Stoel Rives litigation partners Beverly Pearman and Jeremy Sacks have prepared the following report on TransCanada’s recent challenge to the Massachusetts RPS:

On April 16, 2010, TransCanada Power Marketing, Ltd. (“TransCanda”) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Massachusetts arguing that Massachusetts is unconstitutionally discriminating against out-of-state renewable energy producers. TransCanada purchases energy from generators and resells it to distribution companies and retail customers in the northeast United States. It is a U.S.-based subsidiary of TransCanada Corporation, a Canadian entity that, among other things, owns significant pieces of energy infrastructure in Canada and the United States, including power generation facilities. TransCanada’s suit challenges two Massachusetts programs that it claims benefit in-state economic interests while burdening out-of-state interests in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause. It is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief as well as damages under 42 USC § 1983.Continue Reading TransCanada challenges Massachusetts RPS

Today, the U.S. Department of Energy (the "DOE") released the long-awaited Financial Assistance Funding Opportunity Announcement ("FOA") titled "Marine and Hydrokinetic Technology Readiness Advancement Initiative."  Federal funding for this initiative for fiscal year 2010 is expected to be up to $15.36 million, with the possibility of continued funding at, or near, that

From our colleague Michael O’Connell:

On April 2, 2010, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) issued recommendations on Department of the Interior (Interior) procedures for coordination of energy project development and protection of historic properties. Among other measures, the ACHP recommended that: (a) Interior agencies “engage in effective tribal consultations early in the project planning and review process to enable full understanding and appreciation of tribal views on energy development and its potential to affect properties of religious and cultural significance to them;” (b) give “due deference” to the views of Indian tribes regarding the impact on historic properties that are integral to the cultural and religious identify of tribes; (c) ACHP develop guidance with the Council on Environmental Quality on coordination of National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and National Environmental Policy Act review processes; (d) ACHP and Interior develop guidance to assist other federal agencies in assessing effects of energy projects, “especially wind and solar projects,” on historic properties that comprise large areas, with special emphasis on properties of cultural and religious importance to Indian tribes; and (e) ACHP clarify the distinction between “direct” and “indirect” effects to historic properties and when visual effects may constitute “direct” effects.Continue Reading Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Recommendations Regarding Procedures for Energy Project Development

On March 11, 2010, I posted a blog about the U.S. Department of Energy’s (the "DOE") upcoming Funding Opportunity Announcement ("FOA") for hydrokinetic technology development.  The DOE issued a Notice of Intent announcing the FOA earlier that week.  To access the Notice of Intent, click here, and enter "hydrokinetic" in the search field. 

The DOE was expected

The Nevada State Office of Energy (“NSOE”) announced on March 16, 2010, that is it has issued a Request for Proposals (“RFP”) for renewable energy projects under the $8M+ Revolving Loan Program. Projects must be no more than 60kW in size for solar PV and 20kW maximum for wind turbines and solar thermal. Loan terms

Federal tax benefits, such as the Section 1603 Grant, investment tax credits and production tax credits, continue to be an important driver in financing renewable energy projects.  Several of my colleagues will be discussing these tax benefits and other incentives related to project financing in a webinar hosted by Infocast on Wednesday, March 31, 2010 at 1:00

On March 24, 2010, three federal agencies announced a Memorandum of Understanding for Hydropower (the “MOU”) that impacts developers of traditional hydropower, hydrokinetic, pumped storage, and small-scale hydropower facilities. The Department of Energy (“DOE”), the Department of the Interior (“DOI”), and the Department of the Army, through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) (collectively, the