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

In a stakeholder call yesterday, the CAISO discussed the Revised Draft Final Proposal in the Generator Deliverability Assessment stakeholder initiative. During the call, the CAISO addressed outstanding stakeholder questions, including confirming key upcoming dates for project developers.

Background on the Proposal

The CAISO is proposing revisions to its deliverability assessment methodology in response to the rapid increase in the amount of solar resources and the California Public Utilities Commission’s (CPUC) resulting transition to an Effective Load Carrying Capability (ELCC) approach to calculating qualifying capacity (QC). The CAISO’s revisions are intended to more closely align the capacity studied in the deliverability assessment with the generator’s anticipated QC under the CPUC’s new ELCC methodology. Under the current deliverability assessment methodology, generators are studied at a higher capacity than the projects can qualify for under the ELCC methodology. Under the revised deliverability methodology, projects are expected to retain their full capacity deliverability status (FCDS) and their NQC value will not be reduced, but the proposed change should be beneficial to future interconnection customers because it will free up some unused deliverability and likely result in fewer required network upgrades to receive FCDS.

As part of the proposal the CAISO is also creating a new sub-status for solar and wind projects: Off-Peak Deliverability Status (OPDS). New solar and wind OPDS resources will receive market scheduling priority by continuing to be allowed to self-schedule as an incentive for resources to develop in locations that do not trigger upgrades or trigger only low-cost localized transmission upgrades.
Continue Reading CAISO Clarifies Generator Deliverability Assessment Proposal

In February 2018, as part of its efforts to remove barriers for electric storage resources, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued its final rule on electric storage participation in organized markets (Order No. 841).  Order No. 841 directed Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) and Independent System Operators (ISOs) to revise their tariffs to establish a…

On July 29, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision in Winding Creek Solar LLC v. Peterman et al., ruling that California’s feed-in tariff for small qualifying facilities (QFs), the Renewable Market Adjusting Tariff (ReMAT), violates the federal Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) (Ninth Circuit Case No. 17-17531). ReMAT provides small QFs of three megawatts (MW) or less with a standard contract for energy offtake, on a first-come, first-served basis. Under ReMAT, rates available to any given generator fluctuate based on the price the developers ahead in the contract queue will accept. The California investor-owned utilities must offer ReMAT contracts up to a program cap of 750 MW, which is proportionately split among the utilities, and then further divided across different types of generation, including baseload and peak/non-peak resources.

The Ninth Circuit ruled that ReMAT violated two tenets of PURPA. Under PURPA, subject to certain exemptions, utilities are required to buy at the avoided cost rate all the power produced by a QF. First, contrary to PURPA’s requirement that a utility buy all of a QF’s output, the Ninth Circuit found that ReMAT limits the amount of energy that utilities are required to purchase from QFs by placing caps on procurement. Second, ReMAT sets a market-based rate for energy from participating QFs, rather than a price based on the utilities’ avoided cost as required under PURPA.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Strikes Down California ReMAT in Winding Creek Solar Case

The California Independent System Operator (CAISO) is accepting stakeholder comments until August 13, 2019 on its new Hybrid Resources Issue Paper, kicking off a stakeholder initiative expected to proceed until April 2020. Initial comments submitted now will help shape the direction of the initiative and potential market changes.

Though not exclusively limited to renewables + storage (the CAISO defines “hybrid” to mean any combination of multiple technologies or fuel types combined into a single resource with a single point of interconnection), the CAISO emphasizes the anticipated impacts of increased storage market penetration, including new operational and forecasting challenges,  as a driving force for the initiative. The CAISO has observed that the number of hybrid resource configurations seeking interconnection comprises approximately 41% of the CAISO’s Generator Interconnection Queue’s total capacity.Continue Reading CAISO Seeks Stakeholder Feedback on Hybrid Resource Market Participation

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC” or the “Commission”) issued two orders on July 18, 2019 revising the requirements applicable to market-based rate (“MBR”) sellers.  The first, Order No. 861, lightens the regulatory requirements for MBR sellers in certain RTO/ISO-administered markets by eliminating the requirement to submit indicative screens in the horizontal market power analysis in initial MBR applications, triennial updates, and change-in-status notices.  The second, Order No. 860, may also lighten regulation by reducing the amount of ownership information MBR sellers must report to the Commission, but also imposes new reporting requirements, including submissions to a relational database that will be maintained by FERC Staff to link MBR sellers and their affiliates.

Order No. 861

Order No. 861 eliminates the requirement that MBR sellers in RTO/ISO-administered energy, ancillary services, and capacity markets subject to FERC-approved RTO/ISO market monitoring and mitigation submit indicative horizontal market power screens.  Instead, a seller may include a statement in its filing that it is relying on FERC-approved market monitoring and mitigation to mitigate any potential market power.  With the exception of MBR sellers making capacity sales in CAISO and SPP, discussed below, this will lighten regulation on MBR sellers in ISOs/RTOs by eliminating the requirement to submit indicative screens in their initial MBR applications, triennial updates, and change-in-status notices.

The exemption will not apply to MBR sellers making capacity sales in CAISO or SPP, because CAISO and SPP do not have an RTO/ISO-administered capacity market.  In addition, the Commission determined that MBR capacity sellers in CAISO and SPP can no longer rely on the rebuttable presumption that FERC-approved RTO/ISO market monitoring and mitigation is sufficient to address horizontal market power concerns for their capacity sales in CAISO and SPP.  Therefore, SPP and CAISO capacity sellers must still submit indicative screens and, now, any seller that fails the indicative screens must submit a delivered price test or other evidence that it lacks market power in the capacity markets.  CAISO and SPP sellers will be able to rely on Order No. 861’s exemption for their sales of energy and ancillary services.

The order is effective September 24, 2019 and FERC Staff announced that the new rules will be applicable to triennial reviews for the Northeast region due in December 2019 and June 2020.Continue Reading FERC Issues Orders Revising Requirements for Market-Based Rate Sellers

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