electricity

Subscribe to electricity via RSS
server_room_70297009.jpg_25417 (3)

Recent directives create uncertainty for data center projects seeking ERCOT interconnection or requiring TCEQ permits.

By Nikki Buffa, Joshua W. Marnitz, Jeremiah Davis, and Nathaniel L. Glynn

In response to unprecedented growth in data center development and increasing public scrutiny of such projects, Texas officials have launched a series of regulatory and policy initiatives aimed at evaluating the effects of large-load facilities on ratepayers, electric reliability, natural resources, and local communities.1 Texas is currently the second-largest…

EPA’s decision to forego financial requirements will likely face opposition by eNGOs.

By Claudia M. O’Brien and Stacey L. VanBelleghem

On July 2, 2019, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published its proposed decision not to impose new financial responsibility requirements on the Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution industry under Section 108(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), following nearly a decade of litigation, stakeholder input, and EPA assessment.

Section 108(b) and EPA’s Path to This Decision

CERLCA imposes a joint and several liability scheme that holds certain entities (e.g., certain owners and operators, generators, arrangers, and transporters of hazardous substances) liable for the costs or damages associated with environmental remediation. Section 108(b) of CERCLA authorizes EPA[i] to develop regulations requiring owners or operators of certain “classes of facilities [to] establish and maintain evidence of financial responsibility consistent with the degree and duration of risk associated with the production, transportation, treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous substances.” Section 108(b)(2) identifies factors to consider to determine the level of financial assurances necessary in light of the level of risk. These factors include:  “the payment experience of the [Hazardous Substance Superfund], commercial insurers, courts settlements and judgments, and voluntary claims satisfaction.”

Gas-insulated switchgear owners face easy-to-miss, CARB-enforced emissions requirements.

By JP Brisson, Aron Potash, R. Andrew Westgate, Kimberly D. Farbota, and Christopher C. Antonacci

Since 2011, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has regulated sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) emissions from gas-insulated switchgears (GIS). CARB’s SF6 Regulation applies to all entities that own GIS, including many entities that do not otherwise emit and report greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions such as wind farms, solar parks, and geothermal plants. Accordingly, some companies may not have realized that they are subject to the SF6 requirements. The SF6 Regulation includes emission rate limits, mandatory operating procedures, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements, as well as providing for monetary penalties in the event of a violation.

Background on SF6 Gases

SF6 is used in GIS equipment to protect electrical power plants and distribution systems by insulating circuits and interrupting electric currents. Since the initial use of SF6 in the 1950s, SF6-containing circuit breakers, transformers, switches, fuses, and other equipment have been used regularly because SF6 is non-flammable, non-corrosive, non-toxic, and an effective arc suppressant, which allows SF6 equipment to have a small footprint and be relatively low maintenance. GIS containing SF6 gases are typically found in most if not all substations and at many power generating facilities, including natural gas plants, wind farms, solar parks, and geothermal plants.

Recent activity by the California Public Utilities Commission should cause public utility managers and counsel everywhere to take notice.

By Charles C. Read

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has the biggest staff of any state utilities commission. It has issued fines and penalties in excess of US$1 billion; it has enforced the state’s renewable energy mandate; and it has even found ways to exert substantial regulatory control over disruptive innovators in transportation.

Because of the CPUC’s outsized influence on commissioners, staff, and public advocates in other states, public utility management and counsel should be aware of five of the CPUC’s most recent regulatory innovations:

Latham lawyers discuss the business implications of the new legislation.

By Tommy P. Beaudreau, Marc T. Campopiano, Michael J. Gergen, Joshua T. Bledsoe, and Jennifer K. Roy

Senate Bill 100, signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown on September 10, 2018, aims to raise California’s already ambitious renewable energy standards by 2030, with an ultimate mandate of 100% clean energy by 2045. On the same day, Brown issued Executive Order B-55-18, which sets a target of…

By Eli Hopson and David Pettit

The nation’s coal fleet is getting older and will become subject to a looming suite of regulatory requirements issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), such as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (a/k/a “Utility Maximum Achievable Control Technology” or Utility MACT) and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). Given these EPA rules and the entry of more efficient, lower-cost generation and demand response resource competitors, many coal plants are expected…