power purchase agreement

Subscribe to power purchase agreement

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC” or the “Commission”) issued an order on May 1, 2019 denying rehearing of its orders asserting concurrent jurisdiction with a bankruptcy court over wholesale power contracts.

In January, prior to Pacific Gas & Electric (“PG&E”) filing for bankruptcy, NextEra Energy, Inc. and Exelon Corporation both filed complaints and petitions for declaratory orders from FERC, requesting that the Commission find that PG&E could not abrogate, amend, or reject in a bankruptcy proceeding any rates, terms, and conditions of its FERC-jurisdictional wholesale power contracts without first obtaining approval from the Commission.  The Commission quickly issued a brief order holding that a party to a FERC-jurisdictional wholesale power contract must obtain approval from both the bankruptcy court and the Commission  to reject a contract and modify the filed rate, respectively.  PG&E then filed its petition for bankruptcy and initiated an adversarial proceeding against FERC, requesting preliminary and injunctive relief.  That matter has continued to play out in the Northern District of California and there has not yet been a resolution by the bankruptcy court.  Meanwhile, PG&E requested rehearing of the Commission’s decision.  The Commission’s order on rehearing offers a more in-depth analysis of its jurisdiction.

The order first highlights the distinct roles that FERC and a bankruptcy court play in evaluating wholesale power contracts.  While FERC’s role is to protect the public interest, the bankruptcy court’s role is to provide a path to rehabilitate debtors.  The Commission held that the existence of bankruptcy proceedings does not alter its obligation, and exclusive authorization, to consider whether wholesale rates are just and reasonable. 
Continue Reading FERC Reaffirms Concurrent Jurisdiction Over PPAs in Bankruptcy

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

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…

If you are drafting a liquidated damages clause that applies Texas law, a decision today by the Supreme Court of Texas might encourage you to hire an oracle. Because if you negotiate a liquidated damages provision in a “second-look” state without using the power of divination, you may be surprised when a once-reasonable estimate of damages becomes unenforceable because of subsequent changes in the market.
Continue Reading Negotiating a Liquidated Damages Clause in Texas? Get Out Your Crystal Ball.

The Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) recently announced its Clean Solar Initiative Feed-In Tariff-II (FIT-II), a feed-in tariff program for solar projects between 100 kW and 2 MW in size and located in LIPA’s service territory. FIT-II is currently open for public comment, and will be effective only upon formal approval by the LIPA Board of Trustees.

FIT-II is capped at 100 MW, and follows the first version of the Clean Solar Initiative Feed-In Tariff (FIT-I). Unlike FIT-I, projects will not be selected for participation in FIT-II on a first-come, first-served basis. Instead, all applications submitted within the application period will be evaluated; those that pass a preliminary screening process of technical and administrative review will be eligible for further consideration under a Clearing Price Auction mechanism.Continue Reading Long Island Power Authority Announces New And Expanded Clean Solar Initiative Feed-In Tariff Program

Citing changes in market conditions, Southern California Edison (SCE) announced last week that it is beginning the process of reforming the standard Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) it uses for its California Renewable Energy Small Tariff (CREST) program. CREST is SCE’s feed-in tariff program for eligible renewable energy projects under 1.5 MW. The PPA for each …

On July 27, 2010, the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas, issued its decision in TXU Portfolio Management Company, L.P., v. FPL Energy, LLC, et al., 2010 Tex. App. Lexis 5905 (2010).  The case arose when three FPL wind farms (the "Wind Farms") located in the McCamey area of West Texas experienced ERCOT-imposed …

From our colleague Michael O’Connell:

On May 18, 2010, California and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to coordinate federal and state procedures and schedules for development of hydrokinetic projects off California’s coast. FERC previously entered MOUs for such coordination with Oregon, Washington and Maine.

The California-FERC MOU…