Tel: 804.864.1100

Tel: 804.864.1100

energy lawyer

Covering PPAs for the Energy Bar

My partner Eric Hurlocker is helping lead a skills session on drafting and negotiating Power Purchase Agreements at the Energy Bar Association 2019 Mid-year Energy Forum this Wednesday, October 16, at the Renaissance Downtown Hotel in Washington, DC. Accompanying him on the panel is our law clerk (and pending associate) Creighton-Elizabeth Boggs. This panel is at 11:00 a.m. The full conference began today, the 15th, and goes through Wednesday evening.

Along with the other panelists, they will participate in an interactive approach to training lawyers how to negotiate a distributed energy power purchase agreement (PPA). During the first part of the session experienced practitioners will role-play as attorneys and clients to set the stage for a PPA negotiation, including a discussion of transactional terms and an overview of fundamental motivations behind the PPA instrument, such as the customer’s ability to avoid capital commitments and the developers ability to qualify for preferred tax treatment. The panel will then walk through a term sheet with the audience using a Q&A approach to go through the key provisions of the PPA from the perspective of a developer and a customer. Finally, the panel will focus on a few key PPA terms, comparing customer-friendly provisions to developer-friendly ones to provide participants with the background necessary to negotiate a distributed energy PPA.

If you’re at the meeting, please find us and say hello. If you can’t make it, follow along by looking for #EBA19EnergyForum in your favorite social channels.

As always, should you have any questions about energy regulation, energy resource development or other legal matters, you can call any of our energy lawyers to chat.

Solar Focus Spreads the Good News

Join us and MDV-SEIA at the annual Solar Focus Conference in Baltimore, Maryland on November 20th – 21st, a major effort of our Maryland-District of Columbia-Virginia chapter of the Solar Energy Industry Association (MDV-SEIA). It will celebrate the latest solar policy achievements, and focus on how the solar industry can continue its recent policy successes and commercial growth.

Solar Focus brings together solar professionals and industry leaders from across the country to share ideas, build partnerships, and envision the future of solar power. In addition to panels, there will be a Women in Solar Breakfast, job fair, and many more networking opportunities. GreeneHurlocker continues to be a sponsor for this important and influential industry event, and we’ll be hooking you up to the free wifi!

Eric Hurlocker at his desk

I will be on site to join in the usual spirited discussions about how to promote and grow the role of solar energy in our lives and our businesses.I hope you can join me at the final panel of the conference where I will be speaking on Case Studies in the Utility-Scale Industry.

Look me up when you’re at the Hilton, I’ll be out in the halls and would love to talk with you about the things on your mind and what your company is looking forward to in the next year. If you want more information about MDV-SEIA or to talk about renewable energy development just give me a call, or talk to any of our solar energy and utility lawyers.

Delaware Green Power Product Reports Due at the End of September

September 30, 2019 is the due date for competitive suppliers offering “Green Power Products” to file their annual compliance reports with the Delaware Public Service Commission. The Report Form is available on the Commission’s website on the Renewable Portfolio Standard and Green Power Products page.

Competitive suppliers are no longer responsible for compliance with Delaware’s Renewable Portfolio Standard, after that obligation was transferred to Delmarva Power & Light Company in 2012. However, competitive suppliers that offer “green” or renewable energy products in Delaware must file a compliance report with the Public Service Commission detailing the renewable energy credits used to meet the marketed green power percentages for their electricity sales.

The current Green Power Product requirements are found in Section 13 of the Delaware Public Service Commission’s Rules for Certification and regulation of Electric Suppliers, 26 Del. Admin. C. § 3001. These rules were promulgated in Regulation Docket 49 and approved in Order No. 9020 on February 2, 2017. See 20 DE Reg. 827.

If you have questions about Delaware’s Green Power Product reporting requirements or other requirements applicable to competitive electricity suppliers operating in Delaware, please contact Eric Wallace or any of GreeneHurlocker’s energy and regulatory lawyers.

Calpine and Direct Energy Win Again, Continue to Provide Renewable Energy in Virginia

The Virginia State Corporation Commission (the “Commission”) denied Dominion Energy Virginia’s (“Dominion”) July 16, 2019 petitions for declaratory judgment in Case Numbers PUR-2019-00117 and PUR-2019-00118 by Final Order on September 18, 2019. Dominion’s petitions sought to have the Commission standardize “around the clock,” “control of renewable capacity” requirements for competitive service providers (“CSPs”) to serve customers under Virginia Code § 56-577 A 5 (“Section A 5”). That section provides a statutory right to customers of all classes to purchase “electric energy provided 100 percent from renewable energy” from a CSP unless the utility has its own 100% renewable energy tariff. Dominion’s application for a 100% renewable energy tariff is pending before the Commission, and Dominion had refused to process enrollments submitted by Calpine Energy Solutions, LLC (“Calpine”) and Direct Energy Business, LLC (“Direct Energy”) under Section A 5 in the interim and initiated these cases at the Commission.

The Commission previously granted Calpine’s and Direct Energy’s requests for injunctive relief, requiring Dominion to process enrollments while these cases are pending. We blogged about that here.

Dominion’s petitions took aim at Calpine and Direct Energy, seeking a determination that CSPs seeking to serve under Section A 5 must establish that they can supply customers with electric energy provided 100 percent from renewable energy on an “around the clock” basis and that the CSPs must have “control” over “renewable capacity.” The Commission flatly rejected Dominion’s positions and declared that both Calpine and Direct Energy provided information to reasonably establish that they have contracted for sufficient renewable energy to match renewable supply with a participating customer’s load on a monthly basis, which is consistent with Section A 5 and Commission precedent.

Regarding Commission precedent, the Commission refused to adopt Dominion’s interpretation of a prior order approving Appalachian Power Company’s Rider WWS (“Rider WWS Order”), which Dominion believes requires a CSP to have “control of sufficient renewable generation resources, including renewable capacity and associated renewable energy, to enable it to serve the full load requirements of the customers it intends to serve.” The Commission’s refused to provide the requested declaration, explaining that the Rider WWS Order did not require “’renewable capacity,’ nor did it define ‘full load requirements’ to mean (as argued by Dominion) ‘full load at all times’ or ‘full load requirements around the clock.’” Significantly, the Commission’s Final Order makes clear: “Nothing in [the Rider WWS Order], however, found that [Appalachian Power Company’s] proposal was the only way to comply with Section A 5.”

The crux of the Commission’s decision relied upon its close reading of Section A 5. “The plain language of Section A 5 also says ‘energy,’ not ‘capacity.’” In acknowledging this critical distinction, the Commission put a finer point on Dominion’s efforts to muddy the waters between “energy” and “capacity” requirements, despite the fact that Section A 5 requires customers to purchase renewable electric “energy” – not “capacity.” In the same way, the Commission examined closely Dominion’s request for more stringent matching standards, noting several times that in other proceedings, Dominion has taken positions inconsistent with those it takes in its petitions for declaratory judgment: “There is nothing in the plain language of Section A 5, however, that mandates Dominion’s “100% of the time” (i.e., “around the clock”) requirement.”

The Commission also scrutinized Dominion’s proposal from a consumer protection perspective, finding that Dominion’s “100% of the time” standard would adversely affect a customer’s right to purchase renewable energy – essentially, upending the entire aim of Section A 5. Dominion’s argument would read certain renewable generating sources (e.g., wind or solar) out of the statute because of their intermittency regardless of the amount of nameplate capacity or peak load served. Finally, the Commission evaluated Dominion’s proposed standard with special focus on the fact that Virginia’s existing monthly matching standard is already one of the most stringent in the country for states with renewable energy markets, as other states generally require customer load and renewable supply to be matched on a yearly basis.

The Commission declined to accept Dominion’s proposed language that would adopt a new standard for Section A 5, presented for the first time at the hearing on August 20, 2019. The Commission reasoned that to do so would contravene the Commission’s past rejection of “capacity,” “peak demand,” or “100% of the time” requirements – including the Commission’s rejection of Dominion’s past requests (notably in the Rider WWS proceeding) for “around the clock” supply of renewable energy pursuant to Section A 5. Similarly, the Commission held that Dominion’s proposal at the hearing regarding what Dominion believes the current law should reflect “improperly goes beyond the specific relief requested in the Petitions for Declaratory Judgment… [and] does not reflect current Commission precedent and is otherwise procedurally improper.”

The Conclusion in the Commission’s Final Order makes clear that:

  • Commission precedent permits a CSP to match customer load with renewable supply on a monthly basis and does not requires CSPs to provide “renewable capacity”;
  • Direct Energy and Calpine have satisfactorily demonstrated that they can supply their customers with electric energy provided 100 percent from renewable energy on a monthly matching basis;
  • Direct Energy and Calpine are required to continue providing information as directed in the Final Order – regarding each CSP’s customer load and wholesale generation contracts, in accordance with Section A 5, the Commission’s Rules Governing Retail Access to Competitive Energy Services, as well as Dominion’s Competitive Service Provider Coordination Tariff; and
  • Even if Dominion’s new proposal were procedurally appropriate, which it is not, the Commission further finds that: (1) the plain language of Section A 5 does not mandate – as a matter of law – adoption of Dominion’s proffered standard; and (2) matching customer load with renewable supply on a monthly basis represents a reasonable standard under Section A 5, and Dominion’s proposed standard is not necessary in order to implement Section A 5 in a reasonable manner,

GreeneHurlocker represents Calpine in these proceedings.
If you have questions about this case or electric service in general, please contact one of GreeneHurlocker’s energy and regulatory lawyers.

VA SCC Grants Injunction, Orders Dominion to Move Customers

wind turbines and solar arraysThe Virginia Commission has entered an Order on Enrollments granting motions for injunctive relief filed by Calpine Energy Solutions, LLC and Direct Energy Business, LLC. In the Order, the Commission directed Dominion Energy Virginia to “immediately resume processing enrollment requests under Section A 5 for customers who wish to purchase from Direct Energy or Calpine.”

Under Va. Code Section 56-577 A 5 (“Section A 5”), a customer shall be permitted to purchase “electric energy provided 100 percent from renewable energy” from a competitive service provider (“CSP”) if the utility has not filed an approved 100% renewable tariff. To date, Dominion does not have an approved 100% renewable tariff, and several nonresidential customers, with multiple accounts, have signed contracts with Calpine and Direct, two CSPs, to take retail service under Section A 5.

In July, Dominion filed petitions for declaratory judgment asking the Commission to determine that Calpine and Direct had not demonstrated that they were providing “electric energy provided 100 percent from renewable energy” to their customers as required by Section A 5. Calpine and Direct are disputing Dominion’s allegations as well as Dominion’s proposed standard for providing service under Section A 5. In the interim, however, Dominion had refused to process pending and future enrollments until the case was decided.

On July 22, 2019, Calpine and Direct filed for injunctive relief, asking the Commission to require Dominion to process their respective customers’ enrollments – thereby allowing the customers to switch to Calpine and Direct – while the cases are pending.

The Commission held a hearing on the injunction on August 7 and held an expedited hearing on the merits of the cases on August 20, 2019.

In a footnote to the order, the Commission held that Calpine and Direct had satisfied the elements needed for the issuance of an injunction, including: (a) absent the instant order, Calpine and Direct Energy will suffer irreparable harm; (b) Calpine and Direct have no adequate remedy at law; and (c) the Commission is satisfied of Calpine’s and Direct Energy’s equity. The Commission also noted that “A temporary injunction allows a court to preserve the status quo between the parties while litigation is ongoing.”

Our firm is representing Calpine in the proceedings.

If you have questions about this case or electric service in general, please contact one of GreeneHurlocker’s energy and regulatory lawyers.

Brian Greene Appointed to Virginia Israel Advisory Board

Brian Greene of GreeneHurlockerBrian has been named to the Virginia Israel Advisory Board (VIAB) by the General Assembly of Virginia.

The VIAB is a Commonwealth of Virginia agency that helps Israeli companies locate and grow their U.S. operations in Virginia. The VIAB offers a variety of programs to foster international business success in Virginia. Dov Hoch is currently Executive Director of VIAB, whose board includes business executives and other professionals from across the state.

“I’m delighted to serve on the VIAB and to be able to encourage Israeli companies to invest in Virginia, and to encourage partnerships between Virginia and Israeli companies,” Brian says.

“The VIAB has a proven track record of successfully forging economic and cultural links between Virginia and Israel, and I’m honored to be a part of it,” he explains.

Brian has always been very active in the Richmond Jewish community. He currently serves on the board of the Jewish Community Federation of Richmond and the Weinstein Jewish Community Center. He served for four years as the president of Rudlin Torah Academy, Richmond’s Jewish day school. He also has served on the board of the Herb Cohen Memorial Fund — which has provided more than 400 scholarships since 2001 for kids to attend summer camps — since its inception.

Brian concentrates on energy and utility regulation and related issues in the mid-Atlantic region, and he represents a diverse clientele of electric, natural gas, and water companies..
The mission of VIAB is to assist Israeli companies to locate and grow their U.S. operations in Virginia and to partner with Virginia businesses to facilitate the acquisition and use of Israeli technology. VIAB also focuses on increasing direct foreign investment in Virginia, and on bilateral trade and lasting partnerships, especially in industries such as manufacturing, maritime, military-related and agribusiness industries.

Maryland to Implement Supplier Consolidated Billing

Finding that supplier consolidated billing (SCB) represents the next logical step for Maryland to fully implement customer choice, the Maryland Public Service Commission on May 7, 2019 issued an order authorizing SCB for retail electric and natural gas service in Maryland. In this historic order, the Commission found that SCB could support the growth of retail competition in Maryland and is consistent with the Commission’s policies to promote competition. SCB, by augmenting the existing billing arrangements, should assist suppliers in establishing brand identity and clarifying the products available to customers. At the same time, SCB should facilitate the development of new and innovative products and services and increase the number of Maryland households that shop for electricity and natural gas. Based on these and other conclusions, the Commission found that “it is now appropriate to proceed with the development of SCB.”

The case was initiated by five retail suppliers – NRG Energy, IGS Energy, Just Energy Group, Direct Energy and ENGIE Resources – and the Commission held a hearing in February 2018. We’ve blogged about this case here and here and also posted a video blog here.

In the order, the Commission established the SCB Workgroup and immediately tasked it with developing an implementation timeline within the next 60 days. The timeline, filed in early July 2019, calls for full-on SCB implementation by September 1, 2022.

To guide the SCB Workgroup, the Commission addressed numerous substantive elements of the SCB program, the highlights of which include:

Supplier Qualifications to Provide SCB:

The Commission held: “any proposed regulations should comprehensively address the capabilities necessary to ensure that these functions are performed on par with existing utility offerings. Further, the regulations should be tailored to demonstrate that a supplier can meet the rigorous demands of increased customer service and dispute resolution functions, complex billing requirements, and the quality assurance and record keeping necessary to handle utility charges that may contribute to potential utility disconnections.”

Authority of SCB Providers to Disconnect Customers for Nonpayment:

The Commission rejected the petitioners’ request to allow SCB suppliers to initiate disconnects for non-payment. This had been a central element of the petitioners’ case because it is necessary to manage bad debt, similar to the utilities. In response to those concerns, the Commission will require that utilities purchase the outstanding distribution charges of a delinquent customer account upon the customer’s return to standard offer service (SOS), as further discussed below. For other charges, the SCB provider must resort to the traditional remedies of other non-regulated businesses, including reporting to credit agencies, seeking monetary judgments in court, and pursuing collection activities.

Purchase of Receivables (POR) and Supplier Bad Debt:

The Commission held that SCB suppliers must provide POR to the utili8ty on substantially the same terms as provide in utility consolidated billing (UCB). The Commission directed the workgroups, including the SCB Workgroup, to identify and propose an equitable payment posting priority system and other protections that may be necessary to ensure that any charges contributing to a disconnection are properly handled. Additionally, the Commission agreed with the petitioners that suppliers need some ability to protect themselves from the risk of non-payment. The Commission held that, after reasonable efforts to collect, the supplier should not be required to hold any debt attributable to the customer’s distribution charges paid under POR. Where a supplier can demonstrate the amount of unpaid distribution charges, the utility should repurchase those charges at a zero discount rate unless the SCB Workgroup can provide alternative calculations which are supported by a compelling analysis.

Customer Protection and Customer Education:

The Commission held that a supplier that offers SCB is required to provide all the same consumer protections, disclosures (including the utility’s price to compare), notices,
and billing information required of a regulated utility. This includes providing all surcharge line items and compliance with all current COMARs related to consumer protections. The Commission directed the SCB Workgroup to identify and justify any deviations from or additions to existing consumer protection standards. The SCB Workgroup should consider new disclosure and notice requirements for how utilities and SCB suppliers communicate the varying relationships to the customer, the content of past due notices by SCB suppliers, and the utility notices for customers selecting SCB.

Cost Recovery:

The Commission made no findings regarding cost recovery. The Commission directed the SCB Workgroup to identify and estimate, with as much detail as possible, these and any other costs and benefits related to SCB. The Commission directed the SCB Workgroup to consider varying cost recovery mechanisms and present either a consensus approach or options for Commission consideration. The Commission recognized that the SCB Workgroup might not reach a consensus on cost recovery but said, “this should not delay progress towards proposing regulations in other areas.”

If you have questions about SCB or electric or natural gas retail service in general, please contact one of GreeneHurlocker’s energy and regulatory lawyers.

GreeneHurlocker Welcomes Business and Employment Attorney Laura Kight Musick

Laura Kight Musick, a business and labor and employment attorney, has joined the business, corporate, and regulatory law practice as Counsel at our firm, Eric Hurlocker announced today.

“Laura brings a well-developed set of skills in commercial and employment law which our clients increasingly need as their businesses grow and become more complex,” Hurlocker said. “Additionally, her significant litigation experience dovetails nicely with our firm’s growing regional regulatory practice,” he explained.

Laura practiced in Illinois and Virginia in her prior firms, and has counseled clients in employment matters, including hiring, severance and transition agreements, employment policies, and risk management and avoidance. In addition, she advised her business clients regularly about contracts, financing agreements, and corporate formation and governance.

“I’m delighted to be joining GreeneHurlocker and offering our clients the benefit of my employment law background while advising them as they grow and expand their businesses,” she says.

Laura graduated summa cum laude from the Honors Program at Murray State University in Kentucky, receiving a dual degree in English Literature and Philosophy. She earned her J.D. at the Robert H. McKinney School of Law, Indiana University, and was the inaugural recipient of the Baker and Daniels Public Interest Law Fellowship in 2008.

Delaware Implementing Purchase of Receivables Program for Electricity Suppliers

At long last, the Delaware Public Service Commission entered an order adopting Delmarva Power’s proposed purchase of receivables (“POR”) program effective July 1, 2019. We previously blogged on this issue when Delmarva initially filed its proposal. The effective date was delayed by one month, but Delmarva will purchase suppliers’ receivables effective the end of May so that suppliers are not harmed by the delay.

The going-in rates for the first year of the program are in the table below. These are important because they represent the “haircut” that suppliers must accept when Delmarva purchases their receivables.

Residential Small commercial Large commercial Hourly Priced (LGS, GSP, GST)
Payment factor 99.3833% 99.6591% 99.8818% 100.00%
Discount factor 0.6167% 0.3409% 0.1182% 0.0000%

For more information, please contact one of our energy lawyers.

Reviews Of Spring Fling Family Festival In Escondido, CA

Hookup Sites Reviews Of Spring Fling Family Festival In Escondido, CA

It’s not a money-back guarantee, but a way of doubling your initial membership fees if things don’t work out for you. It is also possible to browse profiles of people before you even join the site. In their terms and conditions they say that: When you create a profile with , your profile will be shared with other dating and ‘hook-up’ websites which contain members of the Site.” That’s strange. Read our expert reviews on dating sites that caters to gay singles. Located in North Carolina, Charlotte is the largest city and the best to party in. If you’re a local looking to connect for adult dating, can help you meet others that share similar sexual preferences.

Unless specifically identified as an offer to sell or a solicitation of any offer to buy, under no circumstances should any information on the Sites be used as or considered to be an offer to sell or a solicitation of any offer to buy the securities or any other instruments is fling legit of Bank of America or any other issuer. The characters have problems beyond their love lives, which, I think, is what makes this books so realistic. Featured members often appear on the homepage and can contact every member of the adult dating service.

It is the most natural step that requires a nice profile with a few photos. Fling isn’t a scam nevertheless it additionally isn’t worth your time (as far as we noticed). Sure enough, it took no time to make that happen on Fling. Let’s be honest, most adult dating sites work better for women, but this one, specifically. You may only use the PMS Software on a device or hardware that you own or control and as a part of your use of the Plex Solution or other Plex service. No different relationship web site or app has impacted dating culture fairly like Tinder, and it has become incredibly in style despite its somewhat controversial status as a hookup app.

There are real-time updates that allow you to see that the other person is typing a message. Once you’re signed in, you’ll notice different areas to that I recommend taking a look at. A few of my favorite ways to narrow down my search on who to get to know is through the Who’s Online and Hotties section. You will find sites that will share your username, city, nation, picture, profile and age with search engines. Android users go to the mobile site at Search the app and download it for free. Data Related to Third-Party Content.

Fling continually adapts each and every year to meet the changing desires of its’ user base especially when it comes to the innovative features that they request in order to make their search for love and lust easier. When you find it, click the Account Settings button and then lastly, click on the small checkbox that reads something like, Make My Profile Inactive” and at that point, your account will be deactivated from the website. Moreso, if you are on craigslist looking for fun, you will often find links to websites which transfer you to fling.