Order No. 825, on Settlement Intervals and Shortage Pricing in Markets Operated by Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators, was issued yesterday. It brings about a shortage pricing requirement that is expected to encourage greater investment in storage.
Ten days earlier, on June 6, comments were due in the proceeding on Electric Storage Participation in Regions with Organized Wholesale Electric Markets proceeding (Docket No. AD16-20-000), following RTO responses to Staff data requests, submitted mid-May. A common theme among the RTO responses, noted by, e.g., PJM, is that most rules are technology neutral, so any market rule could impact storage, though certain stakeholder processes are more applicable than others (e.g., NYISO’s fuel constrained bidding design). There are storage-specific rules, however, like ISO-NE’s Alternative Technology Regulation Resource categorization for participation in its regulation market, which is echoed in SPP’s Short-term Stored Energy Resource proposal. Another example is found in Docket No. ER16-1735, where CAISO has proposed tariff amendments to allow batteries to self-manage their state of charge and energy limits.
June 6 responsive comments tended to support a technology-neutral approach to rules and definitions of market products (e.g. EEI’s comments), and Tesla called for eschewing market product design based on “operation parameters that were designed for conventional generators” in favor of design based on the needs of the electric system. Tesla also asked whether energy storage customers could accept charging restrictions in lieu of expensive interconnection upgrades.
There is still time to comment on storage interconnection issues raised in the May 13, 2016, technical conference: the comments deadline in Dockets RM16-12-000 and RM15-21-000 has been extended to June 30.
The last panel in FERC’s Review of Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures Technical Conference, held on Friday, May 13, discussed the role of electricity storage in wholesale markets (Docket Nos. RM16-12-000 and RM15-21-000). Panelists pointed out multiple types of values provided by storage, including acting as a transmission asset, though some speakers pointed to the difficulties of holding multiple obligations. Noting that charging storage is treated as load, at least one panelist called for creating a separate storage asset class. While another panelist noted that pumped storage has been used for energy arbitrage for decades, Commissioner LaFleur recognized that storage is a growing field and concluded the session by asking a philosophical question: if you were to build the entire electricity system from scratch, how would you design it?
At the state level, the CPUC issued its Decision Adopting Net Energy Metering Bill Credit Estimation Methodology for Generating Facilities Paired with Small Storage Devices on April 28. It caps NEM credits for solar PV systems paired with small storage devices on a monthly basis based on modeled monthly production.
Following on the heels of other recent acquisitions, Oracle has purchased Opower. Based in Arlington, VA, Opower collects energy usage information and distills it into usable data for utilities.
For additional details, please click here for EnergyWire’s coverage of the acquisition (subscription).
Following the energy storage panel discussion at the November 19, 2015, Commission meeting, FERC staff issued data requests Monday to RTOs/ISOs on electricity storage resources’ participation in capacity, energy and ancillary service markets. (Docket AD16-20-000.) Responses are due May 2; comments on the responses, and on rules that affect storage participation in RTO and ISO markets, are due on May 23. Staff notes that, if potential barriers to participation exist, it “expects to examine … whether any tariff changes are warranted.”
Meanwhile, at the retail level, the California PUC will vote at its April 21 meeting on a proposal for capping net energy metering (NEM) credits at the modeled monthly production estimate for rooftop solar facilities combined with storage devices under 10 kW. The proposed decision is aimed at limiting NEM credits to power produced by customer-sited generating facilities, rather than energy from the grid stored by the customer.
With rooftop solar and others behind the meter generation growing, can price reductions for net metered production and rate design provide balance for utilities? Based on this report, NARUC appears to want to tackle these issues.
Georgia Power issued $325 million of Green Bonds on March 9, in what the company says is the first green bond issuance by a retail electric utility in the United States. Per Georgia Power, the proceeds of the bonds will be used primarily to support renewable energy generation projects, with any remaining proceeds to be used for electric vehicle charging infrastructure or payments under renewable power purchase agreements.
Georgia Power’s press release on the bonds is available here.
Plans by some states to force adoption of wind, solar, and other renewable energy technologies — to the exclusion of coal — may face legal roadblocks from surrounding states. Legislatures in states that include Oregon, Colorado, and Minnesota have adopted statutes restricting or completely prohibiting the importation of electrical power generated by coal-fired plants. Such measure have started litigation battles with neighboring, coal-rich states, such as South Dakota, which complain that the measures are unconstitutional. They argue that these novel statutes violate the Constitution’s Dormant Commerce Clause because of their extra-territorial effect. Both the Eighth and Ninth Circuits are currently considering the issue.
McGuireWoods’ international trade team has obtained before the EU Courts the annulment of the anti-dumping duties imposed by the European Commission against imports into the EU of solar glass made by our client XinYi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd (XinYi PV).
Having found that XinYi PV was not operating under market economy conditions, the European Commission had calculated the company’s dumping margin by comparing its export price with a benchmark calculated based on prices in an ‘analogue’ country (Turkey). This methodology was applied on the ground that XinYi PV was subject to “significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system,” in the form of two tax breaks, and as such was not eligible for Market Economy Treatment (MET). A high anti-dumping duty was imposed as a result.
Reviewing the history of the provision requiring the European Commission to review MET claims by Chinese producers, our team managed to convince the General Court of the European Union that the type of distortions contemplated by the EU anti-dumping laws (“distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system”) are distortions of a type that existed in China in the 1970s and the 1980s.
In a decision of 16 March 2016, the three judges of the Court’s chamber in charge of the case annulled the Commission Regulation entirely, as far as XinYi PV is concerned, because the tax incentives the company received satisfied specific purposes of attracting foreign investment in China and boosting the country’s high-tech sector, similar to state aid provided in several EU member states to satisfy the legitimate objectives of market economies. They could not therefore be described as being distortion carried over from the former state-trading system.
The ruling reversed a well-established practice of the European Commission concerning one of the criteria for assessing whether Chinese companies deserve MET in anti-dumping investigations. The European Commission has two months to appeal this ruling before the Court of Justice of the European Union, on points of law only.
Please click here for Law360’s coverage of the case.
China’s National Energy Administration is reported by Bloomberg BNA to have stated that within the next 5 years there will be an additional 15 to 20 GW of PV solar capacity in the country. This same article notes China’s 2015 installation of 15.1 GW was at least 25% of the world’s amount for that year. See the article here.
McGuireWoods attorneys Mark Kromkowski, Doug Lamb, Jen Stearman and Wisam Naoum recently collaborated for several of them to attend the first annual PACENation Summit in Denver, Colorado from February 29 to March 2.
This first of its kind conference brought together lenders, private equity funds, developers, contractors and governmental representatives working with PACE financing (Property Assessed Clean Energy). PACE is a form of financing providing commercial and residential land owners and developers access to the capital needed for energy-efficient building upgrades, installation of renewable energy generation assets and other sustainable improvements, as permitted by applicable law. The benefit PACE typically provides is the securing of the loan with a special assessment authorized by the applicable state or local jurisdiction.
PACE 101 Presenters (L to R): Mark Pikus of Inland Green Capital, Doug Lamb of McGuireWoods LLP and Abby Johnson of Abacus Property Solutions
McGuireWoods had a strong presence at the conference with Doug Lamb participating on the PACE101 panel with Abby Johnson of Abacus Property Solutions and Mark Pikus of Inland Green Capital. To view their presentation, click here.
To learn more about McGuireWoods’ PACE financing capabilities and PACE programs generally, please click the below links.
About McGuireWoods’ PACE Financing Practice
Pointers for PACE Programs