Posted on February 01, 2012 by Linda R. Evers

Bureau of Land Management Seeks Comments Regarding Solar and Wind Leases

The U.S. Department of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”), which manages over 245 million acres, recently published in the Federal Register an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to give the public background information about the BLM’s interest in establishing an efficient, competitive process for issuing right-of-way (ROW) leases for solar and wind energy development on public lands. BLM believes the existing regulations limit the competitive process to procedures for responding to overlapping right-of-way applications. The BLM is seeking input on how best to offer public lands through a nomination and competitive process instead of just by right-of-way application.

Some of the questions BLM would like addressed in comments are: 

  • How should a competitive process be structured for leasing lands within designated solar and wind energy development leasing areas?
  • Should a competitive leasing process be implemented for public lands outside of designated solar and wind energy development leasing areas? If so, how should such a competitive leasing process be structured?
  • What competitive bidding procedures should the BLM adopt?
  • What is the appropriate term for a competitive solar energy ROW lease?
  • What is the appropriate term for a competitive wind energy ROW lease?
  • How should the bidding process for competitive solar and wind energy ROW leases be structured to ensure receipt of fair market value?
  • Should a standard performance bond be required for competitive solar and wind energy ROW leases and how should the bond amount be determined?  

Because this discussion is specifically focused on the development of the competitive process, comments are not being requested regarding solar and wind energy environmental issues. Comments are due by February 27, 2012.

Posted on May 27, 2011 by Linda R. Evers

Wanted: Green Power Leaders

DOE, EPA and the Center for Resource Solutions (CRS) are co-sponsoring the 2011 Green Power Leadership Awards. The awards serve to recognize the leading actions of organizations, programs and individuals that significantly advance the development of green power sources. Nominations are due June 21, 2011. Self-nominations or nominations on behalf of another party are accepted. There is no limit to the number of nominations that can be submitted per party or under any award category. With eleven different award categories, surely there is a green leader you know.

Award Categories

 picture_052711.jpg

EPA Award Categories

  • Green Power Partner of the Year: Recognizes Partners who distinguish themselves through their purchase, leadership, overall strategy, and impact on the green power market.
  • Green Power Community of the Year: EPA Green Power Communities that distinguish themselves through their green power usage, leadership, citizen engagement, renewable energy strategy, and impact on the green power market.
  • On-site Generation: Recognizes Partners who distinguish themselves using on-site renewable energy applications including, but not limited to, solar photovoltaic (PV) and wind energy projects.

  • Green Power Purchase: Recognizes Partners who distinguish themselves through purchases of green power from a utility green-pricing program, a competitive green marketer, or a renewable energy certificate (REC) supplier.

DOE Award Categories

  •  Utility Green Power Program of the Year: Recognizes utilities that are leaders in designing and implementing a voluntary renewable energy offering. This category is open to all utilities (municipal, rural electric cooperative, or investor-owned utility) offering voluntary renewable energy programs to their customers.
  • Non-Utility Green Power Supplier of the Year: Recognizes non-utility providers (e.g., marketer or other entity) that supply renewable energy to residential or nonresidential consumers who make voluntary purchases of renewable energy.

  • Innovative Green Power Program of the Year: Recognizes organizations that are advancing green power markets through innovative approaches to delivering green power to the marketplace. This category is open to all utilities offering voluntary renewable energy programs to their customers or non-utility providers.

CRS Award Categories

  • Best Marketing Campaign by a Green Power Supplier: To recognize an innovative marketing campaign by green power suppliers. Marketing materials and themes that are inventive and original will be recognized. Materials used across all media (print, radio, TV, Web, and collateral materials) are eligible for entry.
  • Best Green Power Education Outreach Program: To recognize effective and unique outreach programs focusing on education related to green power. This award will honor work that spreads the word about the environmental benefits of green power and efforts to boost public interest in renewable energy.
  • Best Marketing Campaign by a Green Power Purchaser: To recognize an outstanding promotional campaign by a purchaser of green power. This award will honor a company or organization that has purchased or generated green power and has actively promoted their use of green power internally or externally in an innovative or compelling way.
  • Green Power Pioneer: To recognize cutting-edge outreach efforts by an individual for helping to create the green power industry. The pioneer award will acknowledge continuous achievement, vision, and dedications to green power.
Posted on April 19, 2011 by Linda R. Evers

Entergy Takes Fight Over Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant to Federal Court

Entergy Corporation announced that two of its subsidiaries, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC (“ENVY”) and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (“ENOI”) have filed a complaint in U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont seeking a judgment to prevent the state of Vermont from forcing the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant to cease operation on March 21, 2012.

The April 18, 2011 request for declaratory and injunctive relief follows the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (“NRC”) March 21, 2011, renewal of Vermont Yankee’s operating license authorizing the plant’s operation through March 21, 2032. The NRC’s action came after a thorough and exhaustive five-year safety and environmental review of the plant.

The lawsuit is primarily based on the following legal principles:

  • “Atomic Energy Act Preemption. Under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court held in 1983 in a case involving Pacific Gas & Electric that a state has no authority over (1) nuclear power plant licensing and operations or (2) the radiological safety of a nuclear power plant. In violation of these legal principles, Vermont has asserted that it can shut down a federally licensed and operating nuclear power plant and that it can regulate the plant based upon Vermont’s safety concerns.
  • Federal Power Act Preemption and the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Vermont is prohibited from conditioning post-March 2012 operation of the Vermont Yankee Station on the plant’s agreement to provide power to Vermont utilities at preferential wholesale rates. The Federal Power Act preempts any state interference with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s exclusive regulation of rates in the wholesale power market. The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution bars a state from discriminatory regulation of private markets that favors in-state over out-of-state residents.“ Entergy Press Release

This battle between Entergy and the State of Vermont can be traced back to the 2002 Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) that settled the litigation related to Entergy’s purchase of Vermont Yankee from Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation. Paragraph 12 of the MOU will no doubt be analyzed at least a hundred times before this litigation is resolved. Part of it states the parties, “expressly and irrevocably agree[s]: (a) that the Board has jurisdiction under current law to grant or deny approval of operation of the VYNPS beyond March 21, 2012 and (b) to waive any claim each may have that federal law preempts the jurisdiction of the Board to take the actions and impose the conditions agreed upon in this paragraph to renew, amend or extend the ENVY CPG and ENO CPG to allow operation of the VYNPS after March 21, 2012, or to decline to so renew, amend or extend.”

The world has changed since the 2002 agreement and Entergy believes political maneuvers by the state legislature has now voided the provision Entergy agreed to in good faith. For starters, in 2006, a law was passed prohibiting the Public Service Board from issuing a Certificate of Public Good without express approval from the General Assembly. In an open letter to Vermonters, Entergy provides further details. Given the NRC's approval, which addresses the safety issue, Vermonters stand to lose 650 jobs and $16,484,000 in state and local taxes based on a 2008 benefits statement.

Posted on April 13, 2011 by Linda R. Evers

DOE Funding Opportunity for Solar Energy Grid Integration Systems

As part of the Department of Energy's SunShot Initiative, on April 8, 2011, Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced approximately $170 million in available funding over the next three years to support a range of solar photovoltaic (PV) technology development. Close to $40 million will be awarded to support the integration of solar energy onto the electric grid. This project will be known as the Solar Energy Grid Integration Systems (SEGIS) – Advanced Concepts. The funding will promote a smarter grid, supporting projects focused on improved energy storage technologies and better system functionality, high voltage systems that reduce the overall installed costs associated with balance of systems components costs for installations and projects focused on technologies like micro-inverters that are capable of harvesting more energy from the sun.

Additionally, projects funded will demonstrate the feasibility of these new technologies in use and will directly support the objectives of the SunShot Initiative, which has a goal to reduce the total costs, including installation of solar energy systems by 75 percent to roughly $1 per watt.

The figure below demonstrates the possibility.

Thumbnail image for centralizedinverter.jpg

There are two topics that may be submitted under this FOA: 

  • Topic 1: Smart-Grid Functionality
  • Topic 2: Using Power Electronics to Address Balance of System Costs

Preliminary applications are due May 9, 2011.

Posted on March 23, 2011 by Linda R. Evers

FERC says Negawatt = Megawatt

Last week, FERC issued a final rule amending regulations under the Federal Power Act regarding Demand Response Compensation in Organized Wholesale Energy Markets, putting an end to industry speculation over the value of demand response…hopefully. Regional Transmission Organizations (“RTO”) and Independent System Operators (“ISO”) must balance generation and load when clearing the day-ahead and real-time energy markets. Balancing can be accomplished by changes in supply or demand. The Commission found that in the organized wholesale energy market, demand response has the same balancing effect on supply and demand as generation. Therefore, demand response resources should be compensated on an equal basis to generation resources. However, two conditions must be met:

  1. The demand response resource has the capability to provide the service, i.e., the demand response resource must be able to displace a generation resource in a manner that serves the RTO or ISO in balancing supply and demand.
  2. The payment of LMP for the provision of the service by the demand response resource must be cost-effective as determined by the net benefits test.

What is the net benefits test? When is a demand response cost-effective? We will have to wait a little longer to completely answer these questions. RTOs/ISOs are ordered to conduct two studies: By July 22, 2011, RTOs/ISOs must submit an historical analysis of supply curves and revised tariffs. More than a year later by September 21, 2012, a dynamic benefits study must be filed. While time may not be a friend, EnerNOC is having an awesome month at FERC!

Posted on March 09, 2011 by Linda R. Evers

EnerNOC wins Declaratory Judgment in PJM Battle

On February 22, 2011, demand side management (“DSM”) company EnerNOC, filed a Petition for Declaratory Order requesting that FERC find that EnerNOC and other companies may continue to register customers and settle under PJM’s GLD baseline methodology as they have in previous periods without enforcement action being threatened. GLD is one of three baseline methods prescribed in the PJM business rules for measuring event compliance. GLD is achieved by a customer reducing its load by a predetermined amount (i.e., by the Guaranteed Load Drop or GLD). PJM Tariff, Attachment DD, section H.

EnerNOC’s filing was in response to a joint statement issued by PJM and Monitoring Analytics, LLC, PJM’s Independent Market Monitor (“IMM”), that addresses a double counting issue. The Joint Statement says in part:

The following example illustrates the issue:

  1.  5,000 kW PLC (10/11 Delivery Year) – PLC represents how much capacity has been purchased for customer to ensure reliability. Since the customer actively reduces load during the peaks (“peakshaver”) the PLC is significantly lower than normal amount of load for the customer, which is 28,000 kW.
  2. 4,000 kW Nominated Installed Capacity – CSP commitment for quantity of customer load reduction when PJM needs during an emergency. The nominated amount may not exceed the PLC based on current market rules.
  3. Real time estimated load reduction = 25,000 kW measured as the difference between a baseline estimate based on recent days, 28,000 kW, less actual consumption during the event, or 3,000 kW.
  4. 21,000 kW over compliance – CSP resource will be deemed to have met nominated Installed Capacity commitment of 4,000 kW AND also receive an additional 21,000 kW of over compliance credit which may be used to offset resources within the zone than did not perform.

In addition to substantially overstating the demand side savings and overpaying CSPs, this behavior also provides a non-competitive advantage to CSPs in attracting customers. A CSP that is aware of this Program discrepancy may identify large customers with managed PLCs and offer such customers out of market revenues for any load reduction in excess of the nominated amount. This is profitable because once such a customer has been procured, the CSP has the ability to sign up customers in the same zone with no or only limited ability to reduce load when called upon and receive capacity revenues based on the apparent over compliance of the customers with managed PLCs.

In its Order, FERC states that the Commission does not intend to institute any enforcement actions against EnerNOC (or other similarly situated ARCs) for registering customers in good faith and settling under the GLD baseline methodology. Good faith participation in the PJM load management programs, including accurate customer GLD registration and aggregation during emergency events, is permitted. The Commission goes on to warn that this finding here does not exempt from challenge conduct prohibited under section 1c.2 of the Commission’s regulations. 18 C.F.R. § 1c.2 (2010).

Posted on December 22, 2010 by Linda R. Evers

What do gingerbread and the smart grid have in common?

The Department of Energy celebrated the season by unveiling its smart grid neighborhood...gingerbread neighborhood! Homes in this community come adorned with licorice solar panels and smart meters made of fig cookies. Energy efficiency never tasted so good! Thanks DOE for the sweet treat.