Showing posts with label ratepayer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ratepayer. Show all posts

Maine enacts biomass energy support

Thursday, April 21, 2016

Maine has adopted a new law to support the state's biomass energy industry.  Governor Paul LePage has signed LD 1676, An Act To Establish a Process for the Procurement of Biomass Resources, as emergency legislation.  As a result, the bill has been enacted into law as Public Law, Chapter 483, from the 127th Maine Legislature.

The Maine State House.

The bill directs the Maine Public Utilities Commission to initiate a competitive solicitation as soon as practicable.  That solicitation will ask for proposals for 2-year contracts for up to 80 megawatts of biomass resources.  To qualify, a biomass resource must be a source of electrical generation fueled by wood, wood waste or landfill gas that produces energy that may be physically delivered to the ISO New England or Northern Maine Independent System Administrator markets.  A resource must also operate at least at a 50% capacity for 60 days prior to the initiation of a competitive solicitation and continues to operate at that capacity except for planned and forced outages.

The law gives the Commission some direction on how to select proposals for contracting.  It requires the Commission to seek to ensure, "to the maximum extent possible" that a contract provides benefits to ratepayers as well as in-state economic development benefits, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, promotes fuel diversity, and supports or improves grid reliability.

The costs of the contracts, other than above-market costs, and all direct financial benefits from the contracts must be allocated to ratepayers according to Maine's statute on allocation of costs and benefits of long-term energy contracts.  Above-market costs will be paid for from a cost recovery fund created by the new law, which allocates up to $13.4 million from the unappropriated surplus of the state's General Fund. 

NJ offshore wind project faces dilemma

Monday, October 7, 2013

Fishermen's Energy's proposed offshore wind project off the New Jersey coast has essentially all its permits in place to start construction -- but the project's future is in doubt over a question of financial support from electricity ratepayers.

Fishermen's Energy has proposed building a 25-megawatt wind project about 2.8 miles off the coast of Atlantic City.  The $200 million project would be connected to the mainland electricity grid, enabling the power it produces to be sold to New Jersey electric customers.  The project has already received key permits, such as approval by the Army Corps of Engineers to begin construction.

Building what could be the nation's first commercial offshore wind project will be expensive.  While future offshore wind projects could be cost-competitive against more traditional electric generation resources, the New Jersey pilot project's finances rely on a portfolio of federal and state financial incentives.  These include federal tax credits, a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy, and a state commitment that utility ratepayers will shoulder above-market costs.

A 2010 New Jersey law established an offshore wind renewable energy certificate program known as OREC that was designed to provide that ratepayer commitment.  For over a year, Fishermen's Energy has been waiting for the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities to decide whether to require mainland utilities to purchase the project’s renewable energy output.  But that case remains pending, with no clear state-law timeline for its resolution.  Issues in play include the project's cost to ratepayers, particularly if the project fails to win further competitive grants from the federal Department of Energy.

In the meantime, Fishermen’s Energy needs to spend at least $10 million on the project this year to remain eligible for the federal investment tax credit.  Yet the developer is presumably reluctant to commit those funds before learning whether it will also win ratepayer support.  As December 31 draws nearer, this dilemma makes it more challenging for Fishermen's Energy to sustain project development efforts.


May 17, 2010 - Cape Wind inks another contract

Monday, May 17, 2010

The next chapter in the continuing story of Cape Wind: a mirror contract, and questions about the linkage between renewable portfolio standards and power pricing.

National Grid has signed a second contract with Cape Wind, this time to enable National Grid to assign the remaining 50% of the project's output to another wholesale customer -- a "mirror contract" for National Grid's primary $3 billion, 15-year contract to buy 50 percent of the electricity that will be produced by Cape Wind. This would leave National Grid with rights to the entire output of the Cape Wind project.

Mirror contracts are relatively common in the industry. As a financing tool, them allow the project developer to demonstrate to banks and capital sources that they have a guaranteed offtake for 100% of the project's production. This makes banks more willing to finance the project.

So who did National Grid have in mind as the other wholesale purchaser? If you know the regional market, Boston-based utility NStar jumps out as one potential purchaser, although there are of course other possibilities. In fact, National Grid itself apparently has the rights under the mirror contract to retain 100% of the power for itself -- although doing so magnifies its ratepayers' exposure to the elevated costs, triggering a tough burden on National Grid to demonstrate that this is just and reasonable and in the public interest.

Some commenters are noting that the Cape Wind was made possible by the Commonwealth's Green Communities Act and related legislation establishing a renewable portfolio standard (or renewable electricity standard) for the largest investor-owned utilities. But clearly there's a huge price premium figured in over the existing mix of resources -- about 8 cents for power today, versus 20.7 cents and rising for the Cape Wind output. Is a renewable portfolio standard enough to explain the acceptability of this significant price increase? Other states like Maine have had renewable portfolio standards for years, and although some renewables might be priced higher, there has been enough qualified capacity coming online at near-market costs that Maine has not seen much activity from significantly above-market contracts.