Or so Secretary Rick Perry and the DOE would have us believe.  Approximately three weeks ago, the DOE made its pitch to FERC and the energy industry that a lack of “resiliency” threatens the U.S. power grid.  The responses are in.  And the shock and bewilderment that immediately followed the release of the Secretary’s surprising…

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…

Tax equity investments, and potentially other passive investments, in renewable energy just became that much easier to make.  Today, in response to a petition for declaratory order filed in January 2017 by a coalition of investors and project sponsors, FERC ruled that tax equity investments in public utilities does not trigger section 203 of the…

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…

A North Carolina appeals court has reminded energy developers in the state of the importance of structuring a transaction so as not to trigger the state’s utility franchise laws. For one unfortunate developer, that reminder came in the form of disgorged revenues and potential monetary penalties.

Earlier this month, on September 19, 2017, a North Carolina appeals court (in a 2-1 decision) upheld a decision of the North Carolina Utilities Commission (“NCUC”), which found that an environmental non-profit organization (NC WARN) was impermissibly operating as a North Carolina “public utility” when NC WARN entered into a power purchase agreement to own and operate solar panels on a church’s property and to charge the church based on the amount of electricity generated by the solar panels. (State of North Carolina ex rel. Utilities Commission et al. v. North Carolina Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, Case No. COA16-811). The North Carolina court found that such service by NC WARN infringed on the franchised utility’s electric service territory, contrary to North Carolina’s policy prohibiting retail electric competition and establishing regional monopolies on the sale of electricity. According to the court, NC WARN’s activities (in owning and operating the solar panels on the church’s roof and selling electricity from those solar panels to the church) were in direct competition with the franchised utility’s services as both entities were selling electricity to the franchised utility’s customer.  
Continue Reading Transaction Structuring Matters: North Carolina Rejects Third-Party Rooftop Solar Power Purchase Agreements

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

There has been a string of actions in the past few weeks addressing the federal government’s policy goal of streamlining the NEPA review process.  Although a number of actions have been taken, it presently boils down to this:  the federal government seems to genuinely be pursuing ways to make the NEPA process for infrastructure projects (including energy projects) faster, more predictable, and more efficient.  Whether and how this will be implemented in practice remains to be seen.  The Dept. of Interior and CEQ have been the first to take (aspirational) actions to implement this policy.  The following summarizes the recent actions.

President Trump issued Executive Order 13807, titled “Establishing Discipline and Accountability in Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects. Among other things, EO 13807 directs the following:

  • Development of a “performance accountability system” to track milestones and deadlines “major infrastructure projects,” score agencies’ ability to meet those deadlines, establish best practices for the permitting/review of infrastructure projects.  Projects would also be tracked through a “dashboard” that is updated monthly.
  •  Implement “One Federal Decision” for major infrastructure projects.  Under “One Federal Decision,” a project would have a single lead agency that will coordinate all necessary federal approvals and issue a single record of decision to address all those approvals.
  • The completion of all permit decisions should occur within 90 days of the ROD, and “not more than an average of approximately 2 years” after issuance of the notice of intent to prepare an EIS.
  • CEQ’s development of a list of initial actions that it will take to modernize the federal environmental review process, which can include issuing new regulations, guidance, and other directives.

For purposes of the EO, “major infrastructure project” essentially includes energy, water, and transportation projects for which multiple federal authorizations are required and for which an EIS is required.  The EO is fairly general and ambiguous and leaves room for exceptions to just about all of its directives.  The EO can be viewed here:  https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/08/15/presidential-executive-order-establishing-discipline-and-accountability.

CEQ responded by issuing a notice listing the actions it plans to take to implement EO 13807, as follows:
Continue Reading Recent Federal Actions to Streamline the NEPA Process

As we approach the critical September 22  vote of the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) for the U.S. solar industry, here is a brief review of how we arrived at this point and what to expect.  This vote will constitute the injury determination in the ITC global safeguard investigation into the effect of imported crystalline silicon photovoltaic (CSPV) products on the U.S. domestic solar manufacturing industry.

Overview

As reported widely in the solar industry press, on August 15, 2017, the ITC in Washington D.C. conducted a public hearing for the injury phase of the trade investigation (Inv. No. 201-075) into CSPV product imports.  The hearing generated more than 400 pages of hearing transcript and thousands of pages of briefing materials and statements submitted both in support and in opposition of the need for trade protection remedies to  support the U.S. domestic solar manufacturing industry.  A public version of some hearing testimony is available here.  The stakes are high.  This investigation could lead to  increased tariffs, quotas, or both, against all U.S. imports globally of CSPV cells whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products. CSPV cells are the most common form of raw power-generating material used in solar panels.  This investigation is being conducted pursuant to U.S. trade statutes and U.S. obligations under the World Trade Organization (WTO) terms of the Agreement on Safeguards.
Continue Reading ITC Prepares to Vote on the Suniva/SolarWorld proceeding re Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells

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