Renewable + Law

Conservation Advocacy Group Files Lawsuit to Force ESA Decisions on Dozens of Pacific Northwest Species

William H. Holmes — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:58:58 -0800

Last month, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon alleging that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by failing to take action on a number of listing petitions.

When a listing is petitioned, the Fish and Wildlife Service has 90 days to determine whether action may be warranted and then 12 months to issue it's finding.

The CBD’s lawsuit alleges that the Service has failed to issue 90-day and 12-month findings, for dozens of northwest species in violation of the ESA.

Stoel Rives attorney Ryan Steen issued a law alert exploring the significant implications surrounding these suits and the potential ESA listings.

Treasury Creates Safe Harbor for Smart Grid Investment Grants

William H. Holmes — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:27:17 -0800

Yesterday, the Energy and Treasury Departments jointly issued guidance regarding the federal income tax treatment of Smart Grid Investment Grant payments received pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).

The guidance, which was issued as Revenue Procedure 2010-20, generally provides that a corporation receiving a specified grant will not recognize taxable income upon receipt of the grant, but will be required to reduce the tax basis of its assets by the amount of the grant.

Stoel Rives issued a law alert today regarding this guidance, further exploring what the guidance addresses, and notably, does not address.

National Hydropower Association Regional Meeting Underway in Juneau

William H. Holmes — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:22:52 -0800

Mary Jo Miller from our Portland office and Jonn Kauffman of our Anchorage office are in Juneau today and tomorrow attending the National Hydropower Association's Regional meeting, where Mary Jo is participating on a panel discussing funding mechanisms available for building hydropower projects. Mary Jo will present a case study describing the various loan, grant, and tax incentive funds used by one of our clients, the Central Oregon Irrigation District, to replace its existing porous open irrigation canal with an underground steel pipe combined with a 5MW hydropower system. The project will conserve water supply, increase river flow and water quality for local fish and wildlife species, and generate clean power for the local community. COID accessed eight different sources of funding to make this project a reality. Mary Jo's case study presentation is available here.

DOE Announces Upcoming Funding for Marine Hydrokinetics

Chad Marriott — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 08:21:33 -0800

Good news for marine hydrokinetics! On Wednesday, the U.S. Department of Energy ( the "DOE") issued a Notice of Intent announcing that its Wind and Hydropower Technologies Program will publish a Funding Opportunity Announcement ("FOA") for hydrokinetic technology development no later than March 31, 2010. This announcement comes just six months after the DOE awarded $14.6 million to 22 advanced water power projects designed to accelerate the commercial viability, market acceptance, and environmental performance of these technologies. Stoel Rives would like to congratulate Pacific Energy Ventures and Ocean Power Technologies for receiving two of those awards.

The FOA, called the "Marine and Hydrokinetic Technology Readiness Advancement Initiative," will solicit applications from industry-led partnerships that want to marine and hydrokinetic ("MHK") technologies at all levels of industry maturity. However, unlike past rounds of funding, this time the DOE will be using MHK-specific technology readiness levels ("TRLs") to assess system and component maturity. Preliminary definitions for the nine different proposed TRLs are included in the Notice of Intent. The DOE will direct funding in two areas using the new TRLs:

Concept Development- Funding in this area will focus on projects seeking to advance a novel concept from TRL 1-3 ("Discovery/Concept Definition") to TRL 4 ("Proof of Concept"). By funding these projects, the DOE hopes to stimulate technology breaktroughs.
Technology Readiness Level Advancement- Funding in this area will be directed to projects focused on operational readiness. Recipients will have established a proof of concept already and are moving toward laboratory or test facility validation of scale models, open water tests, operational verification, and commercial application.

Developers should begin assembling their teams immediately because the DOE anticipates a short application deadline once the FOA is announced. Remember that each applicant must be registered with FedConnect; each must have a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System number (a "DUNS number"), and each must be registered with the Central Contractor Registry.

Virginia Jumping in to Offshore Wind

Katherine A. Roek — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 15:30:04 -0800

In late February, the Associated Press reported that the Minerals Management Service received proposals from two Virginia companies for leases on the outer continental shelf to develop offshore wind farms. Apex Wind Energy Inc. is proposing to lease 116,000 acres for an undetermined number of wind turbines with the potential to generate up to 1,500 megawatts of power, and Seawind Renewable Energy Corp. envisions building 240 turbines to generate enough power for more than 250,000 homes annually, according to a company statement.

Both wind farms would be located 12 miles off of Virginia Beach.

The Virginia Offshore Wind Coalition estimates the development of a wind power hub in Virginia has the potential to become an $80 billion industry creating more than 10,000 jobs. Coalition members include the Cities of Virginia Beach and Norfolk, Apex Offshore Wind, AREVA, BAE Systems Ship Repair, Colonna’s Shipyard, Dominion Virginia Power, Earl Energy, Fugro Atlantic, Old Dominion Electric Cooperative, Science Applications International Corporation, Seawind Renewable Energy Corporation, Weeks Marine and W. F. Magann.

RFP for Renewable Resources.

Jason A. Johns — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 07:49:55 -0800

NV Energy issued its Spring 2010 Request for Proposals seeking new renewable resources. NV Energy hopes to use the RFP to meet its RPS requirement of serving 12% of retail load with renewable energy in 2010. Bidders should also be aware that NV Energy's non-refundable bid deposits have changed: projects 10 MW of larger must submit a $10,000 deposit ($7,500 if the same facility was bid into the 2009 RFP); projects under 10 MW must submit a $5,000 deposit ($3,500 if the same project was bid into the 2009 RFP). Responses to the RFP are due April 16.

Details regarding NV Energy's Spring 2010 RFP can be found by clicking here.

Proposed Legislation to Limit ITC Grants for Renewable Projects

Greg Jenner — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 16:08:35 -0800

Proposed legislation in the Senate would greatly limit the effectiveness of the grant in lieu of tax credits for renewable energy projects under section 1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

The section 1603 grant currently applies to renewable energy projects, such as wind, solar, geothermal and biomass, that are placed in service before 2011 or for which construction begins in 2009 or 2010 (and that are placed in service by certain dates). In its current form, if a project qualifies for the grant, the Treasury Department is required to pay the grant.

Expressing concern that a significant portion of the grants paid so far have gone to non-U.S. companies, Senator Charles Schumer (NY) and three other Democratic senators have sponsored a bill that would make payment of the grant subject to the discretion of the Treasury Department. It also would make the grant subject to the Buy American requirements of the stimulus bill, and would require that Treasury conduct an analysis of the "domestic job preservation and creation provided by" a project for which a grant application is submitted.

Various trade associations involved in renewable energy (such as AWEA, GEA and SEIA) are taking immediate action to register their opposition. Their focus will be on the incorrect assumptions underlying the proposal (for example, that it does not create U.S. jobs) and that, if enacted, it likely would destroy the effectiveness of the program.

We encourage our readers to register their strong opposition with their members of Congress and with the trade associations with which they are associated. The more opposition that is registered, and the longer the proposal drags out, the less likely it is to be enacted.

Read the March 4, 2010 Stoel Rives Law Alert on this proposed legislation.

SHOW ME THE MONEY: NEW ARPA-E FUNDS

Janet Jacobs — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 09:22:21 -0800

DOE issued three Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs) on March 2 that offer $100 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding for the third round of its Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy (ARPA-E) program. The FOAs were announced at the first ARPA-E summit in Washington, D.C., and focus on innovations in three areas of technology: grid storage, power converters, and cooling systems for buildings. The goal is to promote U.S. leadership in the emerging global market for these advanced energy technologies, while cutting greenhouse gas emissions and reducing U.S. electrical consumption by as much as 30%.

The FOAs can be found at https://arpa-e-foa.energy.gov/Default.aspx

Michigan GLOW Council Issues Legislative Recommendations for Offshore Wind

Katherine A. Roek — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 13:00:31 -0800

Michigan's Great Lakes Wind Council (GLOW Council), an advisory body within the Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic Growth to examine issues and make recommendations related to offshore wind development in Michigan, has issued recommendations for a regulatory framework for offshore wind in Michigan's Great Lakes. These recommendations follow the GLOW Council's September 1, 2009 report (see previous blog entry), which contained proposed steps forward to developing an offshore wind industry in Michigan.

The recommendations, dated March 3, 2010, include a process that the Council recommends for inclusion in any bill introduced into the legislature to regulate offshore wind energy development in the Great Lakes, as well as recommendations for changes to transmission siting laws when the transmission relates to service of an offshore wind energy development.

White Paper Explains New Advanced Renewable Fuel Standard/RFS2

William H. Holmes — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 08:59:35 -0800

My colleague Graham Noyes and Clayton McMartin of Clean Fuels Clearinghouse recently published a white paper on the massive and staggeringly complex revision of the federal Advanced Fuel Standard (RFS) issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on February 3, 2010. Graham and Clayton describe how this second generation renewable fuel initiative (RFS2) will bring industry and government together in ways never before experienced by the fuels industry.

With a view to helping market participants develop comprehensive cost/benefit and compliance strategies, Graham and Clayton structure their discussion according to the following key topics:

Legal background and new statutory requirements of RFS2;
Compliance implications of updates to the Renewable Identification Numbers (“RINS”) process; and
Issues important to particular market participants, including producer obligations, new fuel pathways, importer issues and RIN trading economics.

Download a free copy of the Renewable Fuel Standard/RFS2 White Paper (PDF)

186 More Species to be Protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)

William H. Holmes — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 15:42:40 -0800

My colleagues Greg Corbin and Eric Martin report on an important development under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act that may affect the siting and permitting of wind projects

Yesterday the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) announced the addition of 186 migratory birds to its list of species protected by the MBTA. Effective at the end of this month, this is the first update to the MBTA list in 25 years and will bring the total number of species receiving federal protection under the MBTA to over 1,000. Because the MBTA protects the vast majority of birds in the country, it covers many species not covered by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or other laws.

Similar in some respects to the ESA, the MBTA prohibits the “take” (e.g., wounding or killing) of migratory birds. However, unlike the ESA, the MBTA does not have a routine mechanism for permitting incidental take of migratory birds. Accordingly, there is no way to be completely free of legal liability if a wind project results in the take of a migratory bird. Project developers, though, can seek assurances from the FWS that it will exercise its enforcement discretion if the project developer implements measures to protect migratory birds, such those that might be contained in an Avian & Bat Protection Plan. The measures necessary to avoid or mitigate impacts to migratory birds are project specific and always result in some additional cost, whether through changes to project layout and operation, or supplying mitigation funds.

In light of this newly expanded list of species protected by the MBTA, developers and operators of wind project would be well advised to review their strategy for minimizing the risk of prosecution under the MBTA.

The complete list of birds that will be protected by the MBTA is available at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/.

EPA Delays Regulation of GHGs as Stationary Source Emissions

William H. Holmes — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:55:08 -0800

From Stoel Rives partners Lee Smith and Krista McIntyre:

In response to a letter drafted by eight democratic senators and general industry adverse reactions, the EPA announced on February 22, 2010 that there would be delays to implementation of the regulation of green house gases as stationary source emissions under the Clean Air Act, and included additional conditions to the implementation. It is expected that the EPA will phase in permit requirements and regulation of GHG for large stationary sources beginning in calendar year 2011.

The additional conditions include only requiring facilities that are applying for air permits for non-greenhouse gas emissions to be permitted under the new GHG permitting system in the first half of 2011, and permitting at a level higher than the 25,000 ton level originally proposed, for the latter half of 2011 through 2013. The letter can be found here.

SHOW ME THE MONEY: $1.37 BILLION LOAN GUARANTEE FOR CSP

Janet Jacobs — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 08:39:40 -0800

DOE announced a conditional commitment for more than $1.37 billion in loan guarantees to BrightSource Energy, Inc. in support of the construction and start-up of three utility-scale concentrated solar power plants (CSP) in the Mojave Desert of southeastern California. The loan guarantee is funded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and is predicated on BrightSource meeting financial and environmental requirements before closing on the loan. The Bureau of Land Management is leading a federal review of the project with support from DOE. Pending local, state, and federal regulatory approval, the new plants will generate approximately 400 megawatts (MW) of electricity using the company's proprietary technology. This output would nearly double the existing generation capacity of CSP facilities in the United States.

The three-plant Ivanpah Solar Complex will be located on federally owned land near the Nevada border and will be the world's largest operational concentrated solar power complex. BrightSource will use solar power tower technology, which uses thousands of flat mirrors, or "heliostats" to concentrate the sun's heat onto a receiver mounted at the top of a tower. Water pumped to the receiver is boiled into steam, which drives a turbine to produce electricity. The first Ivanpah plant is expected to begin construction in the second half of 2010 and come on line in 2012. Commercial operation for the second plant is slated for mid-2013, with the third plant following later that year. Once operational, the project will supply power to approximately 140,000 California homes.

Brightsource says the project will create 1,000 temporary jobs and 86 permanent jobs.

For additional information: see the DOE press releaseand DOE's Loan Guarantee Program Web site.

Southern California Public Power Authority RFP

Jason A. Johns — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:53:25 -0800

Here's a new opportunity for renewable energy developers. The Southern California Public Power Authority has issued a request for proposals seeking renewable energy generation "with supporting infrastructure(s) as structured projects through (i) facility ownership; or (ii) power purchase agreement with ownership option(s), in one or more facilities." SCPPA is a California joint powers authority that plans to purchase an undivided equity share in facilities, issue tax-exempt debt financing, and sell output at cost to its municipal utility members. SCPPA will also consider straight or pre-pay power purchase agreements that include a facility purchase option.

Responses are due May 28, 2010. Follow the link for the solicitation materials: www.scppa.org/Downloads/RFP/Renewable_Energy_Projects_052810.pdf

Register Now for Live Meeting/Teleconference: Perspectives on Current Issues Facing Midwest Wind Projects

Katherine A. Roek — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:37:25 -0800

ENERGY BAR ASSOCIATION
RENEWABLE ENERGY & DEMAND-SIDE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
Live Meeting/Teleconference

Midwest Wind Development: Perspectives on Current Issues Facing Regional Wind Projects

February 23, 2010
12:00 noon - 1:30 p.m. (Eastern Time)
11:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. (Central Time)
9:00 a.m. - 10:30 a.m. (Pacific Time)

In this seminar, the expert panelists will discuss current issues for developing commercial wind projects in the Midwest. In particular, the panelists will address:

State regulatory issues for regional wind projects;
Current prospects for developing wind energy on the Great Lakes;
Community wind projects: current prospects for small scale wind projects;
MISO cost allocation and market/operational issues affecting regional wind projects.

Moderator:		David Gilles, Godfrey & Kahn, S.C.

Presenters:		David Sapper, Customized Energy Solutions (Presenting from Madison Host Location) William H. Holmes, Stoel Rives, LLP (Presenting from Minneapolis Host Location) Jeffery C. Paulson; Jeffery C. Paulson & Associates, Ltd. (Presenting from Minneapolis Host Location)

Organizers:		David Gilles, Godfrey & Kahn, S.C. Jeff Dennis, Edison Electric Institute

Host Locations:		Godfrey & Kahn, S.C. (beverages and light lunch provided) Stoel Rives LLP (beverages and light lunch provided) McCarthy, Sweeney & Harkaway, P.C. (beverages provided)

Questions for the Panelists:		Please send any questions for the panelists to David Gilles at dgilles@gklaw.com at any time prior to the Program.

REGISTRATION INFORMATION
To register for this Live Meeting/Teleconference, please complete and return the registration form.

Pre-registration is required and registration forms along with payment must be returned by no later than February 18, 2010. If you have questions, please contact Marlo Brown at marlo@eba-net.org.

Host Locations:
Godfrey & Kahn, S.C., One East Main Street, Suite 500, Madison, WI 53703
Stoel Rives LLP, Minneapolis City Center, 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4200, Minneapolis, MN 55402
McCarthy, Sweeney & Harkaway, P.C., 1825 K Street N.W., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20006

SEC Adopts Interpretive Guidance on Disclosure Regarding Climate Change

William H. Holmes — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:01:16 -0800

As described in a previous alert, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") voted on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 to adopt an interpretive release to provide guidance on existing public company disclosure requirements as they apply to business or legal developments relating to climate change. The SEC has now distributed the interpretive release itself, which can be found here. The interpretive release indicates that its purpose is to provide guidance on how to interpret existing SEC disclosure rules and requirements as applied to business and legal developments associated with climate change. For our detailed alert on the subject, click here.

HB 3680 Passes Oregon House

Nikki Dobay — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:19:51 -0800

On February 10, 2010, the Oregon House passed HB 3680, which if enacted would substantially curtail the BETC for certain renewable energy projects. HB 3680 would impose an overall statewide cap, on the amount of potential tax credits that the Department of Energy could certify. The statewide cap would be $300 million for the 2009-11 biennium, and $150 million for the year beginning July 1, 2011 and ending June 30, 2012. HB 3680 would also authorize the Department of Energy to write rules relating to the priority to be given if applications for preliminary certification exceed those caps. In addition to the overall cap discussed above, HB 3680 would also impose the following cutbacks for large wind facilities (more than 10 megawatts):

For facilities that obtain preliminary certification between January 1, 2010 and January 1, 2011, the BETC would be limited to $3.5 million
For facilities that obtain preliminary certification between January 1, 2011 and January 1, 2012, the BETC would be limited to $2.5 million
For facilities that obtain preliminary certification after January 1, 2012, the BETC would be limited to $1.5 million

HB 3680 would adopt several criteria implemented by the Department of Energy in the Temporary Rules adopted in November 2009, and would modify the definition of a “transportation facility” to include efficient truck technology for commercial motor vehicles. These provisions would apply retroactively to July 1, 2009. HB 3680 would also allow the Department of Energy to suspend or revoke a final certificate if a facility is no longer operating. This provision would apply retroactively to January 1, 2009. Finally, HB 3680 would extend the sunset date to January 1, 2014, for renewable energy resource equipment manufacturing facilities, but would not extend the sunset date for other facilities.

Colorado Likely to Increase its RPS to 30% by 2010

William H. Holmes — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:58:47 -0800

From our colleague Adam Walters:

In January Colorado Governor Bill Ritter and State House Democrats announced the introduction of a bill that would increase Colorado’s Renewable Energy Standard (RES) from 20% to 30% by 2020. The Governor, who recently announced that he would not run for re-election, is putting the weight of his not insubstantial political capital behind the bill, HB-10 1001 as a cornerstone of his gubernatorial legacy. Consequently, the Bill was symbolically proposed as the first bill of the 2010 legislative session.

On February 11, HB-10 1001 passed the House on its second reading. The Bill, which is broadly supported by Democrats, conservation organizations (see, e.g. the Sierra Club, Environment Colorado and Colorado Conservation Voters) the renewable energy industry and organized labor (the Bill has been endorsed by the AFL-CIO), is widely expected to pass in time for Governor Ritter to sign it into law before the conclusion of his term. Opposition to the Bill (and to increasing Colorado’s RES generally) includes the State Republican Party (which sees the Bill as boon to labor unions because it requires certain distributed generation facilities to be installed by licensed and certified contractors) and the oil and natural gas industry, for obvious reasons. (See, e.g. the Colorado Mining Association).

The major Colorado utilities, such as Xcel Energy, appear to be taking a wait-and-see approach to the Bill, having neither endorsed nor opposed it. According to a spokesman for the Governor’s office, Xcel, Colorado’s largest utility, is expected to meet the current RES five years ahead of schedule. However, according to a recent editorial in the Denver Post, Xcel supports passage of the Bill provided that it enables Xcel to meet the RES requirement without exceeding the two percent surcharge billed to ratepayers for renewable energy development.

In addition to increasing the RES standard overall, the Bill places greater emphasis on distributed generation resources as a means of fulfilling the RES. For a decent summary of the bill, as well as updates on its progress, check out Colorado Capital Watch.

POSSIBLE RESTRUCTURING OF 1603 GRANTS

Greg Jenner — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 06:18:38 -0800

Congress is considering a complete rewrite of the 1603 grant program. Some of the changes being considered are very helpful while others would be extremely troubling. Please continue reading to get the full story ...

I thought I'd take this opportunity to do some "free-form" blogging. My intent is to alert you to some changes that may be afoot in Congress (if they can ever dig out from the snow).

Some of you readers may be aware that I spent 23 years in DC, both in and out of government. The mysterious ways of DC are less mysterious to me, which makes me somewhat dangerous! But I digress ...

It's fair to say that the 1603 grant program has been one of the most successful of any enacted in the stimulus bill. As of today (and since August 1), Treasury has paid out over $2.34 billion. More than that, Treasury has moved quickly to set up the program and provide guidance which, while not perfect, has generally been helpful to taxpayers. The program has some glitches, particularly resulting from Congress moving too quickly and not thinking through the ramifications of some of its decisions. On the whole, however, most people agree that the program has worked well.

I note this initially because Congress is considering a complete restructuring of the program. A combination of forces is pushing them to consider this (here's the inside baseball part). Supporters want to eliminate the requirement that construction begin before 2011, something we would all support. The "begin construction" requirement has caused a lot of wrinkled brows since 1603 was enacted (BTW - Treasury is about to issue new guidance that will simplify the requirement). However, to eliminate the requirement completely requires changes to 1603 itself. The problem is that 1603 is not within the jurisdiction of the tax-writing committees: House Ways & Means and Senate Finance. 1603 was written as a grant, which means it's an Appropriations Committee problem. Therefore, in order for the tax writers to amend it, they have to rewrite it to make it a tax provision. The bill is HR 4599.

As silly as it sounds, what I'm essentially saying is that in order to fix 1603, Congress has to break it. The way they propose to do that is to make it a refundable tax credit. Instead of applying directly to the good folks at Treasury, taxpayers would claim the funds on their tax returns. This creates some very interesting twists and turns. The good news in all of this is that, according to the sponsors, the rewrite is intended to preserve the favorable positions already taken by Treasury on issues such as recapture, which assets qualify (e.g. roads), etc. The rewrite would also eliminate the "begin construction" requirement, fix the "disqualified person" problem (proportionate disallowance instead of the death penalty), allow REITs to invest, and eliminate the requirement of independent CPA attestation. All of these changes would be welcome.

On the downside, the rewrite would first move the program to the IRS and away from Treasury. To date, the people at Treasury running the 1603 effort have made the program successful. It is unclear whether IRS would be so favorably disposed. It is the IRS after all.

But the most troubling change is how claimants would receive their funds. The bill treats the amount that would otherwise be paid as a grant as a payment of tax which can be refunded. It could be claimed as a refund on the claimant's tax return. However, as written, the refund would not be paid until 45 days after the tax return was due to be filed. This could mean that, instead of receiving the funds within 60 days as under 1603, the claimant may have to wait as long as 15 months. There would be no circumstance in which the waiting time would be shorter than 150 days (compared to the current 60).

In addition, we believe that the refunds could be subject to offset if money is owed to the IRS. Unlike 1603, the claims could not be made by project companies. They would have to be made by real taxpayers or entities (like partnerships) with real taxpayers. If any of these taxpayers owe other debts to the government, offset might be possible. Finally, recapture liability might actually be imposed up the ownership chain in appropriate circumstances (unlike 1603).

All of these changes could affect how lenders view the program and alter their willingness to lend against the "grants" in bridge financings. It has taken the lending community a few months to get used to 1603; at a minimum, lenders will need time to adapt to these changes as well. Certainly, in the case of a longer bridge (15 months potentially), their risk profile will be different. We (and they) simply don't know at this point.

The fate of this proposal is not certain. At present, its prospects appear to be good on the House side. The sponsors are trying to help but likely have not heard from those with concerns. The Senate is less clear (as always). Its support for 1603 was grudging in 2009, and whether it will be willing to eliminate the "begin construction" requirement or rewrite 1603 has yet to be tested. We will keep you apprised.

We hope this "free-form" explanation was helpful. Should you have any questions, please contact your favorite Stoel Rives attorney.

Michigan Announces $1.3M in Grants for Offshore Wind Research

Katherine A. Roek — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 09:56:27 -0800

On February 8, 2010, the Michigan Public Service Commission issued an order approving $1.6 million in Michigan Energy Efficiency grants, $1.3 million of which will go to Grand Valley State University, Michigan Alternative and Renewable Energy Center, in partnership with the University of Michigan Memorial Phoenix Energy Institute to conduct and/or perform studies to explore the feasibility of deployment of offshore wind technologies in Michigan.

The grants are part of the Low‑Income and Energy Efficiency Fund, which provides energy bill assistance for low‑income customers and promotes the efficient use of energy by all customer classes.