Tel: 804.864.1100

Tel: 804.864.1100

Tag Archive: GreeneHurlocker

GRACRE Market Review

The Greater Richmond Association for Commercial Real Estate will hold its February Market Review tomorrow, and my partner Jared Burden and I will be there at the Westin Hotel on West Broad in the Reynolds Crossing development tomorrow afternoon starting at 3:30 p.m..

These annual market reviews bring together brokers, agents, commercial landlords and developers to discuss market conditions, possible opportunities and new ventures. If you’re attending, be sure to find us and say hello. We’d like to tell you more about our commercial real estate and mergers and acquisitions practices across Virginia and beyond. If we miss you, just contact me or any of our Virginia real estate lawyers.

Ideas Are Just That: Part 3

We’ve been sharing a series of blog posts and videos here and here about how an idea is just that: an idea, and how there are some basic, critical things a high-potential start-up technology company founder must do in order to make any idea worth having and building upon. As I said in my first post, the fact is, most ideas suck. So a founder needs to be sure this idea is worth making it the most important thing in her life for the next months or years.

My third suggestion for the immediate post-idea step is: Focus obsessively on creating a minimally viable product.

Don’t get caught up in the romance of the wonderfulness or inevitability of your idea, the greatness of your team, or the exuberant free feeling of having decided to jump in with both feet. The fact is, you haven’t yet accomplished the whole reason for doing this in the first place, which is selling something to people who want to buy what you have to sell. The excitement is going to wear off and then it’ll be time to get to work. If you don’t get to work immediately, you probably will have lost your opportunity.

It is all about speed.

Too many startups begin with an idea for a product that they think people want. When it isn’t resonating with customers, it is often because the founders never spoke to prospective customers and determined whether or not the product was interesting. When customers ultimately communicate, through their indifference, that they don’t care about the product, the startup fails.
The truly most important question you need to start asking yourself is the following. It’s the first thing you should ask yourself even before you swing your legs off the edge if the bed to get up on the first morning after to you come up with your great idea.

“Should this product be built?”

And then, soon thereafter, maybe before you brush your teeth, you need to ask “Can we build a sustainable business around your product?’
At this point it’s really only about two things: a first product that you know the world needs, and a plan for how first product can actually get customers. The team needs to be focused brutally on these things. Let the customers be your source of accountability.

The new company should be focused on quickly developing a minimally viable product and then learning as much as possible about its weaknesses and opportunities for improvement. Iteration upon iterations, pulling your hair out from anxiety that you’ll never get it right, near-all-nighters and lost weekends — all of that fun stuff. The point is to do all of this on the front end, quickly, and always being in dialogue with the customer, not stuck in an echo chamber of a founder team that may be overly enamored with the original concept.

When a founder focuses on figuring out the right thing to build—the thing customers want and will pay for—she need not spend months developing a prototype or waiting for a beta launch to change the company’s direction. Instead, she can adapt her plan incrementally, inch by inch, minute by minute, moving fast, boxing out the competition.

A couple of years ago I spent three days in the James Madison University’s Icehouse facility with about 24 entrepreneurs who had agreed to lock themselves in and spend that whole weekend developing companies based on pitches that they made on the first night. These people , for the most part, had never met each other. Groups coalesced around about eight ideas big and small. Through the weekend there was a compressed process of honing the original idea and creating a business plan and readying the product or service for the launch. I remember several of the teams were stumped by this question: Will customers want this? Only one of the groups spent the first night doing customer demand research – one group had thought to do this out of eight. That may be somewhat reflective about what real companies do when they go out into the real world. I hope not.

The founding team members need to relish being sponges for crucial information gleaned from the only people that matter: potential customers. This is never more true than at inception and in the earliest weeks and months.

Watch for our next post on “Ideas are just that.” Meanwhile, if you have any questions about startup steps or business law, just reach out to me or any of our Virginia business lawyers.

Wow! Andy Brownstein Has Joined as A Partner!

Andy Brownstein, business lawyerAndy Brownstein joined us on January 1 as partner in the firm and focuses his law practice on business law, corporate finance, mergers and acquisitions, real estate and investment banking. He’s working in our Richmond office.

Andy counsels business clients and entrepreneurs in buy and sell-side mergers and acquisitions, strategic financing and capital investments, joint ventures, credit facilities, commercial real estate investments and contract matters.

“I’ve known Brian for many years, and I’ve watched as he and Eric Hurlocker developed a niche practice in the energy and regulatory arena into a strong multi-disciplinary firm with an intriguing and entrepreneurial client base, something that I’ve been interested in personally and professionally for most of my career,” Andy says.

He was a founder of and served as General Counsel of Global Realty Services Group for a decade, while also serving as its Chief Financial Officer (2009-2016) and President of its affiliated title company (2013-2017). Prior to GRSG, he was Senior Vice President-International Services for LandAmerica Financial Group after serving as SVP-Corporate Development. After law school, he served on the corporate finance team at McGuireWoods. Other career positions were with investment banking and private equity investment firms in both Richmond and New York.

Andy earned his J.D. and B.A. at the University of Virginia. At law school, he was the recipient of the S. Phillip Heiner Memorial Scholarship and was a William H. Echols Scholar in his undergraduate years.

Help us welcome Andy warmly. You can reach him at ABrownstein@greeneHurlocker.com or (804) 864-1100. If you want to know more about our business lawyers, just ask.

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.

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.

Good for the Earth

Back in 1970, few who celebrated the first Earth Day could have imagined the many ways that our world would have changed in the nearly five decades since. One good change is the increasing use of renewable energy, something we have a firm interest in since many of our clients are developing, financing and servicing the industry. And the fact that it has become an industry and grows stronger every year is definitely good for the earth. So, Happy Earth Day!

If you have a question about renewable energy in Virginia or the mid-Atlantic, simply contact any of our energy lawyers.

SCC Sets Procedural Schedule for Dominion Grid Application

On July 24, 2018, Dominion Energy Virginia (“Dominion”) filed a Grid Transformation Plan with the Virginia State Corporation Commission (“Commission” or “SCC”). The SCC has entered a procedural schedule for this case and set an evidentiary hearing for November 15, 2018.

Dominion’s grid plan proposes to invest approximately $816 million in projects designed “to enhance the reliability, resiliency and security of the electric distribution grid.” Dominion also states that the plan will “facilitate the integration of distributed energy resources, such as solar or battery storage, into the system.” Dominion proposes to make the $816 million in investments over a three-year period, between 2019 and 2021. In particular, the utility wants to install approximately 1.4 million smart meters throughout its service territory between 2019 and 2021. There is more about the request here.

The filing also outlines the utility’s longer-term grid transformation priorities. Over 10 years, Dominion proposes to invest over $3.1 billion in grid transformation investments. These investments would include additional smart meters and other “advanced metering infrastructure” as well as reliability improvements and “grid hardening” projects. Dominion’s plan includes proposals to replace certain aging distribution facilities and increase the company’s physical and cyber security capabilities.

The application is filed pursuant to recently enacted legislation, Senate Bill 966, passed by the General Assembly and signed by Governor Northam earlier this year. Dominion’s petition requests the SCC to find that the plan is “reasonable and prudent.” The legislation provides that “grid transformation projects” are “in the public interest.” However, the law does not require the Commission to approve any of the proposed investments.

Dominion does not request cost recovery in its filing or explain whether the spending plan would result in rate increases for customers. This case has been docketed as Case Number PUR-2018-00100. Interested parties have until September 11, 2018, to intervene in this case.

If you want to know more about how this filing may affect energy markets in Virginia or have a legal issue in the energy field, please contact any of our renewable energy lawyers.

SCC Decision Expands Access to Competitive Electric Supply

transmission towers for electricityWhile many political observers were focused on Senate Bill 966, the omnibus utility legislation that was just passed by the General Assembly, the Virginia State Corporation Commission (“Commission” or “SCC”) recently issued an important decision affecting customers’ rights to purchase energy from competitive suppliers.

On February 21, 2018, in Case No. PUR-2017-00109, the Commission approved the first ever “customer aggregation” petition under § 56-577 A 4 of the Code of Virginia. As explained in detail below, this section of the Code allows customers to aggregate their demand for the purposes of satisfying the 5 MW demand threshold required to purchase generation from non-utility companies.

In most circumstances, Virginia’s incumbent electric utilities, including Dominion Energy Virginia (“Dominion”), have a monopoly on the sale of electricity in their service territories. Customers must purchase energy from their utility. Virginia law, however, provides two exceptions to the utilities’ monopoly rights. (Under these two exceptions, customers may purchase generation from non-utility suppliers. But shopping customers must still pay for the utility’s distribution services.)

First, under Va. Code § 56-577 A 5, customers may purchase “100 percent renewable energy” from competitive suppliers if  the customer’s monopoly electric utility does not offer an SCC-approved 100% renewable energy tariff. No utility currently offers an SCC-approved 100% renewable tariff.

Second, Va. Code § 56-577 A 3 law allows large customers with annual demands over 5 MW to purchase generation from competitive suppliers. Importantly, the law also allows a group of customers to “aggregate” their demands in order to reach the 5 MW threshold. The statute treats large customers with multiple meter locations as different customers but allows them to aggregate to meet the 5 MW threshold. Once aggregated, the group will be treated as a “single, individual customer” under the law. Before allowing an aggregation, however, the Commission must find that the requested aggregation would be “consistent with the public interest.”

SCC Case No. PUR-2017-00109 was the first test of this statutory provision – that is, the first time a group of customers sought to combine their demands in order to reach the 5 MW threshold. In this case, Reynolds Group Holdings, Inc. (“Reynolds”), a metals and packaging manufacturer, petitioned the SCC for approval to aggregate six of its retail accounts in Dominion’s service territory.

Dominion and Appalachian Power Company (“APCo”) intervened in the case and opposed the petition. Dominion argued that allowing customers to aggregate their demand “would unreasonably expand the scope of retail access [and would] have the potential effect of eroding a significant portion of the utility’s jurisdictional customer base.” Dominion also suggested that the General Assembly – despite authorizing customer shopping and aggregation – intended to allow retail choice “only in limited circumstances.”

But the SCC, relying on the plain language of Va. Code § 56-577 A 4, rejected Dominion’s and APCo’s arguments and approved the petition. Dominion and APCo have until March 23, 2018, to appeal the decision to the Virginia Supreme Court.

The SCC is also currently considering additional aggregation requests filed by over 160 Walmart customer accounts in Case Nos. PUR-2017-00173 and PUR-2017-00174. (In both of these cases, GreeneHurlocker is representing competitive suppliers who are supporting approval of Walmart’s aggregation requests.)

Should you have any questions about customer aggregation or competitive supply options in Virginia, please contact one our regulatory attorneys.

Additionally, GreeneHurlocker recently published Principles of Electric Utility Regulation in Virginia, which provides a plain-English explanation of Virginia’s electric utility laws, including the statutes affecting retail choice.