Category: Energy Law

DOE Releases 2014-2015 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

On September 29, 2015 the Department of Energy released the 2014-2015 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report, assessing the nation’s offshore wind potential and planned projects through June 30, 2015. The report summarizes domestic and global market developments, technology trends, and economic data with the purpose of aiding U.S. offshore wind industry stakeholders. The Report builds upon previous market reports conducted by the Navigant Consortium between 2012 and 2014, which would track U.S. wind projects that had reached an “advanced stage” of development. The 2015 Market Report not only assesses the progress of offshore wind projects in various stages but it also analyzes projects in a range of countries. To learn more about where the U.S. offshore wind industry stands in comparison to other countries as well as about domestic and global ongoing projects and expected trends, read on!

New Method for Tracking Offshore Wind Projects

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) re-developed its system for classifying and tracking the progress of projects within the development pipeline. The purpose of this new method is to increase connectivity across markets and regulatory regimes as well as to objectively assess the status of projects.

Global Offshore Wind Market on Target to Set Annual Deployment Record in 2015

The increase in offshore wind projects in the pipeline is leading to an upsurge in operational capacity spread out across the world. While 1,069 megawatts (MW) of new wind capacity was installed in 2014, it is expected that 2015 will provide approximately 3,996 MW of wind capacity, making 2015 a record year for offshore wind deployment. The total global installed capacity is now 8,990 MW. At this rate, the global cumulative capacity could exceed 47,000 MW by 2020. Projects are also beginning to spread out beyond Europe. While currently 63% of the projects are located in Europe, 23% are located in Asia, 9% in North America, and 5% spread across the rest of the world.

15,650 MW of U.S. Projects are in Various Stages of Development

There are 21 U.S. offshore wind projects in the development pipeline, which equates to 15,650 MW of potential installed capacity. 13 of these projects have achieved site control or a more advanced phase of development. While most of the offshore wind projects are located in the North Atlantic region, there seem to be feasible offshore resources in the South Atlantic, Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico, and Pacific regions of the U.S.

Deepwater Wind Begins Installation of First U.S. Offshore Wind Project

The Block Island Wind Farm (BIWF) began offshore construction in 2015. Led by Deepwater Wind, clients of ML Strategies, BIWF is expected to be the nation’s first offshore commercial wind project, it also has the potential to lower electricity prices for the residents of Block Island, provide substantial clean energy to the mainland townships of southern Rhode Island as well as produce approximately 300 jobs during its construction phase.

Cost Trends and Learning from Europe

Offshore wind projects are capital-intensive, where utility scale projects (>200 MW) generally require investments of over $1 billion. With projects expected to be built in locations that are located in deeper water, further away from shore, and larger in size, operating costs becomes an even greater concern. The industry is focused on introducing a variety of technological innovations to drive down the cost. The DOE’s Report suggests the U.S. will likely enact a cost structure similar to that of Europe. Part of the reason Europe’s offshore wind industry is so widespread is due to its ability to subsidize projects via investors and its action on the part of policymakers. For instance, policymakers in the UK have set goals to reduce the Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) and are implementing programs designed to lower costs, reduce risk to developers, and minimize the prices required to make projects financially viable as evidenced by their initiation of competitive auctions for subsidies, their classification of zones that emphasize size affordability (choosing projects closer to shore), and their sponsoring early-stage development activities to reduce uncertainty about site conditions. Recent state and federal policy developments including President Obama’s issuance of the Clean Power Plan regulation and the initiation of the BIWF project provide hope for the U.S.’ offshore wind industry.

Overall, even though the EU continues to lead projects in the wind industry, the industry is becoming more geographically dispersed with projects now underway in the U.S. and Asian markets. While the biggest challenge the U.S. offshore industry faces is the current high cost of offshore wind generation, the industry is focused on cutting such costs through leveraging European technology and experience.  It is also the hope that cost reductions of projects in the EU caused by its target to reduce the LCOE for offshore wind projects, the Cost Reduction Monitoring Framework set up by the UK government, and additional actions by policymakers, will translate to the U.S., further strengthening the wind industry in the U.S.

Article By R. Neal Martin & Sarah Litke of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

©1994-2015 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

IRS Releases Favorable Guidance for Individual Investors in Community Solar to Claim Section 25D Tax Credit

The IRS recently issued a Private Letter Ruling (PLR) clarifying that an individual investor in a net-meted community solar project may claim the federal residential Investment Tax Credit (ITC) under Section 25D of the Internal Revenue Code. (A copy of the PLR is available here.) The PLR is also significant because it appears to eliminate a number of contractual requirements that the utility and taxpayer needed to agree to regarding the tracking and ownership of the power produced by the solar project to be eligible for the credit.

Section 25D Tax Credit and Prior IRS Guidance

Just like the Section 48 ITC, the Section 25D ITC permits an owner of solar and other renewable energy property installed before January 1, 2017 to receive a 30% tax credit against federal income taxes. However, in order to claim the credit the property must “generate electricity for use in a dwelling … used as a residence by the taxpayer.” Some tax practitioners interpreted that to meant the credit was limited to solar projects on or adjacent to the taxpayer’s residence. A few years ago, the IRS provided some guidance in Notice 2013-70 (at Q&A Nos. 26 and 27) that taxpayers could in fact claim the credit for off-site solar projects. However, the fact pattern in the Notice described an off-site net-metered project that was owned by the taxpayer, so questions remained whether taxpayers could claim the credit for investments in co-owned community solar projects. Further, the IRS limited the Notice so that it only applied to net-metering arrangements whereby the taxpayer specifically contracts with its local utility to track “the amount of electricity produced by the taxpayer’s solar panels and transmitted to the grid and the amount of electricity used by the taxpayer’s residence and drawn from the grid” as well as stipulate in the contract that the taxpayer holds title to the energy until it is delivered to the taxpayer’s residence. These requirements were problematic because they were often at odds with utility tariffs and state net-metering laws.

The PLR

The PLR is partially redacted but it was provided to a Vermont taxpayer requesting clarification as to whether his investment to purchase 10 solar panels in a 640-panel community solar farm along with a partial ownership in related racking, inverters and wiring is eligible for the Section 25D ITC. (A brief write-up about the project and taxpayer in the local press is available here.) The PLR explains that the project’s entire solar energy output is provided to the taxpayer’s local utility which then calculates a net-metering credit pursuant to its tariff and applies a portion of that credit against the taxpayer’s monthly electric bills. The PLR also explains that the taxpayer’s solar panels are not expected to generate electricity in excess of what the taxpayer will consume at his residence and that the taxpayer along with the other owners of the community solar project are members of an entity that coordinates with the utility the information needed to calculate each person’s allocable share of energy produced by the entire project. Based on these facts, the IRS determined that the taxpayer is entitled to the Section 25D credit. The PLR makes clear the fact that other individuals own solar panels in the project’s solar array does not disqualify the taxpayer from claiming the Section 25D ITC. The PLR did away with the requirement the utility specifically track the exact amount of electricity produced by the taxpayer’s portion of the community solar project and can instead determine the taxpayer’s allocable share of the entire project. The PLR also did away with the requirement the utility contractually agree that the taxpayer retains ownership of the electricity until delivered at his residence. Thus, to recap, under the PLR a taxpayer investing in a community solar project is generally entitled to the Section 25D ITC so long as: (1) the community solar project provides power to the taxpayer’s local utility, (2) the utility provides a credit for the taxpayer’s allocated energy production of the entire project, and (3) the taxpayer’s allocable share is not in excess of its residential needs.

Impact

It is important to note PLRs only apply to the individual taxpayer requesting the ruling and may not be cited or relied upon as precedent by other taxpayers. That said, PLRs provide valuable insight to the IRS’s views on a particular matter, and we expect that this PLR should incentivize investment in community solar and lead to even further expansion in the market. Until now, the market has been primarily driven by tax equity investors claiming the Section 48 ITC and depreciation, however, this PLR opens up opportunities for homeowners who cannot install solar systems for various reasons to invest in community solar.

Article By David B. Weisblat & Kurt R. Rempe of Foley & Lardner LLP
© 2015 Foley & Lardner LLP

Federal District Court sets aside 30-Year Eagle Take Permit

On August 11, 2015, a United States District Court judge halted a years-long effort by the United States Fish & Wildlife Service (“FWS”) to smooth the federal permitting path for wind energy. Shearwater et al. v. Ashe, No. 14-CV-02830-LHK (N. D. Cal.)(August 11, 2015). Specifically, the judge set aside a rule allowing for activities such as wind energy projects to kill bald eagles and golden eagles for up to 30 years.

FWS’s efforts began back in the current administration’s first year with the first ever authorization for either individual or programmatic take permits of bald or golden eagles under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (“BGEPA”) of 1940. (Decision at p. 6) The FWS explained at the time that “the rule limits permit tenure to five years or less because factors may change over a longer period of time such that a take authorized much earlier would later be incompatible with the preservation of the bald eagle or the golden eagle.” (Decision at p. 7, citing 74 Fed. Reg. at 46,856). As explained in the court’s decision, the FWS downplayed anticipated use of the new permits for wind energy projects, stating that “the wind power facility could obtain a programmatic permit only ‘[i]f [advanced conservation practices] can be developed to significantly reduce the take’ resulting from ‘the operation of turbines.’” (Decision at p. 8, citing 74 Fed. Reg. 46,842)(emphasis supplied).

Shortly after adopting its new 5-year rule, however, there was a significant increase in wind energy projects. Decision at p. 9. In response, the FWS developed its Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance, a voluntary guidance, which introduced advanced conservation practices or ACPs for the wind energy sector, including experimental ACPs (i.e., scientifically unproven). Id.

The wind energy industry, although undoubtedly pleased to have secured a programmatic take permit for the accidental or incidental killing of bald and golden eagles, commented on the 5-year permit program, complaining that a 5-year permit was unworkable in that projects were developed for a useful life of twenty to thirty years, and the shorter permit term made financing difficult. As a result of its concern that wind energy projects were not able to get permits as a result of the uncertainty of potential future regulatory changes regarding the killing of eagles, FWS proceeded with efforts to move to a 30-year permit “as soon as possible.” Decision at p. 10. The court notes that “[a]t bottom, FWS issued the Proposed 30-Year Rule ‘[b]ecause the industry has indicated that it desires a longer permit.’” Id.(emphasis supplied).

Internal debate ensued at the FWS regarding the proposed 30-year permit rule. Despite concerns and staff opinions that an EIS would be needed to support the rule, FWS Director Dan Ashe instructed his staff not to conduct further NEPA work, that an NGO lawsuit was unlikely, and to proceed. Id. at p. 13-16. The rule was finalized and effective as of January 8, 2014. A lawsuit followed five months later.

The FWS’s efforts to accommodate wind energy development and facilitate additional permitting through its 5-year and 30-year eagle take permits appear to pre-date the recent Clean Power Plan, which notably incentivizes the development of wind and other non-emitting energy sources. The effort, though, certainly is consistent with the Clean Power Plan and this administration’s encouragement of renewable energy sources.

In its August 11th ruling, the court concluded that FWS failed to comply with NEPA, set aside the 30-year rule and remanded the rule for further consideration by FWS. During the remand of the rule, the 5-year permit should still be available as an option for applicants.

Article By Allyn G. Turner of Steptoe & Johnson PLLC

© Steptoe & Johnson PLLC. All Rights Reserved.

New Report on Renewable Energy as an Airport Revenue Source

The Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) has recently published a guidebook on Renewable Energy as an Airport Revenue Source. The link to the guidebook on the ACRP website is here. David Bannard is a co-author of the guidebook, for which the lead authors were Stephen Barrett and Philip DeVita of HMMH.

solar energy, sustainable, clean power, renewable, source, sun

Airports are exploring non-traditional revenue sources and cost-saving measures. Airports also present a unique and often accommodating environment for siting renewable energy facilities, from solar photovoltaics (PV) to thermal, geothermal, wind, biomass and other sources of renewable energy. Although the guidebook focuses on the financial benefits of renewable energy to airports, it also notes other business and public policy benefits that can accrue from use of renewable energy at airports.

The guidebook includes case summaries of 21 different renewable energy projects at airports across the United States and in Canada and the U.K. Projects summarized include solar PV, wind, solar thermal, biomass, and geothermal technologies. In addition the guidebook examines factors to be considered when evaluating airport renewable energy projects, conducting financial assessments of airport renewable energy and issues relating to implementing airport renewable energy projects. Airports present unique challenges and opportunities for development of renewable energy facilities. The ACRP’s recent publication helps both airport operators and renewable energy providers and financiers understand and address many of these complex issues presented in the airport environment.

ARTICLE BY David Y. Bannard, Jason W. Allen & Jeffery R. Atkin of Foley & Lardner LLP

© 2015 Foley & Lardner LLP

Part Three: An Overview of the Legal Mechanisms for Challenge and Redress by Those Potentially Affected by the Early Closure of the Renewables Obligation

In the first two parts of this series, we considered how the RO operates, possible plans to close the RO in 2016, and the potential impact of those plans upon the onshore wind industry. In this final post, we outline two possible legal avenues for challenge and redress by those who may be affected by the early closure of the RO: through the national courts and under international investment treaties.

windmill vertical

The first possibility is to challenge the Government’s actions through the national courts. This route recently has been used by the solar industry, with mixed results. In 2012, the Supreme Court refused the Government’s appeal to cut solar feed-in-tariffs before the completion of a consultation on the matter. However, in November 2014, the High Court refused an application for judicial review against the Government’s decision to close the RO to ground and building mounted solar photovoltaic capacity above 5 megawatts in 2015 rather than 2017.

Affected investors could also consider commencing international arbitration proceedings under an investment treaty. If successful, an investor could obtain compensation for the loss of their investment as a result of measures introduced by the Government. However, this option would only be available to foreign investors from member States that have an investment treaty in place with the UK, and who have made a qualifying investment in the UK, as defined by the applicable treaty.

A number of European states, including Spain, are currently being sued by foreign investors under the Energy Charter Treaty as a result of changes to national solar subsidies. Marcus Trinick QC, representing Renewables UK, has warned Energy Minister Amber Rudd to “be aware of the dangers of state aid discrimination and look at what is happening in international energy arbitration across Europe. In such a position we could not afford not to fight, especially if action is taken to interfere retrospectively.”

Media reports suggest that, given the extent of industry opposition, DECC is delaying an announcement to allow for further refinement of the proposed measures and their impact, in order to reduce the scope for legal challenges. Marcus Trinick QC has emphasised the need for dialogue between the industry and the Government before action is taken, which could reduce the risk of legal challenges arising.

The message from industry representatives is clear: the early closure of the RO would be a major blow to the future of onshore wind in the UK, which could spark a legal battle with the UK Government. As Maf Smith, deputy chief executive of RenewableUK, has stated, “[t]he industry will fight against any attempts to bring in drastic and unfair changes utilising the full range of options open, including legal means if appropriate.”

Part One: An Overview of the Renewables Obligation and Plans for Its Early Closure

Part Two: How Would the Renewables Obligation’s Early Closure Affect the UK Onshore Wind Industry?

ARTICLE BY William Lowery & Catherine Karia of Covington & Burling LLP

© 2015 Covington & Burling LLP

Part Two: How Would the Renewables Obligation’s Early Closure Affect the UK Onshore Wind Industry?

Part One of this series outlined the RO scheme and the expected announcement to close the RO earlier than anticipated. In this second post, we consider the potential impact of such measures upon the onshore wind industry.

Until the consultation with devolved authorities (Scotland and Northern Ireland) is completed, and detailed proposals are published, the timing and nature of the impact on the industry will be uncertain.

There are currently around 3,000 new turbines with a combined capacity of more than 7 gigawatts seeking planning permission, many of which would have been expecting to secure accreditation under the RO. Bloomberg Energy Finance has estimated that, if the RO closes to new generating capacity in 2016 and onshore wind was not eligible for public subsidy under the Contracts for Difference scheme, less than half the capacity of projects in advanced stages of planning would benefit from subsidies.

The majority of the planned projects are due to be located in Scotland. Given the apparent tension between the Scottish First Minister and Prime Minister over the future of onshore wind (referred to in our first post in this series), there is currently uncertainty as to whether or not the applicable RO in Scotland would close in 2016. This is an important consideration regarding the possible impact of any proposed measures.

It is unclear whether there would be a ‘grace period’ in relation to the changes, which could enable projects that already have planning permission to be included under the RO scheme, and closing the RO for those that do not. Ian Marchant, chairman of wind developer Infinis Energy, said: “The Government’s alleged plans to close down the Renewable Obligation-regime early for onshore wind beggar belief. . . . If the RO is terminated early without reasonable grace periods in place, not a single energy or large scale infrastructure project in the UK will be safe going forward.”

The potential impact of such measures is giving rise to considerable uncertainty and concern over the future of the onshore wind industry. In our final post in this series, we will consider what action could be taken by industry participants who may be affected by the early closure of the RO.

Part One: An Overview of the Renewables Obligation and Plans for Its Early Closure

Part Three: An Overview of the Legal Mechanisms for Challenge and Redress by Those Potentially Affected by the Early Closure of the Renewables Obligation

ARTICLE BY William Lowery & Catherine Karia
Covington & Burling LLP

© 2015 Covington & Burling LLP

The Uncertain Future of the UK Renewables Obligation: A Three-Part Series

In early June 2015, the UK Department for Energy & Climate Change (“DECC”) was expected to announce plans to close the existing subsidy scheme for onshore wind, the Renewables Obligation (“RO”), to new generating capacity a year earlier than expected. This announcement has been delayed amid concerns that it could spark potential legal challenges from the industry and lead to a dispute with the Scottish Government over the future of onshore wind.

In this three-part series, we outline how the RO operates, the potential impact of the early closure of the RO upon the onshore wind industry, and the possible routes for challenge and redress for industry participants who may be affected.

Part One: An Overview of the Renewables Obligation and Plans for Its Early Closure

How does the RO operate?

The RO is designed to support renewable electricity projects in the UK. It obliges UK electricity suppliers to source a proportion of the electricity that they supply to customers from eligible renewable sources. The RO is currently set to close to all new generating capacity of any technology on 31 March 2017.

Ofgem, which administers the scheme, issues Renewable Obligation Certificates (“ROCs”) to electricity generators for the eligible renewable electricity they generate.  The ROCs are sold, either directly or indirectly, to electricity suppliers, who can use the ROCs to demonstrate their compliance with their annual obligations (i.e., “redeem” the ROCs against their RO). If a supplier does not present sufficient ROCs to meet its RO, it must pay a penalty known as the buy-out price. The funds collected by Ofgem from the buy-out price are redistributed on a pro-rata basis to suppliers who redeem ROCs.

What are the proposed changes to the RO?

Before winning the UK general election, the Conservative party pledged that it would end “any new public subsidies” for onshore wind farms on the basis that they “often fail to win public support and are unable by themselves to provide the firm capacity that a stable energy system requires”.

DECC is expected announce that it will close the RO to new generating capacity in April 2016, instead of April 2017. Such a move has been described as “going further” than the Conservative party’s pre-election pledge, by ending an existing subsidy a year earlier than expected. At present, DECC has reportedly declined to confirm the precise nature of the proposals.

The majority Conservative Government disclosed in late May 2015 that it would “be announcing measures to deliver this soon”, after conducting a consultation with the devolved administrations (Scotland and Northern Ireland) over the nature of the changes. However, at the time of writing, an announcement has not yet been made.

The basis for delaying the announcement of these measures appears to be twofold.

First, the Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron, and Scottish First Minister and SNP leader, Nicola Sturgeon, have opposing opinions over the future of onshore wind. While Cameron has stated that “enough is enough” for onshore wind subsidies,  Sturgeon has demanded a veto on the Conservative’s plans. Energy Minster Amber Rudd stated that the consultation with devolved authorities would continue “until we have arrived at a firm policy”, and MPs would have to “bear with us a little longer”.

Second, trade bodies representing the onshore wind industry have vocally opposed the Conservative’s plans, due to their potentially significant effect on the future of onshore wind in the UK. The possible impact on the industry is considered in part two of this series.

Part Two: How Would the Renewables Obligation’s Early Closure Affect the UK Onshore Wind Industry?

Part Three: An Overview of the Legal Mechanisms for Challenge and Redress by Those Potentially Affected by the Early Closure of the Renewables Obligation

ARTICLE BY William Lowery & Catherine Karia of Covington & Burling LLP
© 2015 Covington & Burling LLP

Department of Defense Moves Forward with Stricter Sourcing Requirements for Photovoltaic Devices

Earlier this week, the Department of Defense (“DoD”) issued a proposed rule to revise (and make stricter) the unique sourcing requirements applicable to certain photovoltaic devices that are used in the performance of DoD contracts.  Specifically, unless an exception under the Trade Agreements Act applies or a contractor secures a waiver based on public interest or unreasonable cost, the proposed rule would require photovoltaic devices provided under a covered contract to be both manufactured in the United States and made “substantially all” from components or materials that are also mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States.  DoD contracts covered by the proposed rule involve the provision of photovoltaic devices that are—within the United States—either (i) installed on DoD property or in a DoD facility or (ii) reserved for the DoD’s exclusive use for their full economic life.  Although the proposed rule does not apply to contracts under which the DoD directly acquires photovoltaic devices as end products, it does extend to energy savings performance contracts and power purchase agreements under which the DoD effectively acquires electricity produced by photovoltaic devices that are installed and managed by contractors.  As we have previously discussed, these contracts represent significant opportunities, especially given the DoD’s continued focus on securing sources of renewable energy.

The proposed rule implements new sourcing requirements set forth in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, which overlap with existing requirements established in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 that are contained largely in DFARS 252.225-7017.  Although the new requirements are largely consistent with existing requirements, which make the Buy American Act applicable to photovoltaic devices provided under similar contracts, the new requirements contain key differences that may complicate existing supply chains.  Importantly, the DoD has interpreted the new requirements to foreclose existing exceptions and waivers on which contractors may currently rely to provide photovoltaic devices that are manufactured outside the United States or made from foreign components.  In addition, whereas existing requirements apply only when both the DoD has reserved the exclusive use of a photovoltaic device and the device is to be installed on DoD property or in a DoD facility, the new requirements apply when either condition is satisfied.  As a result, a number of contracts will suddenly be subject to new sourcing requirements under the proposed rule, including contracts under which the DoD does not have an exclusive right to power generated from a photovoltaic device installed on DoD property or in a DoD facility, such as when a contractor is authorized to export power produced by such a device to a commercial grid, as well as contracts which have a term that is less than the full economic life of such a device.

The proposed rule mirrors existing requirements in that the primary effect of the current application of the Buy American Act to covered photovoltaic devices is to require contractors to ensure that the devices are manufactured in the United States.  Although existing requirements also technically require covered photovoltaic devices to be made “substantially all” from components or materials that are mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States, this requirement has been waived under existing regulations, as described below.  The proposed rule also mirrors existing requirements in that it recognizes a significant exception to contractors’ obligation to ensure that covered photovoltaic devices are manufactured in the United States by making the proposed rule’s application subject to the Trade Agreements Act, which provides an exemption from the Buy American Act’s requirements under contracts valued above certain dollar thresholds and requires contractors to provide photovoltaic devices that are “substantially transformed” in an authorized country, such as Canada, the United Kingdom, or Italy.  The application of the “substantial transformation” test under the Trade Agreements Act dramatically increases the number of available sources of supply as it focuses on the point at which a photovoltaic device is transformed into a new and difference article of commerce rather than the origin of its components or its final point of assembly.  Thus, under both the proposed rule and existing requirements, without considering other limitations on imports, a contractor could provide a photovoltaic device that is substantially transformed in an authorized country—such as the United Kingdom—from components manufactured in an otherwise unauthorized country—such as Malaysia.  DoD’s previous clarification that the relevant test focuses on the final place of substantial transformation remains unaffected by the proposed rule.

However, because the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 merely imposes key obligations from the Buy American Act and, unlike existing requirements, does not make the Buy American Act directly applicable to covered contracts, the proposed rule does not recognize other exceptions that currently apply to existing requirements.   In particular, the proposed rule does not recognize the waiver of the Buy American Act for components of commercially available off-the-shelf items, which the DoD has interpreted to apply to components of all photovoltaic devices covered by existing requirements.  Thus, in circumstances in which the Trade Agreements Act does not apply, contractors will be forced to trace the origin of the components of each photovoltaic device to ensure that “substantially all” of the components—which has been interpreted to mean more than fifty percent of component costs—have been manufactured in the United States.

More importantly, as the Trade Agreements Act will likely apply to the majority of covered contracts given the relatively high value of energy savings performance contracts and power purchase agreements, the proposed rule does not recognize general exceptions to the Buy American Act for (i) photovoltaic devices manufactured in other countries with which the United States has reciprocal defense procurement agreements, such as Turkey and Egypt, (ii) other foreign photovoltaic devices that are available at a cost that is less than the cost of domestic photovoltaic devices after a fifty percent adjustment to the foreign devices’ cost, and (iii) photovoltaic devices that are substantially transformed in the United States but potentially assembled in another country or made with foreign components in circumstances in which the Trade Agreements Act applies.  Although the proposed rule provides the DoD with authority to effectively implement these exceptions on a case-by-case basis, contractors will need to be cognizant of the circumstances in which a waiver can be requested and ensure that they actively pursue waivers when required.

The proposed rule will likely have a minimal impact on contractors that source photovoltaic devices through relatively uncomplicated supply chains that involve countries covered by the Trade Agreements Act.  However, contractors that have supply chains that source items from other countries or rely on existing exceptions to the Buy American Act should consider the impact of the proposed rule on their existing practices, especially considering complications that can arise in determining the origin of photovoltaic devices that include wafers, cells, and modules manufactured or assembled in different countries.

ARTICLE BY Scott A. Freling & Tyler Evans of Covington & Burling LLP
© 2015 Covington & Burling LLP

DOE Highlights the Need to Modernize Aging US Energy Infrastructure

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.

The first installment of the Obama Administration’s comprehensive survey and analysis of the US energy sector provides a detailed roadmap for modernizing the energy transmission, storage, and distribution system to make it more secure and resilient to the effects of climate change while taking advantage of recent advances in energy and information technologies.

On April 21, the Obama Administration released the first comprehensive survey and analysis of the United States’ basic energy infrastructure needs for the 21st century. The Quadrennial Energy Review (QER), announced by Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of the Department of Energy (DOE) Ernie Moniz, provides a critical analysis of vulnerabilities in the energy transmission, storage, and distribution systems in the United States. The report also includes policy recommendations to modernize these systems and to make them more secure and resilient to the effects of climate change and more flexible in response to recent advances in energy and information technologies.

The first QER report includes several specific recommendations for investments in energy infrastructure upgrades and new policies designed to promote responsible development of domestic energy sources and to facilitate more timely environmental review and permitting decisions. Priorities outlined in the report will likely shape legislative and administrative actions that could affect markets and shape commercial opportunities in the energy sector. Key recommendations include the following:

Reducing siting and permitting times for energy infrastructure projects

Updating existing energy infrastructure, especially natural gas pipelines, to improve safety and enhance the delivery of abundant domestic supplies of natural gas

Modernizing and standardizing the electric grid

Enhancing the nation’s ability to respond to energy supply emergencies

Background

On January 9, 2014, President Barack Obama directed an interagency Task Force, which included members from all relevant executive departments and agencies, to submit a QER report every four years beginning in 2015.[2] The reports are intended to undertake a rigorous review of existing federal energy infrastructure and policy and to provide an integrated set of recommendations on how best to transform US energy production, delivery, and consumption systems at the local, state, and federal levels. The QER is a key component of the Obama Administration’s Climate Action Plan and is designed to ensure that new federal energy policy meets the nation’s economic, environmental, and energy security goals by providing an “analytically based, clearly articulated, sequenced and integrated actions, and proposed investments over a four-year planning horizon.”[3]

This first installment of the QER recognizes that the US energy landscape is undergoing an unprecedented transformation in the way that we generate, deliver, use, and even think about energy. These fundamental changes present challenges and opportunities to public- and private-sector stakeholders that are addressing, for example, the technical challenges associated with the influx of large quantities of variable energy resources; heightened safety concerns; the political challenges associated with competing energy, environmental, and economic policy goals; and the regulatory challenges posed by the complex, multilayered network of permitting authorities and regulations that govern the US energy system. To accommodate the interests of those most affected by these challenges, the DOE hosted 13 stakeholder engagement meetings across the country to gather public input for the QER.

Opportunities and Challenges

The first QER report focuses on US infrastructure for transmission, storage, and distribution (TS&D) of energy, because these basic components of the energy delivery system will shape supply and end-use patterns and practices for decades. Further, the federal government has recognized that once built, this infrastructure is relatively inflexible, and thus getting it right from the outset will determine whether the government can collectively meet the nation’s energy, national security, and climate change objectives.

The QER report outlines a multiyear roadmap to guide federal actions at the legislative, executive, and administrative levels that relate to energy infrastructure investments, siting and permitting, electricity market integration, workforce development, and heightened grid security.

Improvements to TS&D Infrastructure Siting and Permitting

Although it is important to consider the changing energy mix and how best to integrate new technologies onto the electric grid, for example, this cannot be achieved without improving interagency coordination and transparency for project planning and siting—an issue addressed in the final chapter of the QER report. The cost, time, and complexity of siting and permitting large infrastructure in the federal system will be a serious hurdle to implementing the QER’s infrastructure recommendations. Currently, there are “more than 35 distinct permitting and review responsibilities across more than 18 Federal agencies and bureaus, implemented by staff at headquarters and hundreds of regional and field offices.” To make this system less onerous for developers, the Obama Administration has committed to reducing permitting timelines for major infrastructure projects by half while also improving outcomes for communities and the environment. But, as the QER recognizes, it is still an open question whether, absent additional legislative authority and congressionally appropriated funding, these reforms can be accomplished.

To that end, the QER adopts five key recommendations to assist with the siting, permitting, and review of infrastructure projects: (1) allocate resources to key federal agencies; (2) prioritize meaningful public engagement through consultation with American Indian tribes, coordination with state and local governments, and facilitation of nonfederal partnerships; (3) expand landscape- and watershed-level mitigation and conservation planning; (4) enact statutory authorities to improve coordination across agencies; and (5) adopt Administration proposals to authorize the recovery of costs for review of project applications.

Even if all these recommendations are followed, however, meaningful change may remain elusive unless the Administration sustains cabinet-level leadership and support for such reforms. Further, most of the decisions necessary to permit infrastructure projects are made by state or local agencies or in local field or state offices of federal agencies. To obtain truly transformative changes in energy infrastructure siting and permitting, the key agency staff at the state, local, and regional levels must be personally invested and dedicated to the Administration’s priorities.

Additional QER Recommendations

Other QER chapters identify important opportunities to modernize, expand, replace, or transform the TS&D system so that it better accommodates changes in energy supply, integrates forward-looking information and security technologies, and meets increasing demand for new consumer services. This includes recommendations for smart grid technology and distributed generation, as well as modernization of the strategic petroleum reserve and the safety challenges of methane gas. Key recommendations include the following:

Increase the resilience, reliability, safety, and asset security of the TS&D infrastructure by establishing DOE programs to accelerate natural gas pipeline replacement and maintenance and to provide competitively awarded grants to states that demonstrate innovative approaches to TS&D infrastructure enhancements, with a particular focus on resilience and reliability improvements.

Modernize the electric gridby spearheading DOE coordination with the standards organizations, other federal agencies, industry, state officials, and others to establish standards that enhance connectivity and interoperability on the electric grid.

Address environmental aspects of the TS&D infrastructure by commencing a coordinated effort between the DOE and the Environmental Protection Agency to improve quantification of emissions from natural gas TS&D infrastructure.

Next Steps

Building on the foundation laid by the Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future and the Climate Action Plan, the QER represents another step in the Administration’s efforts to leverage US domestic energy resources while strengthening energy security, reliability, and climate resiliency. Although the QER is only advisory, it recommends several specific legislative actions that would change the landscape for future and ongoing energy sector development, including funding the Interagency Infrastructure Permitting Improvement Center, a pilot version of which is currently housed in the Department of Transportation; restore appropriations to the various federal agencies responsible for infrastructure siting, review, and permitting; and update Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) release authorities to allow the SPR to be used more effectively to prevent serious economic harm to the United States in case of energy supply emergencies. The QER report may also reignite stalled congressional efforts to accelerate natural gas pipeline repair to prevent explosions and accidents, decrease costs to consumers, and reduce methane leaks that contribute substantially to the US “carbon footprint.”

If nothing else, the QER report serves as a stark reminder of how much work there is to do to create the energy infrastructure necessary to support the modern economy, and of the many opportunities for innovative companies to contribute to that process. In light of the complex landscape and shifting federal priorities regarding TS&D infrastructure development, siting and security, companies doing business in this sector will benefit from counsel with the breadth and depth of experience necessary to develop a successful strategy and the acumen and relationships to execute it.

ARTICLE BY

Steve W. Black
Sarah M. Keane
Kelly M. Gorton
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

Troubles for Massachusetts Town’s Wind Turbine

Beveridge & Diamond PC environmental and energy law firm

In the long-running dispute between the Town of Falmouth and the neighbors to the Town’s wind turbine that powers the municipal wastewater treatment facility (WWTF), score one for the neighbors. The Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed the decision of Barnstable Superior Court Justice Robert C. Rufo in Drummey v. Town of Falmouth, 87 Mass. App. Ct. 127 (2015), finding that the Town was required to obtain a special permit from the Falmouth Zoning Board of Appeals to install the wind turbine on Town land.

Claiming harm from sound pressures and noise from the turbine’s operations, the plaintiffs first sought the building commissioner’s enforcement of the Zoning Bylaw. They alleged that the town violated the Bylaw by failing to secure a special permit for the turbine’s construction and maintenance. The building commissioner denied their request. The plaintiffs appealed to the ZBA and the Superior Court, both of which affirmed the building commissioner’s ruling.

Notwithstanding that the Bylaw provides that a petitioner may apply for a special permit to construct a windmill, the Superior Court found that this provision did not “apply in the limited circumstance where the Town itself desires to construct and operate a windmill for municipal purposes in a district where all such purposes are permitted as of right.” The Court explained that the turbine was a “municipal purpose” that fell within the enumerated community service uses permitted as of right in the Bylaw, which includes: “All municipal purposes, including the administration of government, parks, playgrounds, recreation buildings, Town forests, watershed, water towers and reservoirs, beaches, fire and police stations and armories.” Although turbines were not expressly included in the list of municipal purposes, the Superior Court found the list to be illustrative and not exclusive.

On appeal, the Appeals Court first recited the rule of law that the interpretation of a town’s bylaw raises a question of law. As such, the Court “reviews the judge’s… interpretations of zoning bylaws, de novo[anew or afresh].” It remarked that, as in other districts of the Bylaw, windmills were specifically designated in the public use district as an accessory use by special permit. Therefore, it logically followed that windmills could not have been intended to fall within the list of more general municipal uses allowed as of right. While the Superior Court’s understanding of the non-exclusive nature of the list was accurate, the Appeals Court found that that characterization of the list “did not adequately consider the weight that must be given a specific by-law provision that has been drafted to take into account the public welfare.” Specifically, the Bylaw included “a comprehensive scheme” for wind turbines including controls on their placement and impact on the town. In effect, the lower court erroneously reviewed the key Bylaw provision in isolation, not in context as the law requires.

The Court vacated the judgments of the Superior Court and remanded the case to the Superior Court for entry of new judgments consistent with its opinion. The Town has filed an application for further appellate review, which is pending before the Supreme Judicial Court.

ARTICLE BY

Brian C. Levey
Beveridge & Diamond PC