Public Policy – Page 8 – Global Power Law & Policy

Illinois District Court Rejects Federal Preemption Challenges to State Zero-Emissions Credit Program

Jul 24 2017

By Molly Suda, Donald A. Kaplan, William M. Keyser, John L. Longstreth, and Elizabeth P. Trinkle

UPDATE: On July 25, 2017, the New York court issued its decision, which also upheld New York’s ZEC program. We will have more analysis of that decision in a later post.

On July 14, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued an opinion dismissing challenges to the state of Illinois’ zero-emissions credit (“ZEC”) program. Illinois’ ZECs are tradable credits created by statute that, in the court’s words, put “money in the coffers of Exelon from the sale of ZECs that will give it a benefit when pricing its energy in the wholesale market relative to competing energy producers that do not receive ZEC payments.” The ZECs represent the zero-emissions attributes of nuclear power and would provide additional revenue for nuclear power plants, whose owners state they are unable to cover their costs in the current low-price wholesale energy and capacity markets.

In its decision in the companion cases Village of Old Mill Creek v. Star and Electric Power Supply Association v. Star upholding the ZEC program, the court rejected arguments that Illinois’ program is preempted by the Federal Power Act and further concluded that ZECs do not discriminate under the dormant commerce or equal protection clauses. If affirmed on appeal, the opinion could have important implications for the future of other states’ programs aimed at supporting at-risk nuclear power plants and may influence the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (“FERC”) outlook on its role in integrating state programs and policies into wholesale energy markets.

To read the full alert on K&L Gates HUB, click here.

United States Announces Intent to Withdraw From Paris Climate Accord: What is the Real Impact?

Jun 19 2017

By William M. Keyser, Laurie B. Purpuro, Cliff L. Rothenstein, Alyssa A. Moir, and Christina A. Elles

On June 1, President Trump declared that he would withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Accord (the “Agreement”). His announcement, though not unexpected, raises a host of questions on several legal, technical, and policy fronts. And while the news and commentary on President Trump’s position continues to change, three fundamental questions are worth asking:

Energy Department Seeks Input on Regulatory Reform

Jun 12 2017

By Tim L. Peckinpaugh, David L. Wochner, David L. Benson and Kathleen L. Nicholas

On May 30, the Department of Energy (“DOE”) published a request for information (“RFI”) soliciting guidance on potential regulations that should be modified or repealed to reduce burdens and costs. This is part of a government-wide initiative to overhaul the federal government’s regulatory regime, set in motion with an executive order signed by President Trump just after his inauguration. This RFI also comes after President Trump signed an executive order, “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth,” which seeks to review all regulatory actions that hamper the domestic production of fossil fuels and nuclear energy.

To read the full alert on K&L Gates HUB, click here.

Senate Finance Committee Releases New technology-neutral Energy Credits Legislation

May 05 2017

By Elizabeth C. Crouse and Mary Burke Baker

On Thursday, Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, released new technology-neutral energy credits legislation that would revolutionize the existing Investment Tax Credit and Production Tax Credit provisions. The legislation features a graduated credit rate schedule based on the level of carbon emissions as compared to a carbon emissions baseline (keyed to “current” national average carbon emissions) that would be available without regard to technology or energy input. In a move that is consistent with cutting-edge energy innovations and responsive to the needs and concerns of many large power consumers and utilities, the credits would expressly be available for energy storage and carbon capture technology installed at power plants placed in service before January 1, 2019. Energy storage would include hydroelectric pumped storage, thermal storage, fuel cells, and–crucially–batteries, among others. Under Wyden’s legislation, the maximum credit rates would be 30% for the ITC and, for the PTC, 2.3 cents per kilowatt hour of electricity produced. In addition, the PATH Act “sunset” provisions on the PTC and ITC would be repealed and the proposal would temporarily extend other energy provisions during a transition period.

The proposed legislation would also create a technology-neutral clean fuel production credit, homeowner versions of the ITC, performance-based incentives for energy efficiency improvements to residential and commercial buildings, and clean energy bonds generally based on existing government bonds frameworks.

Although there are differences of opinion in the Congress on whether the tax code should offer energy incentives, Sen. Wyden’s proposal could come into play this year either as part of tax reform or the infrastructure debate. Senate Democrats recently released a blueprint for infrastructure that includes technology neutral energy reform.

Members of the K&L Gates LLP policy group are closely monitoring this and other tax and energy regulatory reform matters.

Executive Order Directs Federal Agencies to Reconsider Federal Initiatives Focused on Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change

Apr 03 2017

By William J. Moltz, David J. Raphael, Sandra E. Safro, Ankur K. Tohan, Michael L. O’Neill

President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order on March 28, 2017, entitled “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth” (“Order”), which is designed to prompt reconsideration, and in some cases revocation, of the Obama Administration’s actions to address greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. The Order directs several federal agencies to review, and possibly withdraw, specific policy initiatives like the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) Clean Power Plan rulemaking and the U.S. Department of the Interior (“Interior”) 2015 and 2016 rules on oil and gas production on federal lands. In addition, the Order directs the U.S. Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) to rescind its 2016 final guidance document regarding the consideration of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change impacts in environmental reviews performed under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). More broadly, the Order also directs all federal agencies to review “all agency actions” that “potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources.”

As discussed in greater detail below, the Order may have far-reaching implications for U.S. policy on energy production, greenhouse gas regulation, and climate change that could have spillover impacts for energy infrastructure development. A vigorous debate is certain to follow with interested stakeholders evaluating strategic options including notice and comment rulemaking, litigation, and legislative advocacy.

To read the full alert on K&L Gates HUB, click here.

Oregon Lawmakers Consider Carbon Pricing Legislation

Mar 30 2017

By Ankur K. Tohan, Alyssa A. Moir, Buck B. Endemann, Christina A. Elles

This is the second installment in the West Coast Carbon Policy Update — Three Part Series, which will examine carbon policies along the West Coast in Washington, Oregon, and California.

On March 28, 2017 President Trump signed an executive order instructing the Environmental Protection Agency to withdraw and rewrite the Clean Power Plan, but lawmakers in Oregon are pushing ahead with statewide efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions. Oregon lawmakers are currently considering several carbon pricing bills — including a cap-and-trade program, a carbon tax, a cap-and-fee program, and a GHG emission rule issued by the state’s environmental agency — that will add a pricing component to the state’s GHG goals.

To read the full alert on K&L Gates HUB, click here.

FERC to Discuss Interaction Between Competitive Wholesale Energy Markets and State Energy Policies

Mar 09 2017

By Molly Suda and William M. Keyser

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) has scheduled a technical conference on May 1 and 2 to discuss and obtain input on the interaction between competitive wholesale markets and state energy policies. In recent years, several states that are part of organized wholesale energy markets have adopted legislation or policies to support or promote certain generation resources or resource types. As a result of these state policy initiatives, FERC has been forced to grapple with questions about state versus federal jurisdiction and the effect of the state policies on competition and prices in the organized wholesale energy markets. The technical conference offers an open forum to discuss potential solutions and find ways to reconcile states’ interests with interests in preserving the benefits of regional competitive wholesale markets. Read More

CAISO Urges Flexibility and Coordination to Advance Distributed Energy Resource Aggregations at FERC

Feb 20 2017

By Buck B. Endemann, William M. Keyser, and Molly Suda

Introduction

As previously covered by this blog, on November 17, 2016, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NOPR”) to remove barriers so that electric storage resources and distributed energy resource aggregations can better participate in the capacity, energy, and ancillary services markets operated by Regional Transmission organizations (“RTOs”) and independent system operators (“ISOs”). This post will focus on the response to those proposals submitted by the California Independent System Operator (“CAISO”), particularly as they relate to distributed energy resource aggregations.

FERC defines distributed energy resource aggregators as entities that aggregate one or more distributed energy resources, such as electric storage resources, distributed generation, thermal storage, and electric vehicles (collectively, “DERs”), and offer those resources into wholesale markets. The NOPR called for comments on what types of market rules should be established to provide DERs with more certainty and to remove barriers to entry.

The California Independent System Operator (“CAISO”) is one of the largest ISOs in the nation, responsible for managing about 80 percent of California’s electricity flow. Having recently received FERC approval of its own DER aggregation participation model, CAISO has a head start on incorporating DER aggregations into its energy and ancillary services markets.[1] In fact, in a statement issued concurrently with the NOPR, Acting FERC Chairman Cheryl LaFleur specifically identified CAISO’s DER aggregation rules as a model to study and evaluate any lessons learned from CAISO’s implementation of those rules.

CAISO submitted its comments on FERC’s proposal on February 13, 2017. With its recent experience in developing a DER program, CAISO’s comments offer insights that may guide FERC as it works toward a final rule.[2] Overall, CAISO’s comments strongly support incorporating DER aggregations into the nation’s energy and ancillary services markets, so long as each RTO/ISO is given the flexibility to develop participation models that reflect regional and regulatory preferences in generation, transmission, and distribution assets. CAISO also predicts that the roles and responsibilities of transmission and distribution operators will experience significant change in the coming years, and that FERC, electric grid operators, and market participants can best encourage innovation and resiliency by avoiding any overly-prescriptive models that stifle DER participation.[3]

FERC Issues Order to Delegate Further Authority to Staff in Absence of Quorum

Feb 06 2017

By Sandra Safro, William Keyser, and Molly Suda

On February 3, 2017, FERC issued an Order Delegating Further Authority to Staff in Absence of Quorum, which provides for further delegations to enable FERC to continue to carry out various obligations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), Federal Power Act (FPA), and Interstate Commerce Act (ICA). In pertinent part, the delegation order states the following:

Delegations Generally.
- The delegations of authority are effective during the Delegation Period, which starts on February 4, 2017, and continues until 14 days after the date on which a quorum is reestablished.
- Delegations are made to the relevant office director, who may further delegate to his or her designee.
Pre-Existing Delegations. All pre-existing delegations of authority by the Commission to its staff remain effective, including the Secretary’s authority to toll the time for action on rehearing requests (also referred to as tolling orders)and the authority of the Director of Office of Energy Market Regulation (OEMR) authority to accept uncontested tariff or rate schedules that would result in rate increases.
Continuation of Activities Related to Safety. Limited Commission operations can continue, including inspecting and responding to incidents at LNG facilities and jurisdictional hydropower projects, and other activities involving the safety of human life or protection of property.
Further Delegations Regarding Rate Proceedings.
- With respect to contested rate and other filings under Section 4 of the NGA, Section 205 of the FPA, and Section 6(3) of the ICA, the Director of OEMR shall have authority to:
  - Accept and suspend filings and make them effective, subject to refund and further Commission order; or
  - Accept and suspend filings and make them effective, subject to refund, and to set them for hearing or settlement judge procedures.
- With respect to initial rates or rate decreases under Section 205 of the FPA where suspension and refund protection is not available, Commission Staff may institute a proceeding to protect customer interests pursuant to Section 206 of the FPA.
- The Director of OEMR may accept uncontested settlements.
Further Delegation Regarding Uncontested Requests for Waivers. The Director of OEMR may take appropriate action on uncontested filings seeking waivers of the terms and conditions of tariffs, rate schedules, and service agreements (including requests for waiver of capacity release and capacity market rules) made under Section 4 of the NGA, Section 205 of the FPA, and Section 6(3) of the ICA.
Further Delegation Regarding Extensions of Time. Commission Staff may extend the time for action on matters where extension is permitted by statute, including extensions of a 180-day period for applications for prior approval under Section 203 of the FPA.

FERC’s order is intended to prevent filings made to the Commission from going into effect by operation of law after a certain period of time as defined by statute. However, it also creates uncertainty, because any contested rate filings approved by Staff and allowed to go into effect will be subject to refund and further review by a Commission having up to three new members once a quorum is reached. It also may result in more filings being set for hearing and settlement judge proceedings, including potentially all initial rate filings that are contested.

FERC Issues Policy Statement on Cost Recovery for Electric Storage Resources, But the Devil Will Be in the “Implementation Details”

Jan 24 2017

By Molly K. Suda, William H. Holmes, and Buck B. Endemann

Last week, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC” or the “Commission”) issued a Policy Statement to provide guidance for electric storage resource owners and operators that may seek to receive cost-based rate recovery for certain services, as well as market-based revenues for other services.[1] The Policy Statement explains that an electric storage resource may provide transmission or grid support services at a cost-based rate, while also participating in the wholesale energy markets administered by a regional transmission organization (“RTO”) or independent system operator (“ISO”) and earning market-based revenues. As described below, the Policy Statement eliminates some uncertainty created by prior FERC precedent, which limited electric storage resources’ ability simultaneously to provide transmission or grid support services at cost-based rates and also participate in the wholesale markets.

However, the path forward for electric storage resources to “stack” payment streams and recover costs through both cost-based and market-based rates will not be without obstacles. The Policy Statement acknowledges that “implementation details” will need to be addressed. Additionally, FERC Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur dissented, disagreeing with the Policy Statement’s broad statements that electric storage resources’ ability to recovery costs through both cost-based and market-based rates will not adversely impact other market competitors. Commissioner LaFleur also disagreed with the decision to address the issue of electric storage resources’ ability to recover costs through both cost-based and market-based rates in a proceeding separate from the pending Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on electric storage’s participation in RTO/ISO markets (“Electric Storage NOPR”).[2] Thus, while the Policy Statement removes some uncertainty, electric storage resources will likely still have to grapple with cost recovery, competition, and other issues on a case-by-case basis.

This alert provides background on the Commission’s prior precedent related to electric storage resources and cost-based recovery, as well as the Commission’s recent efforts in several open proceedings to address potential barriers to the further development of electric storage resources. Provided below is a summary of the Commission’s Policy Statement, as well as an overview of open questions and unresolved issues that are intertwined with issues presented in the Commission’s Electric Storage NOPR and other recent orders.

Catagory:Public Policy