California

Subscribe to California

On August 30, 2021, the California Energy Commission (CEC) held a workshop on its Midterm Reliability Analysis and Incremental Efficiency Improvements to Natural Gas Power Plants.  CEC Commissioners Gunda and Douglas were in attendance, as were California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Commissioners Rechtschaffen and Houck.  CEC staff covered midterm (2022-2026) capacity needs, and potential thermal capacity needs, as well as permitted and potential thermal capacity additions.  The workshop also included a panel discussing the deployment and performance of battery energy storage, including a discussion of the risks that could impact California’s planned reliance on large amounts of battery energy storage (over 14,000 MW by 2032 in the CPUC’s recently-released draft Preferred System Portfolio).

The CEC staff’s Midterm Reliability Analysis consisted of a loss of load expectation (LOLE) analysis of a variety of scenarios built around various assumed procurement portfolios, including the CPUC’s draft PSP and a scenario based upon procurement already ordered by the CPUC (1,505 MW NQC from D.19-11-016, and either 9,500 or 11,500 MW NQC from D.21-06-035).  The Analysis focused on the May through October time frame, not the entire year.  It also assumed that procured resources would show up.  Finally, it did not evaluate the impact of extreme weather events.
Continue Reading California Energy Commission Holds Workshop on Midterm Reliability; Finds No Reliability Need for Additional Gas Resources

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

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

At its March 14, 2019 voting meeting, the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) voted out an Order Instituting Rulemaking (“OIR”) to Implement Senate Bill 237 (“SB 237”) Regarding Direct Access and to Consider Changes to Existing Direct Access Procedures.  The Rulemaking will address the expansion of Direct Access, as required by SB 237.

Direct Access permits customers of a California investor-owned utility (“IOU”) (e.g., Pacific Gas and Electric, San Diego Gas and Electric, Southern California Edison) to obtain their electricity from an electric service provider registered with the CPUC.  The IOU continues to provide transmission and distribution service to the customer.  Direct access was instituted in 1998 as part of California’s efforts to deregulate the electric sector.

As part of California’s efforts to recover from the energy crisis in 2000-2001, the California legislature passed Assembly Bill 1X (“AB1X”), which authorized the Department of Water Resources (“DWR”) to begin procuring electricity on behalf of IOU customers, and required the CPUC to allow DWR to recover the costs of such procurement from IOU ratepayers.  AB1X also authorized the CPUC to suspend Direct Access, motivated by a concern that IOU ratepayers would flee to Direct Access to avoid paying the cost of DWR procurement.Continue Reading California Public Utilities Commission Opens Rulemaking to Consider Expansion of Direct Access

In 2017, the California Legislature passed a bill that resulted in Business and Professions Code (BPC) section 7169, which ultimately would require Home Improvement Contractors, which include contractors that install solar systems on residences, to issue specific disclosures to any residential consumers who may want to purchase, finance or lease, and install a solar system on their property. Recently in August, the California Public Utilities Commission “endorse[d] the solar energy systems disclosure document as being compliant with [BPC section 7169]….” The Disclosure terms include:

  • The total cost for the solar system, including financing and energy/power costs (if applicable);
  • The statutory License Board Disclosure statement for contractors and / or the home improvement salesperson who sold the system information regarding with whom to file if there are complaints; and
  • The statutory Three-Day Right to Cancel Disclosure if the contract is not negotiated at the contractor’s place of business.

Continue Reading Reminder of January 1, 2019 Mandatory New Notice Requirement by CA Residential Solar Contractors

On February 8, 2018, the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) adopted a new procurement process in a decision which suggested that 2,000 MW of new battery energy storage resources may be needed in California by 2030. This means an additional 2,000 MW of storage on top of the existing 1,325 MW that is already required.…

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

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

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. June 2, 2017 was the deadline by which the legislature was required to pass bills out of the house of origin.  Failing to meet that deadline does not automatically prevent a bill from proceeding through the legislative process; however, such failure will prevent the bill from being considered by the full legislature or the Governor during the first half of the Legislative Session.  Below is a summary of bills we have been following that have most recently changed.  We will continue to monitor and update these energy-related bills as the legislative session proceeds.

Assembly Bills

AB 79 (Levine, D): Electrical generation: hourly greenhouse gas emissions: electricity from unspecified sources.
STATUS: Ordered to Senate June 1, 2017.

  • Initially introduced as a bill to decrease the amount energy consumed from coal-fired generation resources, AB 79 was revamped to require, by January 1, 2019, the State Air Resources Board (CARB), in consultation with the Independent System Operator (ISO), to regularly update its methodology for the calculation of emissions of greenhouse gases associated with electricity from unspecified sources. The bill would require the CPUC and the CEC to incorporate the methodology into programs addressing the disclosure of the emissions of greenhouse gases and the procurement of electricity by entities under the respective jurisdiction of each.

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