Category: Environmental Law

Letters Of Intent For On-Site Solar Energy Transactions

Sills-Cummis-Gross-607x84

An increasing number of retail, office, industrial and warehouse/distribution property owners are utilizing electricity generated by on-site photovoltaic (also referred to as “pv” or “solar”) systems to meet a portion of their properties’ electrical energy needs. The pv systems can be located on the roofs of buildings, in parking fields, on open areas of the property or on two or more of these locations.

One of the most common methods that property owners are using to obtain such on-site solar-generated electricity is to enter into a power purchase agreement, often referred to as a “PPA,” with a solar developer, frequently referred to as a “provider.” In a PPA, the property owner, often called a “host,” provides leasehold or license rights on its property to the provider for the installation and operation of the pv system, and the provider sells the electricity that the pv system generates to the host. The provider generally owns all of the governmental and utility company incentives provided in connection with the pv system, and the host usually owns the net metering rights for the pv system.

However, the negotiation of a PPA frequently takes more time and is more complex than the economic benefits of the PPA to the provider and the host warrant. One of the major reasons for this problem is that the typical initial letter of intent (“LOI”) for a PPA transaction frequently fails to address the issues that often cause the most difficulty when the host and provider attempt to negotiate and finalize the PPA itself. The balance of this article sets forth several of these additional issues that should be included in a PPA LOI and explores methods of ameliorating the conflicts they create between the provider and the host.

Electricity Rate Cap

Many LOIs include a cap on the rate that the provider will charge the host for the electricity that the pv system generates. The cap usually provides that the rate that the provider charges to the host cannot exceed the rate that that host’s regulated local electrical utility, referred to in this article as the “Utility,” or the host’s third-party power supplier, charges the host for electricity at the property in question.

However, in setting this cap, it is important to remember that the Utility charges the host, whether or not the host also has a third-party power supplier, for many items other than the electricity itself, some of which are based on electricity consumption and some of which are static. Accordingly, when the host and provider agree on the rate cap in the LOI, they should clearly state what portions of the Utility and third-party power provider rate are included in determining the cap.

Interconnection Agreement

In order to operate a pv system and to obtain net metering for the excess electricity that the pv system generates, the Utility requires that its customer, usually the host, sign an interconnection agreement. The terms of the interconnection agreement are set forth in the Utility’s tariff and are, hence, non-negotiable. While the host must sign the interconnection agreement, most of the undertakings in the interconnection agreement are the responsibility of the provider under the PPA. Accordingly, the LOI should provide that the host will sign the interconnection agreement and that each party will agree to perform its obligations under the interconnection agreement, while indemnifying the other party for its failure to do so.

Purchase Of Excess Electricity

Pv systems by their nature cannot provide all of a property’s electricity needs all of the time. Additionally, in most jurisdictions, either the Utility or a government regulator limits the size of the pv system, so that it will not generate more than a maximum percentage (for example, 80 percent) of a property’s electricity usage. However, notwithstanding these circumstances, there are times when the pv system will generate more electricity than the property is using, causing the Utility meter to run backwards, referred to as “net metering.” In many jurisdictions, usually by means of the interconnection agreement, the Utility will pay the host or credit the host’s future electric bills for the amount of this excess electricity.

For this reason, most PPAs provide that the host will purchase all of the electricity the pv system generates and own all the net-metering credits. However, before entering into a PPA, a host should review its third-party electricity supply contracts to make sure that they do not contain prohibitions against pv or other on-site systems or do not contain minimum usage requirements. The PPA and LOI should

also address the situation where the property becomes vacant, because most net-metering programs have limitations on how much excess electricity the Utility has to buy.

Electricity Production Guaranty

Many hosts assume, in their financial planning for a property’s operation, that the pv system will generate a minimum amount of electricity in each calendar year. Accordingly, they request a production guaranty. If the host wants a production guaranty, this should be set forth in the LOI. Additionally, the adjustments to the guaranty for weather, system shutdowns and force majeure events should be spelled out.

Taxes

Many jurisdictions provide limited sales and use tax exemptions on the sale of electricity from on-site pv systems and exclusions from increases in real property taxes by reason of their location on a property. However, other jurisdictions do not provide such exemptions or the exemptions are very narrow and do not apply to every situation. Accordingly, the host and provider should determine whether or not a tax exemption exists or applies before they enter into a LOI. If the exemption is available, the LOI should set forth which party is responsible for obtaining it. If no exemption applies, the LOI should set forth which party is responsible for the particular tax.

SNDAs

Most properties are subject to mortgage secured debt. Under the Uniform Commercial Code, as adopted in most jurisdictions, the PPA can provide that the pv system is the personal property of the provider, not a fixture, and thus not subject to the lien of the mortgage on the property. However, most loan and security agreements for most mortgages also provide for security interests in the personal property located at the property. The language in these documents is often extremely broad. Additionally, the provider needs access rights over the property to install and repair the pv system and rights to place the pv system on the property. PPAs generally provide these rights as leasehold or license rights. Finally, many mortgages require mort- gagee consent for the installation of pv systems on the property.

Accordingly, the LOI should set forth whether or not, and at whose cost, the host will obtain subordination, non-disturbance, attornment and lien waiver agreements (“SNDAs”) from all current and future holders of mortgages on the property. Such a provision can provide for the sharing of the cost to obtain the SNDA between provider and host, with a waiver or cancellation option if the cost exceeds a certain amount.

Non-interference With PV System And Property Access

Many retail tenants, in particular, have consent rights over the roofs of their stores, rights to install HVAC systems and antennas on their roofs and exclusive rights over certain parking lots and common areas. The provider cannot allow its pv system to be moved, damaged or shaded. Additionally, the provider needs laydown, storage and parking areas for its installation, repair and maintenance of the pv system. Accordingly, the LOI should address tenant consents and lease and OEA amendments, if required, in order to insure non-interference with the pv system and necessary provider access. The LOI should also address which party is responsible for obtaining the consents and access and non-interference rights and at whose cost. Additionally, the LOI can provide for a non-penalty termination of the PPA if these consents and rights cannot be obtained.

Temporary PV System Relocation, Removal Or Shutdown Most PPAs have a term of 15 to 20 years. During such a time period, roofs often have to be repaired and parking lots resurfaced. The cost to relocate or temporarily remove and reinstall a pv system is significant. Additionally, the cost to the provider in lost electricity revenue and more importantly lost incentive revenue can be substantial. Accordingly, the LOI should set forth which party will bear these costs or how they will be shared. Cost sharing may shift later in the term of the PPA because the provider’s loss of incentive revenues will likely be less and the need for repairs will be more likely to occur.

PV System Purchase Options

If the PPA is going to provide for a purchase option, the LOI should address at what times in the term the host can exercise its option and set forth the method for determining the fair market value of the pv system at the time of the exercise of the option, including what factors will be used in determining the value of the pv system.

Assignment

The LOI should state when, under what terms and to whom the parties can assign their rights under the PPA and whether a party and, if applicable, its guarantor, remains obligated under the PPA after an assignment.

Limitations On Liability

The LOI should specify whether the parties will be responsible for consequential damages, whether there will be absolute limitations on all damages, including indemnification obligations, and the dollar amount of these limitations.

Parental Guaranties

Most pv systems are owned through a single-purpose entity whose only asset is the pv system, and most shopping centers are owned by single-asset, single-purpose entities. Accordingly, the provider and the host should determine in the LOI if they are going to provide parental guaranties to each other and under what terms.

Conclusion

While the list of issues this article covers is by no means exhaustive, the author hopes that it will be helpful in streamlining the negotiation of PPAs.

This article appeared in the March 2014 issue of The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Sills Cummis & Gross P.C. Copyright © 2014 Sills Cummis & Gross P.C. All rights reserved.

Article by:

Kevin J. Moore

Of:

Sills Cummis & Gross P.C.

2nd Conflict Minerals Reporting and Supply Chain Transparency – June 23-25, Chicago, IL

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the 2nd Conflict Minerals Reporting and Supply Chain Transparency Conference, June 24-25, 2014, presented by Marcus Evans.Conflict-Minerals-250-x-250

Click here to register.

Where

Chicago, IL

When

June 24-25, 2014

What

The 2nd Sustaining Conflict Minerals Compliance Conference will break down each SEC filing requirement as well as examine direct filing examples from specific companies. Discussions will tackle key issues including refining conflict minerals teams to create a more successful conflict minerals management program, managing and developing consistent communication within the supply chain, and building an IT program that will continue to secure data from the various levels of the supply chain.

This conference will allow organizations to benchmark their conflict minerals management program against their peers to more efficiently meet SEC expectations and amend their program for future filings. Seating is limited to maintain and intimate educational environment that will cultivate the knowledge and experience of all participants.

Key Topics
  • Scrutinize the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) requirements and evaluate external resources for a more efficient conflict minerals rule with Newport News Shipbuilding, Huntington Ingalls Industries
  • Engineer a sustainable conflict minerals program for future filings with Alcatel-Lucent
  • Integrate filings and best practices from the first year of reporting with BlackBerry
  • Maintain a strong rapport with all tiers of your supply chain to increase transparency with KEMET
  • Obtain complete responses moving throughout the supply chain with Global Advanced Metals

Register today!

Caveat Emptor: Due Diligence of the United Kingdom Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Assets

Andrews Kurth

 

This article explores the due diligence of United Kingdom continental shelf (“UKCS”) oil and gas assets from a buyer’s perspective. Good management, organisation, communication, clarity and common sense are the key to a successful due diligence exercise. The scope of the due diligence review will depend on a number of factors, including whether the buyer has any knowledge of or a current participating interest in the target asset, whether the asset is in the exploration or production phase or is an operated asset, the size of the deal and any cost and time restraints. Whether a buyer requires a red flag due diligence report or a comprehensive report on the asset, care must be taken to ensure that no stone is left unturned during the course of the review. Failure to do so may result in undesirable consequences.

Preparation

Before embarking on an extensive review of the documentation provided by the seller, the buyer should seek to determine the scope of the due diligence exercise at the outset to prevent it from becoming a moving target which may lead to inefficiencies and unexpected cost implications. Sometimes the prospective buyer will investigate the asset with a view to purchase. More often than not, due diligence of the asset will amount to no more than a tyre-kicking exercise. The intention of the prospective buyer will therefore ultimately colour the scope of the due diligence undertaken.

As well as considering the information memorandum prepared by the seller (if any), it is also useful for the buyer to geographically place the asset by consulting a map of theUKCS licence interests and blocks. Such preparations will enable the buyer to better piece together the documentation provided in respect of the target asset and request any missing information from the seller.

Data Room

Whether the seller furnishes the buyer with a virtual or a physical data room, the buyer must keep an accurate record of the documents that have been disclosed. If a virtual data room is employed, the buyer must ensure that it is notified when new documents have been provided and, if documents are supplied in soft or hard copy outside of the virtual data room arrangement, details should be kept of these by the buyer as well. This is all essential because all disclosure will later form part of the sale and purchase arrangements between the buyer and seller.

Data rooms for asset disposals typically include legal, financial, technical, commercial and operational documents. One of the first tasks that a buyer should undertake is to review the data room index, if one has been provided, and allocate documents to the various specialists for review; careful coordination is paramount to ensure that all bases are covered. If no index has been supplied, one should be requested from the seller and, if such index is not forthcoming, it is recommended that the buyer compiles an index so that it can keep a running record.

Depending on the scale of the exercise and number of people employed to assist, the coordinator of the due diligence exercise should ensure that team members effectively communicate with each other. Typically, virtual data rooms limit access rights to a small pool of permitted entrants, so responsibilities should be allocated between professionals at an early stage. Data rooms are often poorly organised so it is important that the coordinator is made aware of documents which have been filed out of place in order for them to be allocated to the correct team members for review. This way, no document will be overlooked.

Title Verification

A UKCS asset is typically represented by a licence, a joint study and bidding agreement (“JSBA”) or joint operating agreement (“JOA”) and, in some cases, a working interest assignment. Assets may also be subject to a unitisation and unit operating agreement (“UUOA”), transportation, processing and petroleum sales agreements and other material project contracts.

One of the key objectives of the buyer’s due diligence is to determine whether the seller actually holds an interest in the asset. Often an asset will be described inconsistently in the documentation by which it is governed and may not correspond accurately with the information held by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (“DECC”). This is especially true of those assets historically operated under a JOA which has been subsequently sub-divided to apply to multiple blocks within a licence, or those assets with an alias which has stuck over the passage of time. It is therefore very important that both parties are agreed on the correct identity of the asset being bought and sold from the outset.

Similarly, infrastructure assets are frequently referred to under a variety of guises and are often complex in nature. For instance, the Sullom Voe Terminal, which is one of the largest oil terminals in Europe, handles production from more than twelve oil fields in the east Shetland Basin and approximately twenty different companies presently hold interests in the terminal. This, combined with the fact that it has been 35 years since first oil arrived at the Sullom Voe Terminal, means that tracing title to this infrastructure asset is likely to be a knotty and time-consuming exercise.

Although DECC holds data on all offshore licences, this should by no means act as a substitute for mechanically tracing title to an asset, however tempting this may be. Many UKCS assets date back over 40 years and so tracing title back to their inception can be a lengthy process. The buyer must therefore decide whether it wants to undertake or commission such work, or whether it can take comfort from tracing title back through only a limited number of transfers and seek a full title guarantee from the seller. Extensive title representations and warranties may reduce the scope of title due diligence but often they will be qualified by the information, or lack thereof, disclosed to the buyer in the data room and so are not a reliable remedy if there is a title defect.

There may be some merit in tracing title of each material contract back to the date on which it became effective in order to determine whether or not it is relevant to the transaction. Sometimes contracts in the data room will have been entered into by parties which are neither the seller nor its predecessors in title and, in other cases, may not be relevant to the target asset at all. In these circumstances, and depending on the purchaser’s view of the asset, it may be more efficient to determine which contracts are required to be assigned or novated at the due diligence stage rather than when the parties are seeking to complete the deal.

An additional complication is that a company which was originally the holder of an interest in an asset may have changed its name since it was first registered at Companies House. The buyer should therefore consult the change of name register held by Companies House at the start of the due diligence exercise and take note of any previous names. This will enable the buyer to piece together information relating to the asset more easily.

Title to assets, excluding infrastructure, is evidenced by the relevant licence, JSBA or JOA and, if applicable, UUOA. Typically, a transfer of a participating interest will be evidenced by a JSBA or JOA deed of novation, and if applicable a UUOA deed of novation, which will provide for the transfer of the relevant participating interest from the seller to the buyer. Conversely, not every transfer of a participating interest will be evidenced by a licence assignment. An example of this is where the buyer and seller are already party to the JOA and/or UUOA. If neither the buyer nor the seller is joining or leaving the licence, and the parties are simply adjusting their participating interests under the JOA and/or UUOA, a licence assignment will not be required. In the same way, where a licence governs multiple blocks and the buyer has an interest in another block covered by the licence and the seller is also remaining on the licence, either because it has an interest in another block covered by the licence or because it is only selling part of its interest to the buyer in the relevant block, when the buyer acquires the interest in the relevant block, a licence assignment will not be required.

There is often a question asked as to whether working interest assignments are required to show a complete chain of title to an asset. A working interest assignment evidences the transfer of the beneficial interest in the asset. The more prevalent view is that this type of assignment is no longer necessary to perfect title, especially where there is a JSBA, JOA or UUOA already in place. Its purpose, being a document on which stamp duty was levied, is now obsolete. Although, buyers and sellers still frequently include the working interest assignment in their suite of completion documents by means of convention, it is not obligatory to enter into this assignment to complete an asset transfer. Due to the disproportionate amount of time and energy that buyers and sellers may spend in hunting for non-existent working interest assignments to evidence a complete chain of title, the better view may be to exclude the working interest assignment from the scope of the title due diligence exercise.

Assignment

Pre-emption rights and consent provisions are principal deal-structure considerations and should therefore be given top priority when conducting the due diligence exercise. Their consequences may prevent the proposed deal from going ahead, increase the cost of the transaction if co-venturers are permitted to withhold their consent on the grounds of financial incapability unless some form of financial security is provided by the buyer and/or cause the deal to be restructured as a share sale. It will therefore be important to review the assignment provisions of all the material contracts, and particularly any JSBAs, JOAs and UUOAs, to identify such obstacles at the earliest possible stage.

If an asset is governed by both a JOA and UUOA, care needs to be taken in order to determine whether the pre-emption and/or consent provisions in one or both agreements apply. Often the UUOA will expressly state that the provisions in the UUOA supersede the provisions in the JOA to the extent that they conflict. In this case, the assignment provisions in the UUOA will override the assignment provisions in the JOA in respect of the area covered by the JOA which forms part of the unit area. Any remaining area that is solely governed by the JOA will be subject to the JOA pre-emption and consent provisions. If it is not clear from the documentation whether the provisions in the UUOA or JOA will prevail, the better approach for a buyer to take may be to err on the side of caution; in other words, to apply the more onerous pre-emption and/or consent provisions to the whole of the asset transfer or consider restructuring the transaction as a share sale.

Material Contracts

The scope of the due diligence review of material contracts is likely to be determined by the materiality threshold proposed by the buyer with respect to contract value. The buyer should review all material contracts in order to ascertain whether the seller has the necessary rights under such contracts and identify potential liabilities, risks and onerous provisions that affect the valuation of the asset or, worse still, could prevent the deal.

It is important that the correct selling entity holds an interest in the relevant material contract and any inconsistencies should be highlighted to the buyer so that the seller can arrange for any necessary inter-group transfers in good time if required. The buyer should also be vigilant to any poison pills that kill the contracts in the event of a change of party or change of control.

If time, cost and scope permit, it can be invaluable to prepare full and accurate contract summaries of all material contracts. The simplest and most efficient way of doing this is to table contract summary templates for the various categories of contract. For instance, there could be separate templates for licences; JSBAs, JOAs and UUOAs; petroleum sales agreements; transportation and processing arrangements; and sundry agreements, if applicable. Templates are useful aides to those reviewing the asset documentation. Firstly, they ensure that all members of the team focus and report on every provision of the contract within the scope of the due diligence exercise. Secondly, and especially for large scale due diligence reviews, they are important for the purposes of consistency and efficiency. The buyer’s due diligence report should be informative, concise, on point and appear to have been written by one person. Full, tailored contract summaries help to achieve this purpose.

Contract summaries also serve a bigger purpose. If after the due diligence exercise the buyer decides to enter into a sale and purchase agreement with the seller and proceed to completion, the closing documents will include deeds of assignment and novation for the various material contracts. Complete contract summaries make the task of deducing which material contracts will need to be assigned or novated easier. They also make for a more efficient process as they prevent the buyer from having to re-locate each document in the data room and re-review their provisions.

If the asset is producing or has an approved field development plan, the buyer should expect to see material contracts in the data room relating to petroleum sales agreements and lifting, transportation and processing arrangements. Particularly in respect of some of the older UKCS assets, it is not always clear whether a document is historical or not. Typically, the buyer will exclude historical construction, tie-in commissioning and joint development agreements from its due diligence scope and place less emphasis on reviewing pipeline crossing and proximity agreements, unless it has a particular interest in the provisions of such documents.

It is likely that the data room will include some material contracts which are governed by the laws of another country or state. Depending on the importance of such contracts, the buyer should consider whether to seek advice from local counsel. In addition, in the course of due diligence for an asset acquisition, it is likely that there will be property and tax related documentation and these should be reviewed by specialists in those fields. It may also be necessary to examine the proposed transaction from a competition perspective and so the need for competition lawyers should be considered at an early stage.

During the due diligence exercise, the buyer should be aware of any information which evidences that the seller has been acting in breach of contract or is in breach of its licence obligations. Any current or anticipated claims from third parties or on-going litigation will be of particular interest to the buyer and should be noted. The buyer should also be alerted to whether any contractual provisions will be breached by the acquisition of the target asset if they are ignored by the buyer. For instance, often under seismic data contracts data must be returned or a supplemental fee paid if the identity of the purchasing company alters.

On completion of a transaction, the buyer will want all material contracts to be novated to it from the seller, unless the transaction is structured as a share sale. In some circumstances this may not be possible if third-party consents remain outstanding and so the seller and buyer should use their reasonable endeavours to obtain such consents post completion. Typically, this approach is only taken in respect of those contracts of limited value or importance. The seller will agree to hold such contracts as trustee and agent of the buyer and the buyer will agree to perform such contracts on the seller’s behalf and indemnify the seller against any costs or liabilities it incurs in respect of such arrangement. This split completion approach is not always possible in respect of those agreements which are contractually linked to others or to the transfer of the participating interest. The buyer should therefore bear in mind any linkage provisions that it uncovers in its due diligence exercise.

Decommissioning

The buyer will be keen to discover whether a field-wide decommissioning security agreement is in place for the target asset or whether the JSBA, JOA and/or UUOA include decommissioning security provisions. Where decommissioning security provisions exist, the buyer should consider the type and amount of security required, the credit rating of such security, whether the asset is in the run-down period and/or how the trigger date is calculated. Depending on the terms of the transaction and whether a section 29 notice has been served on the seller before the asset is transferred to the buyer, the buyer may need to provide security for decommissioning under the sale and purchase agreement to the seller as well. Decommissioning arrangements will be a fundamental consideration to the buyer’s valuation of the asset and will therefore always require financial and/or actuarial input.

Encumbrances

The buyer should conduct a charges search at Companies House in order to determine whether the seller should arrange for any outstanding encumbrances over the asset to be released as part of the transaction. The buyer should also be concerned with any third-party royalties over the seller’s interest in the asset. Any royalty payments on production in respect of all petroleum won and saved will have an impact on the financial value of the target asset and so the buyer should factor the existence of these into its valuation.

Likewise, details of any outstanding cash calls, sole risk activity or carried interests may also be important considerations for the buyer and their existence may result in an adjustment of the price the buyer is prepared to pay for the asset.

Questions and Answers

The question and answer process is central to the due diligence exercise and is an important string to the buyer’s bow. By asking the seller questions, the buyer can better understand the seller’s asset from the responses provided and seek to address any holes or limitations in the data room documents. A classic example of the curious incident of the dog that didn’t bark in the night is the unknown existence of an area of mutual interest agreement which, in the most draconian of circumstances, may prevent a buyer from completing its transaction with the seller, or may prevent the buyer from applying for and/or acquiring an interest in another particular licence area post completion of its transaction with the seller.

If draft contracts have been included in the data room the buyer should ask the seller to confirm whether final versions have been executed and, where documents which have been provided during the due diligence exercise refer to others which have not, the buyer should request these missing documents from the seller. The buyer should maintain an accurate list of questions that have been submitted to the seller and the responses received. Sometimes questions will be answered unsatisfactorily and it is therefore important for the buyer to re-phrase or pursue answers to the originals.

The buyer may also choose to contact DECC with questions on an unnamed basis during the due diligence exercise if there appears to be an inconsistency between the asset data held by DECC and the documentation provided by the seller in the data room. In doing so, the buyer must be careful not to breach any provisions contained in any confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement that has been entered into between the buyer and seller in respect of the transaction.

Conclusion

The buyer conducts due diligence so that it can properly evaluate the risks and benefits to it in acquiring a particular asset, re-negotiate the price that it is prepared to pay for the asset, and decide whether or not to go ahead with the purchase. The due diligence report should identify and quantify issues found and propose solutions for the buyer to consider. Depending on the concerns identified, traditional contractual protections in the sale and purchase agreement may be insufficient and, consequently, the buyer may decide to walk away from the deal. The importance of the due diligence exercise is therefore paramount.

Article by:

Rebecca Downes

Of:

Andrews Kurth LLP

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) Proposes Emergency Petcoke Rules to the Illinois Pollution Control Board

SchiffHardin-logo_4c_LLP_www

On Thursday, January 16, 2013, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA)filed a proposal and motion for emergency rulemaking regarding the containment of coke (also referred to as petroleum coke, or petcoke) and coal at bulk terminals with the Illinois Pollution Control Board (Board).  In the proposed rule, IEPA asserts that fugitive emissions emanating from several outdoor storage areas at bulk terminals in Cook County are not properly controlled and, therefore, constitute a threat to the public interest, safety, or welfare.  The rule requires sources to engage in a number of management activities, take immediate measures to suppress fugitive emissions, and totally enclose all coke and coal piles. [1]

The rule applies to coke and coal bulk terminals which are defined as sources, sites, or facilities that store, handle, blend, process, transport, or otherwise manage coke or coal.  A number of these bulk terminals are located along shipping channels and waterways such as the Calumet River, Illinois River, and the I&M Canal.  Excluded from the rule are sources, sites, or facilities that “produce” or “consume” the coke or coal, such as mines or coal-fired power plant sites.  We highlight a few key requirements and deadlines included in the proposal below, but this is not an exhaustive list.  To see the entire proposal, please click here.

  • Within 60 days, all coke and coal that has been at the source for more than a year must be moved to a location that complies with the requirements of the Act and Board regulations.
  • All other coke and coal must be used or removed within a year from the date it was received.
  • Within 45 days, sources must submit a plan to IEPA for the total enclosure of all coke and coal within two years.
  • Within 45 days, sources must submit to IEPA and follow a Coke and Coal Fugitive Dust Plan.
  • All plans submitted pursuant to the proposed rules will be posted on IEPA’s website and subject to a 30-day public comment period.
  • Beginning 60 days after the effective date, new setback requirements apply in Cook County, municipalities, and their immediate surroundings requiring coke and coal piles that are not totally enclosed to be located at least 200 feet inside the property line of the source.
  • Beginning 60 days after the effective date, all coke and coal piles must be on impermeable pads and located at least 200 feet from waters of the U.S., public water supply reservoirs and intakes, and any potable water well.
  • No loading or unloading or otherwise “disturbing” coke and coal piles when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour.
  • Sources must discontinue the use of non-paved roads within 90 days

Owners or operators of sources subject to the emergency rules will have to implement a number of other operational measures to comply with the rules.  In addition, the rule proposes rigorous recordkeeping and reporting requirements that impose, at minimum, monthly certification and reporting requirements.

The Illinois economy relies on shipping canals and water systems on a daily basis as transportation corridors so we are further reviewing this proposal to ensure the end result does not impede commerce.  The proposal raises several questions such as whether it is economically reasonable or even technically feasible to totally enclose all of these areas in the manner prescribed in the rules especially given the short timeframes for compliance.  This rule could also be reaching unintended entities.  Finally, we are reviewing whether IEPA has adequately supported that an emergency exists.  The Agency’s proposal as filed does not provide clear answers to these questions and we intend to work closely with the IEPA to help identify areas where the regulatory approach may be improved.  The Board will address IEPA’s motion at the January 23, 2014 Board meeting, but the Board can take a number of actions and the outcome is unknown.  Nonetheless, the rulemaking docket is now open to accept public comments through noon on Tuesday, January 21.  This is the time to begin educating the State and others as to the importance of the coke and coal industry to the State and nation, and to ensure that the difficulties presented by the rule are known.  Since emergency rules, once effective, have a limited effective period, the next step for the State will be to develop a more permanent framework for regulation, either through a full rulemaking or legislation.  Industry must be mindful of the need to participate fully in order to ensure any framework developed is achievable and sensible.

[1] Generally, “coke” is derived from the distillation of coal, including metallurgical coke, or “metcoke” or from oil refinery coker units or other cracking processes, including petroleum coke, or “petcoke.”  Coke is primarily used as a fuel.

Article by:

Amy Antoniolli

Of:

Schiff Hardin LLP

Wisconsin Supreme Court Upholds Broad Asbestos Exclusion

vonBriesen

 

In Phillips v. Parmelee, 2013 WI 105 (Dec. 27, 2013), the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the validity of a broad asbestos exclusion.

In 2006, Daniel Parmelee and Aquila Group (“Sellers”) sold an apartment building to Michael Phillips, Perry Petta and Walkers Point Marble Arcade, Inc. (“Buyers”) covered by an American Family business owners policy. Prior to selling the building to Buyers, Sellers received a property inspection report noting the probable presence of asbestos. However, Buyers claimed Sellers never put them on notice that the property probably contained asbestos and eventually filed suit.

The trial court granted American Family’s motion for declaratory judgment due to the policy’s broadly worded asbestos exclusion. The court of appeals upheld the trial court’s decision.

The asbestos exclusion at issue stated as follows:

This language does not apply to … “property damage” … with respect to:

a. Any loss arising out of, resulting from, caused by, or contributed to in whole or in part by asbestos, exposure to asbestos, or the use of asbestos. “Property damage” also includes any claim for reduction in value of real estate or personal property due to its contamination with asbestos in any form at any time.

b. Any loss, cost, or expense arising out of or in any way related to any request, demand, order, or statutory or regulatory requirement that any insured or others identify, sample, test for, detect, monitor, clean up, remove, contain, treat, detoxify, neutralize, abate, dispose of, mitigate, destroy, or any way respond to or assess the presence of, or the effects of, asbestos.

….

f. Any supervision, instructions, recommendations, warnings or advice given or which should have been given in connection with any of the paragraphs above.

The only issue presented to the Wisconsin Supreme Court was whether the asbestos exclusion in the American Family policy precluded coverage for the losses claimed by Buyers.

First, Buyers argued the term “asbestos” is ambiguous because it is undefined in the American Family policy and there are various forms and meanings of “asbestos.” The court was unpersuaded and found a reasonable person reading the policy would understand the word “asbestos” to mean any form of asbestos.

Buyers then argued the broad language of the asbestos exclusion invites multiple reasonable interpretations and it should be narrowly construed against American Family. The court found the case law cited by Buyers in support of their position to be factually distinguishable because the exclusion language in that policy was materially different from the broad, comprehensive language in the American Family policy, which included a wider range of asbestos-related losses than the case law cited by Buyers.

Finally, Buyers asserted that the Sellers negligently failed to disclose defective conditions or any other toxic or hazardous substances contained on the property. However, the court found nothing in the record to demonstrate the Buyers sustained any loss related to electrical or plumbing issues. Rather, the loss arose from asbestos.

For the aforementioned reasons, the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the court of appeals’ decision giving force to American Family’s broadly worded asbestos exclusion.

Article by:

Of:

von Briesen & Roper, S.C.

Reform Opens Door to Private Investment in Mexico’s Energy Sector

Morgan Lewis logo

Mexican Senate presents comprehensive Energy Reform Bill to the House of Representatives with tremendous potential for domestic and foreign energy companies.

In an encouraging move toward energy reform, the Mexican Senate approved today and presented to the House of Representatives a bill—the combined effort of Partido Acción Nacional (PAN) and Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI)—with a constitutional reform proposal (the Energy Reform Bill) that paves the way to allow production and profit-sharing arrangements with, and the issuance of risk-sharing licenses to, private parties. The bill further advances the efforts of both parties, detailed in our August 15, 2013 LawFlash,[1] to promote energy reform in Mexico.

If the bill is enacted, these production and profit-sharing arrangements could be entered either directly by private parties or in association withPetróleos Mexicanos (Pemex), the state oil company. It is expected that risk-sharing licenses will mimic a concession-based system that would allow the booking of reserves for accounting purposes. Mexico has struggled with the adoption of a “pure” concession-based system due to a deeply engrained social and political belief that Mexico’s oil and gas reserves are and should remain the exclusive property of the Mexican state.

In addition, the Energy Reform Bill proposes the creation of the Mexican Oil Fund, with Mexico’s central bank, Banco de México, acting as the trustee. The fund would manage, invest, and distribute hydrocarbon revenues.

In the power sector, the Energy Reform Bill reaffirms the state monopoly with respect to the operation of the national grid and transmission and distribution activities. However, if enacted, the bill would break horizontal processes by permitting private parties to participate and contract with the Comisión Nacional de Electricidad (CFE), the state-owned utility company, and by allowing competitive activities with respect to power generation and commercialization.

Details on the reform are expected to be addressed in subsequent legislation that would follow congressional approval of the Energy Reform Bill; however, the bill underlines the reality of the reform and its potential for domestic and foreign private investors. The Energy Reform Bill, if approved, would give Congress a 120-day period to establish the necessary legal framework and regulate the new contracting mechanisms.

In order to pass, the bill will have to be approved by the House of Representatives and by 17 of the 32 state legislatures. It will then be submitted back to Congress for presentment of the final bill to the president, who must sanction and sign the proposed Energy Reform Bill into law, at which point it will be published in the Mexican Federal Official Gazette. Although some adjustments are expected, both PRI and PAN have indicated their intent to complete the congressional approval of the constitutional amendments on or before December 15, 2013.

[1]. View our August 15, 2013 LawFlash, “Mexican Government to Consider Overhaul of Energy Sector,” available here.

Article by:

Of:

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

Progress on the Western Front in the Solar Net Metering Battle?

 

The ongoing discussion between solar energy stakeholders and utilities concerning the merits of net metering and the best approach to ensure that ratepayers with installed solar power systems contribute appropriately to overall electric transmission and distribution costs spans the nation,  with state utility commissions from Georgia to California considering this issue.  However, nowhere is that discussion presently more heated and more closely watched than in Arizona and Colorado.

After a day of public comments and a full day of discussions with interveners, the Arizona Corporation Commission (A.C.C.) voted 3 – 2 on November 14, 2013 to modify APS’s Net Energy Metering (NEM) program. (A.C.C. Docket No. E-01345A-13-0248)  In brief, the A.C.C. voted to adopt a 70 cent/kW installed monthly charge for ratepayers with rooftop solar.  For the average-sized rooftop installation of 7 kW, this means a monthly charge of $4.90.  The two commissioners who voted against the decision felt that this did not go far enough in addressing the cost shift from NEM.

While the decision is likely to be perceived as a win for the rooftop solar companies, APS and other utilities can take solace in the fact that the Commission recognized that NEM does produce a cost shift and that the grid has value for all customers.  The details of the cost shift, including consideration of the value of the grid, will be the subject of A.C.C. workshops that will take place prior to the next APS rate case.

Prior to the open meeting, it appeared as though the A.C.C. would adopt a solution that would reduce the NEM subsidy based on a formula that took into consideration the lower cost of utility scale solar.  The monthly charge calculated through this formula ranged from $7.00 to $56.00 per month for a 7 kW installation, depending on the individual Commissioner’s proposal.

However, on the morning of the second day of the open meeting, the rooftop solar interveners and the Arizona Residential Utility Consumers Office (RUCO) negotiated a settlement that was the subject of most of the discussion.  This “settlement” proposed a monthly charge of 70 cents per kw installed or $4.90 for a 7 kW system.  While Commissioner Pierce and others mentioned the lower cost of utility scale solar, the final outcome had less to do with addressing the rate-shift and more to do with the amount that the DV industry said that the average customers, who they contend only save $5-10/month, could absorb and still be willing to install a system.  APS opposed the eventual outcome, as did Commissioners Pierce and Brenda Burns.

The following solution was adopted:

Monthly charge.  New rooftop PV customers beginning after December 31, 2014 will be billed a monthly charge of 70 cents per kW installed to help address the rate-shift from solar to non-solar customers.  For the average-sized system of 7 kW, that would mean a charge of $4.90/month.  The charge can be adjusted by the Commission in the future – either up or down – based on the volume of installations.  Reports of rooftop installation volumes will be provided quarterly.  There is no automatic escalation of the charge based on installation volume.  This charge will be added to the rooftop solar customer’s Lost Fixed Cost Recovery (LFCR) fund assessment currently paid by APS customers.  An offsetting reduction will be made to the monthly LFCR assessment currently paid by customers without rooftop solar.

Grandfathering.  Rooftop installations under the current NEM structure will be grandfathered.  There was a long discussion about grandfathering with a general consensus being reached that while any Commission can change any previous decision made, future Commissions were likely to honor grandfathering decisions made by previous Commissions.  Customers who sign up for systems under the new 70 cent charge will be grandfathered if the charge is increased to 80 cents or $1.00, but only until the next rate case in 2015.  Customers who then sign up under any increased charges (e.g., 80 cents or $1.00) will also be grandfathered until the next rate case.  However, all new rooftop customers (post December 2013) will be subject to any changes agreed to in the next rate case.

The NEM issue will be taken up again in the next APS rate case.

While the net metering discussion in Arizona has reached a conclusion – for now, the debate continues in Colorado.

On July 24, 2013, Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo), Xcel Energy’s Colorado subsidiary, filed with the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) its 2014 Renewable Energy Standard Compliance Plan detailing its updated proposal to meet Colorado’s requirement that 30% of PSCo’s retail electric sales come from eligible energy resources by 2020.  (CPUC Docket No. 13A-0836E)  Long recognized for its substantial commitment to wind energy, PSCo’s renewable energy portfolio also includes utility scale solar facilities and various programs designed to facilitate expansion of distributed solar energy installations, including the popular Solar*Rewards® program which has over 15,000 participants and represents more than 160 MW of installed solar capacity.

In its 2014 RES Compliance Plan PSCo proposed adding 42.5 MW of new distributed solar generation, including 36 MW of retail distributed solar generation through the Solar*Rewards® program and 6.5 MW of community solar gardens through the Solar*Rewards® Community program.  At the same time, the company proposed reducing the per kilowatt-hour incentives paid to customers with distributed solar installations.

The more controversial aspect of the utility’s filing related to PSCo’s call for more transparency in the NEM credit paid to customers with installed solar systems and the costs and benefits associated with distributed solar facilities.  PSCo explains that customers with installed solar arrays receive a 10.5 cent credit per kilowatt-hour of electricity they deliver to the grid, however, that electricity only provides 5 cents in benefits to PSCo systems and customers.  While PSCo acknowledges that distributed solar generation allows for some savings associated with fuel costs, energy losses, and the deferral of new generation resources, the utility argues that the NEM incentive paid to solar-owning customers does not adequately consider other costs related to generation, transmission, and distribution, costs that are presently being borne by non-solar customers.  As did APS in the NEM debate in Arizona, PSCo takes the position that the need for and nature of NEM incentives must be reevaluated as the solar industry moves toward becoming self-sustaining.  If the CPUC does not agree with PSCo’s NEM proposals, the utility indicated that it intends to acquire only enough distributed solar generation needed for minimum RES compliance – a total of 12.5 MW.

Solar businesses and trade groups, renewable energy advocates, and environmental groups have strongly opposed PSCo’s analyses and have characterized the utility’s proposal as declaring war on the solar industry.  These stakeholders argue that PSCo’s analyses fail to properly consider distributed solar’s grid, environmental, and job creation benefits.  To that end, the Vote Solar Initiative (VSI) filed a motion requesting that the CPUC sever the NEM issue from PSCo’s RES Compliance docket and conduct a separate, comprehensive NEM cost-benefit analysis.  While VSI’s motion was supported by various other stakeholders, it was opposed by PSCo and CPUC Staff, and was ultimately denied.

An evidentiary hearing on PSCo’s 2014 RES Compliance Plan, including consideration of PSCo’s proposed NEM changes, is scheduled for February 3-7, 2014.  Until then, it is likely that the NEM battle in Colorado will continue both in the CPUC docket and in the public debate concerning the costs and benefits associated with distributed solar generation, how those costs and benefits should be accounted for and allocated, and the continued need for incentives related to this distributed energy resource.

Article by:

Of:

Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP

Rite Aid to Pay $12.3 Million for Failing to Properly Manage Waste Products from its California Stores

Beveridge Diamond Logo

Rite Aid Corporation has agreed to pay more than $12.3 million to settle a civil lawsuit alleging that Rite Aid improperly managed, transported, and disposed of hazardous waste at hundreds of its California stores and distribution centers.  The hazardous wastes at issue include: pharmaceuticals and over-the-counter medications, bleaches, photo processing chemicals, pool chlorine and acids, pesticides, fertilizers, batteries, electronic devices, mercury containing lamps, paints, lamp oils and other ignitable liquids, aerosol products, oven cleaners and various other cleaning agents, automotive products, and other flammable, reactive, toxic and corrosive materials.

Background

The case against Rite Aid began in 2009 when local environmental health agencies began to investigate Rite Aid facilities’ management of hazardous wastes. Prosecutors, investigators, and environmental regulators statewide conducted a series of waste inspections at Rite Aid stores and local landfills. The inspections revealed that over a six-and-a-half year period, Rite Aid had improperly managed certain hazardous wastes at its facilities, transported hazardous waste without meeting regulatory requirements, and in some cases illegally disposed of hazardous waste in landfills not authorized to accept such waste. On September 17, 2013, fifty-three California district attorneys and two city attorneys filed a joint environmental protection lawsuit against Rite Aid. Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code sections 25516 and 25516.1, the prosecutors brought a civil action in the name of the People of the State of California and sought to enjoin violations of California’s hazardous waste, medical waste, hazardous waste transportation and hazardous materials release response laws and implementing regulations.

The Allegations

The prosecutors asserted that Rite Aid stores engaged in numerous violations of California’s hazardous waste laws and regulations, including:

  • Disposal of hazardous waste at unauthorized points, such a trash compactors, dumpsters, drains, sinks, toilets, Rite Aid facilities, and landfills or transfer stations not authorized to receive hazardous waste, in violation of Health and Safety Code sections 25189 and 25189.2;
  • Failure to determine whether each waste generated at each facility in question as a result of a spill, container break, or other means of rending the product not useable for its intended purpose was a hazardous waste, as required under the California Code of Regulations (“CCR”), Title 22, sections 66262.11 and 66260.200;
  • Transporting or transferring custody of hazardous wastes without a properly licensed and registered transporter, as required by Health and Safety Code section 25163;
  • Failure to dispose of accumulated hazardous wastes from facilities at least once during every 90 day period, as required by CCR Title 22, section 66262.34;
  • Failure to timely file with the Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”) a hazardous waste manifest for all hazardous waste transported for offsite handling, treatment, storage, disposal or combination thereof, as required by Health and Safety Code section 25160(b)(3) and CCR Title 22, section 66262.23;
  • Failure to contact the transporter or owner/operator of the designated receiving facility to determine the status of hazardous waste in the event of non-receipt of a copy of a manifest with the signature of the owner/operator within 35 days of the date the waste was accepted by the transporter, as required by CCR Title 22, section 66262.42;
  • Treatment, storage, disposal, and transport of hazardous waste without receiving and using a proper EPA or DTSC identification number for the originating facility, as required by CCR Title 22, section 66262.12(a);
  • Failure to maintain a program for the lawful storage, handling and accumulation of hazardous waste, as required by Health and Safety Code section 25123.3 and CCR Title 22, sections 66262.34, 66265.173 and 662165.177;
  • Failure to properly designate hazardous waste storage areas, segregate hazardous wastes, and failure to conduct inspections, as required by CCR Title 22, sections 66262.34 and 66265.174;
  • Failure to comply with employee training obligations for the management of hazardous waste, as required by CCR Title 22, section 66262.34;
  • Failure to have in place at all times a hazardous waste contingency plan and emergency procedures for each facility, as required by CCR Title 22, section 66262.34;
  • Failure to continuously implement, maintain, and submit a complete hazardous materials business plan, as required by Health and Safety Code sections 25503(a), 25504, 25505 and CCR Title 19, sections 2729 et seq.;
  • Failure to immediately report any release or threatened release of a reportable quantity of any hazardous material from any facility into the environment, as required by Health and Safety Code sections 25501 and 25507;
  • Failure to properly manage, mark, and store universal waste in compliance with management standards in CCR Title 22, sections 66273.1 et seq.;
  • Failure to comply with the California Medical Waste Management Act (Health and Safety Code sections 117600 et seq.); and
  • Causing to deposit, without permission of the owner, hazardous substances upon the land of another, in violation of California Penal Code section 374.8(b).

The prosecutors sought civil penalties for each violation and reimbursement of the costs of investigation, enforcement, prosecution, and attorneys’ fees.

The Consent Judgment

On September 24, 2013, Judge Linda L. Lofthus issued an order approving the consent judgment negotiated by the parties. Under the agreement, Rite Aid agreed to fully comply with the Code sections and regulations at issue in the Complaint. Moving forward, stores will be required to retain their hazardous waste in segregated, labeled containers so as to minimize the risk of exposure to employees and to ensure that incompatible wastes do not combine to cause dangerous chemical reactions. The company will continue to designate four full-time employees responsible for environmental, health, regulatory and safety compliance assurance in California. California Rite Aid stores will work with state-registered haulers to document, collect and properly dispose of hazardous waste produced through damage, spills and returns. Moreover, Rite Aid has implemented a computerized scanning system and other environmental training to manage its waste.

Rite Aid agreed to pay $9,500,000.00 in civil penalties pursuant to Health and Safety Code sections 25189 and 25514 and Business and Professions Code section 17206, to the prosecuting and regulatory agencies. Rite Aid also agreed to pay $1,974,000 for certain supplemental environmental projects. Finally, Rite Aid will pay $950,000 for reimbursement of attorneys’ fees, costs of investigation, and other costs of enforcement.

According to the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, Rite Aid was cooperative with prosecutors and investigators throughout the case.

Conclusion

The Rite Aid case reflects continued active enforcement by California’s prosecutors and regulators of the state’s environmental protection laws against retailers related to alleged mismanagement of hazardous wastes. Since 2011, California regulators have secured more than seven multi-million dollar settlements in hazardous waste enforcement actions against large retailers.

Article By:

Of:

Beveridge & Diamond PC

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Delays Electric Quarterly Reports (EQRs) Filing Deadline

Bracewell & Giuliani Logo

On October 10, after many weeks of speculation, the Commission issued an order extending the filing deadline of the 2013 Q3 Electric Quarterly Reports (EQRs) filings from October 31 to “a date to be determined.”  This extension follows a series of similar delays and significant technical issues associated with the revised EQR filing requirements put in place by Order Nos. 768, 768-A, and 770.

As part of the preparation for the new filing requirements, FERC had made available to the public an EQR Sandbox Electronic Test Site (Sandbox) that was meant to be a testing platform to help users acclimate to and prepare for the new filing requirements and system.  The Sandbox was made available on July 12 and was meant to be available until September 1.  Following the testing period, the Sandbox would be taken offline to prepare it to go live well in advance of the original October 31 filing deadline.  Commission Staff encouraged filers to utilize the Sandbox “as often as possible” and to contact Staff with questions and concerns during the planned six week testing period.  From the beginning of the testing period, there were significant and wide-ranging problems encountered with the Sandbox.  After vocal feedback from industry, the Commission extended the Sandbox availability from September 1 to September 15.  It was hoped that this extension would allow ample time to address and resolve the problems and allow filers additional time to test a functioning Sandbox.  Unfortunately, the issues were not resolved, and on September 13 the Commission extended the availability of the Sandbox “until further notice.”

Since the indefinite extension of the Sandbox availability, filers have continued to experience difficulties.  As a result of these ongoing issues, the Commission has implemented a similar indefinite extension of the filing deadline.

Article By:

 of

Watt's New? Michigan Energy News – September 2013

Varnum LLP

Still Getting Ready to Make Good Energy Decisions

After reviewing and analyzing the submissions from seven public forums and from the 114 questions posted on the web for feedback, Energy Office Director Steve Bakkal and MPSC Chairman John Quackenbush will be issuing four reports on the following schedule:

■ Renewable Energy: Draft report release for comments – 9/20/13

Due date for public comments – 10/11/13

Release final report – 11/4/13

■ Additional Areas: Draft report release for comments – 10/1/13

Due date for public comments – 10/22/13

Release final report – 11/15/13

■ Electric Choice: Draft report release for comments – 10/15/13

Due date for public comments – 11/1/13

Release final report – 11/20/13

■ Energy Efficiency: Draft report release for comments – 10/22/13

Due date for public comments – 11/6/13

Release final report – 11/26/13

All this material will be posted at: www.michigan.gov/energy

Net Metering Participation Increases

The Michigan Public Service Commission issues an annual report on electric customers participating in the statewide net metering program required under the Clean, Renewable, and Efficient Energy Act of 2008. [Under net metering, when a customer produces electric energy in excess of its needs, energy is provided back to the serving utility and the customer receives a credit.] In 2012 the size of the net metering program increased 55 percent to 9,583 kW. The number of net metering customers has gone from 53 in 2008 to 1,330 in 2012. While most of the recent increase was due to new solar installations, a 535 kW methane digester in Great Lakes Energy Cooperative’s service territory is Michigan’s first Category 3 (methane digester up to 550 kW) modified net metering project.

Methane-to-Methanol Plant Operational

Oil wells also produce natural gas. When there is no way to get the natural gas to market it is usually “flared”. Now Gas Technologies LLC of Walloon Lake has demonstrated its 25-foot, portable, singlestep, gas-to-liquids plant in a Kalkaska County oil field. This first in the industry process can monetize stranded natural gas, biogas, coal mine methane, and landfill gas. www.gastechno.com

Adopt-A-Watt Helps Library

Dearborn’s Henry Ford Centennial Library has installed 25 energy efficient street lights and an electric vehicle charging station under the national Adopt-A-Watt program. Modeled on the AdoptA-Highway program, sponsorships are sold to fund new, energy-efficient equipment, alternative fuel vehicles and other green technologies for financially challenged public agencies. The agencies then realize the cost savings into the future.

Restrictive Wind Zoning Struck Down by Michigan Court

Forest Hill Energy recently won a court order striking down alleged “police power” ordinances passed by townships attempting to regulate the construction and operation of wind turbines. The Clinton County Zoning Ordinance already had extensive wind energy provisions. Nonetheless, three townships passed ordinances that were more restrictive to wind energy development than the county zoning. The additional restrictions related to height, noise, setbacks, and shadow flicker. Forest Hill Energy brought suit seeking a declaration that the townships’ “police power” actions were really zoning ordinances in disguise. The Clinton County Circuit Court ruled that since the townships were subject to the county’s zoning, the township ordinances were invalid because they were inconsistent with the county’s zoning plan—the townships could not get a “second bite at the zoning apple.” Forest Hill Energy had already obtained a special use permit for the construction of a 39 turbine project in January of 2012, and now expects to move forward with construction in late 2013.

More Wind Farms to Commence Construction in 2013

NextEra’s 150 MW Pheasant Run Wind projects are commencing construction this fall, with the energy to be sold to DTE Electric Company. The two projects will be located in Brookfield, Fairhaven, Grant, Oliver, Sebewaing and Winsor townships, all in Huron County. The Michigan Public Service Commission approved a 20 MW power purchase agreement (PPA) for DTE Electric Company with Big Turtle Wind Farm, LLC. The twenty year PPA has estimated pricing of up to 5.3 cents per kilowatt-hour. The project will have more than 50 percent Michigan-sourced content, and brings the DTE renewable energy portfolio to 9.8 percent. Consumers Energy will begin construction on its 105 MW Cross Winds Energy Park in Akron and Columbia townships in Tuscola County before the end of the year.

Michigan Shorts

ΩΩ Bay City Electric, Light & Power has signed a 20-year contract to purchase 4.8 MW of energy from the Beebe Community Wind Farm at a price starting at 4.5¢/kWh and increasing to 7.2¢/kWh Ω Revolution Lighting Technologies has acquired Relume Technologies, a Michigan manufacturer of LED lighting products and control systems Ω The City of Ypsilanti has set a goal to have 1000 solar roofs within the city limits by 2020 Ω DTE Energy is offering its customers the opportunity to buy BioGreenGas derived from the Sauk Trail Hills Landfill in Canton Ω Lansing Board of Water & Light has announced it will purchase energy from eight wind turbines in Gratiot County under a power purchase agreement with Exelon Wind ΩΩ

Virtual Solar Engineering Center Meeting with Success

GreenLancer.com, a Detroit-based solar energy technology company, has announced its initial $500,000 in funding. The company, launched in 2011, combines state-of-the-art cloud computing with a national network of green energy engineering freelancers (“greenlancers”). Their goal is to reduce the soft costs associated with solar energy projects. Initial investors include Bizdom (Detroit), Start Garden (Grand Rapids), Blue Water Angels (Midland), Northern Michigan Angels (Traverse City), and a private investor. The company has projects in 33 states and six foreign countries.

Converting Corn Stalks into Biofuel

Using a fungus and E. coli bacteria, University of Michigan researchers have turned inedible waste plant material into isobutanol. The waste used in the initial work was corn stalks and leaves. Isobutanol has 82 percent of the energy in gasoline, whereas ethanol has only 67 percent. It also has the added advantage over ethanol of not mixing easily (or absorbing) water. So it is a viable candidate to replace ethanol as a gasoline additive. The fungi turns the plant roughage into sugars that are then converted by escherichia coli to isobutanol. Through bioengineering the researchers believe they can produce a variety of petroleum-based chemicals through this same process.

Article By:

of