is provided below, in addition to the status and summary of other energy related bills Stoel Rives is monitoring, starting with a set of bills related to energy storage.

Please also reference our Oil & Gas post summarizing bills related to oil and gas law here.

SB 584 (De León). California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program.

Under existing law, the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) has regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations, while local publicly owned electric utilities, as defined, are under the direction of their governing boards. The California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program requires the CPUC to establish a renewables portfolio standard requiring all retail sellers, as defined, to procure a minimum quantity of electricity products from eligible renewable energy resources, as defined, so that the total kilowatt-hours of those products sold to their retail end-use customers achieves 25% of retail sales by December 31, 2016, 33% by December 31, 2020, 40% by December 31, 2024, 45% by December 31, 2027, and 50% by December 31, 2030. The program additionally requires each local publicly owned electric utility, as defined, to procure a minimum quantity of electricity products from eligible renewable energy resources to achieve the procurement requirements established by the program. The Legislature has separately declared that its intent in implementing the program is to attain, among other targets for sale of eligible renewable resources, the target of 50% of total retail sales of electricity by December 31, 2030. This bill would revise those legislative findings and declarations to state that the goal of the program is to achieve that 50% target by December 31, 2025, and for all electricity sold at retail to be generated by eligible renewable energy resources by December 31, 2045.

Bills Related to Energy Storage

AB 914 (Mullin, D): Transmission planning: energy storage and demand response.
STATUS: Introduced February 16, 2017; awaiting referral.

Existing law vests the CPUC with jurisdiction over the delivery of electrical services, provides for the establishment of an Independent System Operator (“ISO”) as a nonprofit public benefit corporation and requires the ISO to make certain filings with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) and to seek authority from FERC to give ISO the ability to secure generating and transmission resources necessary to guarantee achievement of planning and operating reserve criteria no less stringent than those established by the Western Electricity Coordinating Council and the North American Electric Reliability Council. If passed, this bill would require the CPUC, in its participation in the ISO’s transmission planning process, to promote the consideration of the use of energy storage systems and demand response as means to address the state’s transmission needs before the use of transmission wires.

AB 1030 (Ting, D): Energy storage systems.
STATUS: Introduced February 16, 2017; awaiting referral.

Existing law requires the CPUC to open a proceeding to determine appropriate targets, if any, for each load-serving entity to procure viable and cost-effective energy storage systems to be achieved by December 31, 2015, and December 31, 2020. If determined to be appropriate, the CPUC is required to adopt the procurement targets and to reevaluate all of these determinations not less than once every three years. AB 1030 would require the CPUC to establish a program to incentivize residential and commercial customers to adopt energy storage systems.

SB 356 (Skinner, D): Energy storage systems.
STATUS: Introduced February 14, 2017; awaiting referral..

Under current law, the CPUC has regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations. Current law requires the commission to open a proceeding to determine appropriate targets, if any, for each load-serving entity, as defined, to procure viable and cost-effective energy storage systems to be achieved by December 31, 2015, and December 31, 2020. This bill would make a non-substantive change in legislative findings and declarations adopted with the above-described energy storage system requirements.

Continue Reading California Energy Related Bills Introduced in the 2017-2018 Legislative Session

Actions are underway  at the Oregon Public Utility Commission (the “PUC”) to implement HB 2193, Oregon’s energy storage legislation.  HB 2193 requires that PacifiCorp and Portland General Electric (“PGE”) submit proposals for energy storage systems capable of storing at least 5 MWh of energy – with an aggregate capacity not to exceed one percent of…

Yesterday, Governor Mark Dayton announced his appointment of Minnesota State Senator Katie Sieben to a six-year term on the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC). He also appointed current MPUC commissioner Nancy Lange as chair of the MPUC, filling the vacancy left by outgoing chair Beverly Jones Heydinger. Both Sieben and Lange will begin their terms…

Today the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) published notice in the Federal Register of a long-anticipated final rule revising its eagle permitting regulations (Revised Eagle Rule). Concurrent with the Revised Eagle Rule, the Service issued a Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) analyzing the Eagle Rule revision under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Although we are still in the process of evaluating the entire package and have concerns with certain aspects of the Revised Eagle Rule, many of the proposed changes represent a step forward for applicants seeking regulatory certainty through the eagle permitting process. Here’s a quick snapshot of the changes:

(Re)extends maximum permit term to 30 years. As we discussed in a previous blog post, in August 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California set aside the 30-year tenure provision of the 2013 revisions to the eagle permit regulations on NEPA grounds, concluding that the Service had failed to demonstrate an adequate basis in the record for deciding not to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement or Environmental Assessment. The Revised Eagle Rule, now backed by NEPA analysis that evaluates the 30-year maximum term, once again extends the maximum term for eagle take permits from five to 30 years, subject to recurring five-year check-ins. In the Federal Register notice, the Service acknowledges that “[t]he 5-year maximum duration for programmatic permits appears to have been a primary factor discouraging many project proponents from seeking eagle take permits. Many activities that incidentally take eagles due to ongoing operations have lifetimes that far exceed 5 years. We need to issue permits that align better, both in duration and the scale of conservation measures, with the longer-term duration of industrial activities, such as electricity distribution and energy production. Extending the maximum permit duration is consistent with other Federal permitting for development and infrastructure projects.”

Applies practicability standard to all permits. Under the previous rule, applicants for standard (non-programmatic) permits were required to reduce potential take to a level where it was “practicably” unavoidable, but applicants for programmatic permits were required to meet a higher standard (reducing take through the implementation of advanced conservation practices (ACP) to a level where remaining take is “unavoidable”). The Revised Eagle Rule applies the “practicability” standard to all eagle take permits and removes the “unavoidable” standard from the permit program. Thus, all permits will contain the standard that take must be avoided and minimized to the maximum degree practicable.
Continue Reading U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Issues Final Revised Eagle Rule

With a goal to spur wind and solar development on public lands, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is expected to soon release a new rule that will streamline approval of new renewable energy projects.

First proposed for advance notice and comment in 2011, the rule would amend BLM regulations at 43 C.F.R. §§ 2800…

Late Tuesday, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) released draft amendments to California’s cap and trade regulation, including revisions to the current program in place through 2020, an extension of the program through 2030, and setting the stage for continued emissions reductions under the program through 2050. ARB’s proposed amendments come in the middle of a recent milieu of uncertainty:  pending litigation challenging the legality of the existing program, an opinion from the state Office of Legislative Counsel that ARB lacks authority under AB 32 to continue cap and trade past 2020, unprecedented weak demand at the most recent allowance auction, and legislation proposed in the California Senate to establish a statutory emissions reductions mandate for 2030 still in process this session.  With all of these balls in the air, ARB has doubled down and drafted regulations dropping the program’s emissions cap from 334.2 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2e in 2020 to 200.5 MMT in 2030, with major elements of the cap and trade regulation continuing in effect past 2020 to achieve the emissions reductions.
Continue Reading What You Need to Know about the Proposed Revisions to California’s Cap and Trade Program

Today, the Eighth Circuit determined that the Next Generation Energy Act (“NGEA”), a Minnesota law that established power sector standards for carbon dioxide emissions, was unconstitutional (decision available here). In so doing, the Court affirmed the decision of District Court Judge Susan Nelson, whose 2014 decision we covered in “Court Declares Minnesota…

Today the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) published notice in the Federal Register of proposed changes to its eagle permitting regulations (Proposed Rule).  Concurrent with the Proposed Rule, the Service issued a Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DPEIS) analyzing the proposed changes under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and a Status Report that estimates size, productivity, and survival rates for bald and golden eagles, and provides recommendations on authorized take limits.  The Service is accepting comments on the Proposed Rule and the DPEIS until July 5, 2016.

Although we are still in the process of evaluating the entire package, the proposed changes represent a significant step forward for applicants seeking regulatory certainty through the eagle permitting process. Here’s a quick snapshot of the proposal:

(Re)extends maximum permit term to 30 years.  As we discussed in a previous post, in August 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California set aside the 30-year tenure provision of the 2013 revisions to the eagle permit regulations on NEPA grounds, concluding that the Service had failed to demonstrate an adequate basis in the record for deciding not to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement or Environmental Assessment.  The Proposed Rule, now backed by NEPA analysis that evaluates the 30-year maximum term, once again extends the maximum term for eagle take permits from five to 30 years, subject to recurring five-year check-ins.  In the Federal Register notice, the Service acknowledges that the “5-year maximum permit term is unnecessarily burdensome for businesses engaged in long-term actions that have the potential to incidentally take bald or golden eagles over the lifetime of the activity.”
Continue Reading U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Issues Proposed Changes to Eagle Permit Regulations, Opens 60-Day Comment Period