As we discussed in a previous post, on January 14, 2016, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) published a final 4(d) rule under the Endangered Species Act for the northern long-eared bat.  As we noted, although the final 4(d) rule was widely viewed as a “win” for the wind industry, environmental organizations were…

Ed. – originally authored by Kevin Johnson and Thomas Wood.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s order on February 9, 2016 staying EPA’s implementation of the Clean Power Plan (CPP) will create at least a year of uncertainty about the shape of the future electric power regulatory framework, with implications for states, utilities and other electric power providers, and for the many other stakeholders potentially affected by the CPP. The CPP is the regulatory program issued by EPA on October 23, 2015, that requires states to develop plans to reduce carbon (CO2) emissions by meeting either state-specific mass caps (tons/year) or state-specific emission rate intensity limits (lb/netMWh).   The CPP seeks to establish a whole new style of regulation using authority under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act.

Supreme Court Halts CPP Implementation

Twenty-nine (29) states and a number of utilities, labor unions and trade associations challenged the legality of the CPP.  These appellants sought a stay of the rule from the D.C. Circuit in November 2015.  The petition for a stay was denied on January 21, 2016.  The appellants then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court — a move that most pundits thought was futile as it is extremely rare for the Supreme Court to grant such a stay.  In order to grant a stay, the Court needed to find that if the D.C. Circuit were to uphold the CPP, (1) there is a reasonable probability that four Supreme Court Justices would vote for review of the D.C. Circuit opinion; (2) there is a fair prospect that a majority of the Supreme Court would vote to reverse the D.C. Circuit’s opinion upholding the CPP; and (3) that there is a likelihood that immediate, irreparable harm would result from the denial of a stay.  By granting the stay, it appears that five of the nine Supreme Court justices (Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Kennedy and Thomas) indicated that they believe there is a fair prospect that they would vote to overturn the D.C. Circuit were the D.C. Circuit to uphold the CPP.  The Court’s action prevents EPA from further implementation of the CPP until the petitioners’ appeal is decided. The underlying challenge to the CPP is proceeding on an expedited schedule with oral argument set for June 2 and 3, 2016.

In addition, another factor in the Court’s stay decision was likely the pending deadlines for states to take compliance actions. The deadline for states to submit initial plans demonstrating how they would comply with the CPP was September 6, 2016.  While virtually all states were likely to request an extension for plan submittal until September 2018, states still needed to show progress on their plans by this September, and many states, including several of the 29 appellant states, were beginning the planning process.

Next Steps: Back to the D.C. Circuit
Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court Stays Clean Power Plan Implementation: Next Steps

The California Public Utilities Commission yesterday adopted – by a 3-2 vote – a proposed decision revising the net energy metering (NEM) tariff for customers of the state’s three largest utilities who install renewable distributed generation (DG) on their properties. To the dismay of the dissenting commissioners, the final decision adopted late proposed changes that…

In the biggest consumer energy story of the day, and perhaps the decade, the U.S. Supreme Court today upheld FERC’s jurisdictional authority in FERC Order 745. Read the Decision here (PDF). The so called Demand Response Rule permits consumer energy products and services, such as demand response, to participate in wholesale energy markets, and to…

In April 2015, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“Service”) published a final decision to list the northern long-eared bat as threatened and, rather than publishing a final 4(d) rule, opted to publish an interim 4(d) rule and open a 90-day comment period to gather additional information and potentially refine the interim 4(d) rule.

As we discussed in a post last year, the effect of the interim 4(d) rule depended on the location of a particular activity. For areas of the country not affected by white-nose syndrome, the interim 4(d) rule exempted incidental take from all activities.  For areas of the country affected by white-nose syndrome, the interim 4(d) rule exempted from Endangered Species Act take prohibitions the following activities: (1) forest management practices, (2) maintenance and limited expansion of transportation and utility rights-of-way, (3) prairie habitat management, and (4 ) limited tree removal projects, provided these activities protected known maternity roosts and hibernacula.  Under the interim 4(d) rule, those activities were exempted provided: (1) the activity occurred more than 0.25 mile (0.4 km) from a known, occupied hibernacula, (2) the activity avoided cutting or destroying known, occupied roost trees during the pup season (June 1–July 31), and (3) the activity avoided clearcuts (and similar harvest methods, e.g., seed tree, shelterwood and coppice) within 0.25 mile (0.4 km) of known, occupied roost trees during the pup season (June 1–July 31).  Thus, with a few narrow exceptions, the interim 4(d) rule prohibited all incidental take within areas of the country affected by white-nose syndrome, including take resulting from the operation of utility-scale wind turbines.
Continue Reading U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Issues Final 4(d) Rule for Northern Long-Eared Bat Under Endangered Species Act

On January 19, 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) dropped its Ninth Circuit appeal of U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh’s ruling that set aside the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (“Service”) rule to extend the maximum term for programmatic “take” permits under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (“Eagle Act”) to 30 years for failure to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”).

As we discussed in our previous post,  in August 2015 the court set aside the 30-year rule on NEPA grounds, concluding that the Service had “failed to show an adequate basis in the record for deciding not to prepare an EIS–much less an EA–prior to increasing the maximum duration for programmatic eagle take permits by sixfold.” The Court found the Service’s reliance on certain U.S. Department of Interior categorical exclusions misplaced. According to the Court, the Service failed to establish that the decision was “administrative” or “procedural” in nature and failed to address concerns by its own experts that the rule revisions might have highly controversial environmental effects.  Importantly, however,  the court’s decision to set aside the 30-year rule only applied to the 30-year permit tenure provision of the 2013 rule amendments. Other components of the 2013 rule amendments were left intact, including the 5 year permit renewal and assignment provisions.
Continue Reading U.S Fish and Wildlife Service Opts Not to Appeal 30-Year Eagle Rule Decision, Focuses on Development of Eagle Permitting Program

Yesterday, Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton announced the appointment of Matthew Schuerger to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC).  Mr. Schuerger will replace Commissioner Betsy Wergin, whose term expired January 4, 2016.  Governor Dayton’s Press Release can be found here.

The MPUC consists of five commissioners appointed by the governor to six-year, staggered terms. Under…

Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) is proposing another round of interconnection queue reform.  On December 31, 2015, MISO filed proposed revisions to its Open Access Transmission, Energy and Operating Reserve Markets Tariff with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The revisions, which amend MISO’s Generator Interconnection Procedures, would be MISO’s fourth significant set of queue…

The Utah Public Service Commission (PSC) issued its decision today on PacifiCorp’s request to shorten the maximum term of power purchase agreements (PPAs) with qualifying facilities (QFs) from 20 years to three years.  The PSC agreed to reduce the maximum term from 20 to 15 years, concluding:  “We believe a 15-year term strikes the appropriate…

*Update: Xcel has now filed its revised tariff (pdf)

The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission published its Order (pdf) Tuesday approving Xcel Energy’s revised tariff for its Community Solar Garden Program contingent on certain changes being made. After Xcel Energy filed its tariff following programmatic changes made by the Commission earlier in the year, several…