IV. Electricity

1. FERC and RTOs

In addition to a notable increase in enforcement activity emanating from FERC, there have been important legal developments and several major issuances by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). FERC issued Order No. 2222, which addresses distributed energy resource aggregation and participation in regional transmission organization/independent system operator (RTO/ISO) markets. Additionally, the D.C. Circuit affirmed Order No. 841, the Commission’s final rule on Electric Storage Participation in RTO/ISO markets. FERC also issued Order No. 569-B, addressing the methodology for calculating a utility’s return on equity. FERC has changed its practice for addressing rehearing requests arising under the Natural Gas Act and the Federal Power Act following the D.C. Circuit’s recent opinion invalidating the use of tolling orders meant only to provide the Commission with more time to consider the issues raised in requests for rehearing.

The New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) is engaged in initiatives to address a rapidly changing resource mix and concerning issues of integration of renewable resources, intermittency, and reliability. The California ISO (CAISO) continues to focus on market enhancement and resource and transmission adequacy issues following the 2020 rolling blackouts. The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) endured a severe reliability event and prolonged outages caused by extreme winter weather in February 2021. Issues of concern in the ISO New England (ISO-NE) include renewable energy pricing and renewable resource integration issues. The Southwest Power Pool (SPP) launched a new five-minute energy imbalance service market. Indeed, the Midcontinent ISO (MISO) is focused on the integration of renewable resources along with managing resource and energy adequacy and operating reliability issues.

2. Northeast Region

Northeast states are taking full advantage of their expansive shoreline and turning to offshore wind energy as a source of electricity. While only one 30-MW offshore wind farm is currently located off the coast of Rhode Island, the Northeastern states continue to strongly pursue offshore wind farm projects.

3. Southeast Region

The 2020 Atlantic Hurricane Season, which ran from June 1 to November 30, 2020, dominated the attention of the industry in the Southeast region. This past hurricane season was record-breaking and saw utilities undertake enormous restoration efforts. Those efforts continue in the 2021 season, beginning with the extensive damage and outages caused by Hurricane Ida, first in Louisiana and Mississippi and later in the Northeast.

4. Midwest Region

Among other significant events, MISO declared a Maximum Generation Event 5 requiring emergency load reductions during the arctic weather events of the week of February 15, 2021. The region experienced increased demand for electricity at the same time that supply was strained due to weather-related transmission emergencies, generator outages, and limited fuel availability. Developments from the Midwestern states include the enactment by several states of securitization bills, including coal-plant securitization to measures related to renewables. While Wisconsin for example has approved significant solar projects, Ohio has placed new requirements on the approval of wind and solar projects.

5. Southwest Region (and ERCOT)

The most notable events in ERCOT arose in connection with the shortfall of electric generation and resulting emergency load curtailments necessary to preserve the integrity of the bulk electrical system during the February winter weather events. Due to the extreme prolonged cold temperatures and icy precipitation over the course of a week, as well as cascading system failures related to fuel supply, ERCOT experienced generation outages totaling up to 52,277 MW of nameplate capacity out of its 107,514 MW total installed capacity.

Within the Southwestern states, the resource plans and requests of utilities continue to reflect the rise of renewable resources as a leading source of new electric generation in the region. Regulatory activity for the Southwestern states largely focused on the COVID-19 pandemic. Arizona regulators, however, voted on an amended energy rules package that will move Arizona’s regulated utilities to one hundred percent carbon-free energy by 2070. Legislative developments in the Southwestern states included measures related to renewable portfolios and electric vehicles.

6. Western Region

Across the Western states, renewable and clean energy initiatives remain prominent. Among these notable developments, California Governor Newsom signed an executive order to phase out new gasoline powered cars by 2035; by 2030, California will require that ninety percent of ride-hailing vehicles be electric; Nevada is accelerating its extra-high voltage transmission line project, which is intended to strengthen the grid while promoting renewable development; and Oregon passed legislation requiring power suppliers to achieve zero emissions by 2040.

B. FERC/Federal/RTOs

Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) and Independent System Operators (ISOs) and their stakeholders continue to grapple with expansive renewable resource and energy storage deployment in their territories. These operators are addressing challenges to incorporating these resources with low energy costs and high fixed costs in their bid-based capacity and energy markets, in addition to challenges like burgeoning interconnection queues faced by rest of the nation.

FERC has also layered on additional challenges for RTOs and ISOs in directing them to implement market rule changes to accommodate distributed energy resource (DER) aggregations. These are aggregations of small resources, including demand response resources, located on the distribution system or behind the meter, that generally are too small to participate on their own in the RTO markets. After the courts affirmed FERC’s jurisdiction over the participation of resources located on the distribution system in organized markets, and the related decision not to allow states and their regulatory agencies to opt out of such programs, the FERC’s distributed energy resource (DER) aggregation rule followed suit mandating the rule, with no exemptions except for all but the smallest utilities.

In addition to directing the implementation of new rules to integrate resources that have never before participated in markets on a large scale, FERC continues to seek cost reductions in RTOs and ISOs, primarily through targeting of their members’ return on common equity (ROE) and incentives for RTO and ISO participation. To that end, in the last year FERC made final tweaks to its newest method for calculating ROEs and applied that method to pending cases. The method and FERC’s related orders lowering the ROE for MISO transmission owners are awaiting resolution in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Meanwhile, FERC is indicating that it will reverse course on incentives for RTO membership, limiting the ROE adder to fifty basis points and limiting its application to three years after a member joins an RTO.

With the change in administration, FERC has ramped up enforcement activity. It is showing a tendency toward more activity and higher fines for alleged violations, some that occurred more than a decade ago. Since retirement of its former director in early 2021, FERC has publicly sought a replacement to fill this vital role.

Finally, in what is likely the most significant FERC procedural change in decades, FERC can no longer rely on tolling orders to provide more time to address requests for rehearing of its orders. The D.C. Circuit has ended the practice that has caused delays of over ten years in extreme cases. This change puts practitioners on a more level playing field: rehearing requests are due within thirty days of the issuance of an order, and FERC rehearing orders are now due thirty days after rehearing requests. Because FERC has not been able to meet the thirty-day deadline in most cases, it has instituted new notices that indicate whether it will issue a further merits orders. These notices do not, however, prevent parties from seeking appeal of the underlying order while FERC drafts such orders.

1. Major FERC Issuances

a. Order No 2222—Integration of Distributed Energy Resources in Organized Markets

On September 17, 2020, FERC issued Order No. 2222, its final rule to remove barriers to distributed energy resource (DER) aggregations in wholesale markets operated by RTOs/ISOs.¹ DERs are resources that are located on the distribution system or behind the meter and include electric storage resources, distributed generation, demand response, energy efficiency, thermal storage, and electric vehicles and their supply equipment.² Generally speaking, DERs tend to be too small to participate in RTO/ISO markets individually³ and therefore must be aggregated. But then-existing market rules prevented DERs from participating in RTO/ISO markets individually or in the aggregate, even when they were technically capable of doing so.⁴

To remedy this problem, FERC provided a number of requirements for RTO/ISO tariffs in Order No. 2222. FERC mandated RTOs/ISOs “to have tariff provisions that allow distributed energy resource aggregations to participate directly in RTO/ISO markets”⁵ and “to establish distributed energy resource aggregators as a type of market participant.”⁶ The Commission also “require[d] each RTO/ISO to implement a minimum size requirement not to exceed 100 kW for all distributed energy resource aggregations.”⁷ FERC further required that RTOs/ISOs revise their tariffs to implement a number of technical factors, including (1) locational requirements for DER aggregators;⁸ (2) distribution factors and bidding parameters;⁹ (3) information and data requirements;¹⁰ and (4) metering and telemetry requirements.¹¹ After its win on D.C. Circuit review of its storage rule (described below), FERC declined to provide an “opt out” in which states and retail regulators have the authority to decide whether resources at the distribution level could participate in the FERC-jurisdictional wholesale markets. It did, however, recognize that the final rule does not affect the ability of states, pursuant to Order No 719, to prohibit demand response from being bid into RTO/ISO markets by aggregators.¹²

On March 18, 2021, FERC set aside its finding that all demand response participation in DER aggregations is subject to the opt-out requirements of its earlier rules.¹³ Instead it found that demand response resources that participate in heterogeneous distributed energy resource aggregations cannot be prevented by state regulators from participating in RTO/ISO markets.¹⁴

However, on June 17, 2021, FERC set aside that ruling regarding heterogeneous distributed energy resource aggregations¹⁵ and delayed decision on that issue to another rulemaking proceeding.¹⁶

b. D.C. Circuit Affirms Energy Storage Rule

On July 10, 2020, the D.C. Circuit issued its opinion¹⁷ affirming Order No. 841, FERC’s final rule on Electric Storage Participation in RTO/ISO markets.¹⁸ An electric storage resource is capable of receiving electric energy from the grid and storing it for later injection of energy back to the grid. Storage resources are located on the interstate transmission system, on local distribution systems, and behind the meter. In the rule on review, FERC found that existing wholesale market rules created unwarranted barriers to participation by these resources in the wholesale market and instituted requirements that RTOs and ISOs allow all eligible Electric Storage Resources (ESR) to make wholesale sales of energy, regardless of the resources’ physical location on the grid. In the underlying proceeding, states urged FERC to include an “opt-out,” so states and retail regulators would have authority to decide whether storage resources at the distribution level could participate in the FERC-jurisdictional wholesale markets. In its appeal, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) claimed that FERC exceeded its authority by infringing on matters left to the states and not providing the requested opt-out.¹⁹ According to NARUC, a local Electric Storage Resource does not participate in the federal wholesale market until it navigates through state-jurisdictional facilities.²⁰ The D.C. Circuit disagreed, explaining that “States continue to operate and manage their facilities with the same authority they possessed prior to Order No. 841.”²¹ Thus, the rule neither usurped state power nor improperly commandeered state facilities.²²

c. Return on Equity—Opinion Nos. 569 et al.

On November 19, 2020, FERC issued Opinion No. 569-B, the latest in a string of opinions developing a revised methodology for analyzing the base return on equity (ROE) component of public utility rates under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act.²³ In Opinion 569, FERC decided to calculate ROE using the discounted cash flow model (DCF) and capital-asset pricing model (CAPM), instead of only the DCF model.²⁴

In Opinion No. 569-A, FERC modified and set aside, in part, Opinion No. 569.²⁵ Among other things, FERC decided to use the Risk Premium model, DCF model, and CAPM under both prongs of the Section 206 analysis, instead of relying on only the DCF model and CAPM, and gave the short-term growth rate 80% weighting and the long-term growth rate 20% weighting in the two-step DCF model.²⁶

On further rehearing, in Opinion No. 569-B, FERC modified the discussion in Opinion No. 569-A and set aside the order with respect to certain inputs to the Risk Premium model.²⁷ In particular, FERC determined that “the Risk Premium model contained certain typographical errors and inadvertently omitted one case,” but that “[r]emedying these errors leaves the results of the Risk Premium model unchanged.”²⁸

Following Order No. 569-B, a number of parties filed petitions for review in D.C. Circuit.²⁹ The case is now fully briefed, but oral argument has not been scheduled. In the interim, FERC has applied its new methodology to find that ROEs of 10.37%³⁰ and 9.33%³¹ are just and reasonable.

d. Supplemental NOPR on Transmission Incentives

On April 15, 2021, FERC issued a supplemental NOPR to modify its proposed change to incentives for transmitting and electric utilities that join Transmission Organizations.³² In particular, FERC reduced the original notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) incentive for transmitting utilities that join and remain in a Transmission Organization from one hundred to fifty basis points, and limited it only to the first three years.³³ FERC explained that these modifications were necessary to protect ratepayers, and consistent with the Federal Power Act because the statute only directs an incentive for entities that “join” a Transmission Organization, which it says implies that the continued adder is discretionary.³⁴

Commissioners Chatterjee and Danly both dissented from FERC’s decision. Commissioner Chatterjee pointed out that Section 219(c) of the Federal Power Act does not limit incentives only to utilities that “newly join[]” a Transmission Organization and that the majority’s decision would stymie the growth of RTOs and ISOs.³⁵ Similarly, Commissioner Danly argued that FERC made no attempt to square its fourteen years of prior decisions, concluding that Section 219(c) did not require an adder only for a utility’s initial joining of a Transmission Organization, and that the prior interpretations were the correct ones.³⁶

e. Increases in Enforcement Activity

The past year has seen a marked increase in activity by FERC’s Office of Enforcement Staff. For example, on May 20, 2021, FERC issued an order to show cause and notice of proposed penalty to Green Hat Energy, LLC, and related individuals, arising from an investigation into market manipulation.³⁷ Enforcement Staff alleged that, after Green Hat was founded in 2014, it built up the largest Financial Transmission Rights (FTR) portfolio in the company PJM by minimizing collateral obligations.³⁸ When it defaulted, GreenHat had only about $560,000 in collateral against $179 million in losses.³⁹ Yet, GreenHat’s three owners obtained $13.1 million for themselves by selling profitable FTRs in GreenHat’s portfolio to third parties in bilateral deals.⁴⁰ Enforcement Staff estimated the total market harm at $179 million.⁴¹ In light of its investigation, the Enforcement Staff recommended that the proceeds of the fraudulent behavior be disgorged, with interest, and that the parties be jointly and severally liable for the losses.⁴² Enforcement Staff also recommended that GreenHat be responsible for $179 million in civil penalties and that two owners should each be responsible for $25 million in civil penalties.⁴³

On April 15, 2021, the Commission issued an order to show cause and notice of proposed penalty to PacifiCorp, based on Enforcement Staff’s allegation that PacifiCorp had failed to comply with certain reliability requirements.⁴⁴ In their report, Enforcement Staff alleged that PacifiCorp violated Reliability Standard FAC-009-1 R1 by establishing and having facility ratings that were inconsistent with the Facility Ratings Methodology.⁴⁵ Enforcement Staff also alleged that PacifiCorp was aware of incorrect clearances on its bulk electric system since at least 2007, but failed to identify and remedy them in a timely manner.⁴⁶ Enforcement Staff provided that the violations began in August 2009 and continued through August 2017.⁴⁷ Enforcement Staff recommended a penalty of $42 million against PacifiCorp.⁴⁸

Consistent with its increased emphasis on enforcement, in April 2021, for the first time in recent memory, FERC issued a public posting for a new director of the Office of Enforcement.⁴⁹ FERC is currently reviewing applications and, as of the time of writing, has not yet made a permanent selection.

f. Reduction in FERC Procedural Delays Through Elimination of Tolling Orders

On June 30, 2020, the D.C. Circuit issued its en banc opinion in Allegheny Defense Project v. FERC,⁵⁰ determining that FERC’s use of “tolling orders” was inconsistent with the Natural Gas Act.⁵¹ Under the Natural Gas Act (and the corollary Federal Power Act), a party wishing to challenge a FERC decision must seek rehearing before FERC before proceeding to judicial review.⁵² Both Acts require FERC to act on a request for rehearing within thirty days.⁵³ To comply with the thirty-day requirement, FERC had long issued “‘tolling order[s],’” which “‘granted rehearing for the limited purpose of further consideration’ for an open-ended period of time.”⁵⁴ The substantive rehearing order could take years to issue.

The D.C. Circuit concluded that these “tolling orders” were inadequate under the Natural Gas Act. First, the court explained that “a ‘grant’ of rehearing, as opposed to inaction on an application for rehearing, necessarily requires at least some substantive engagement with the application. A grant of rehearing cannot consist solely of a grant of additional time to decide whether to grant rehearing.”⁵⁵ The court emphasized that the “tolling orders” were clear that the “grant” of rehearing was “only ‘for the limited purpose’ of ‘afford[ing] additional time for consideration of the matters raised.’”⁵⁶ Second, the court noted that “the Tolling Order[s] did not do—and could not have done—anything more than stall for time.”⁵⁷ And third, the court observed that “the Commission’s practice confirms what the Tolling Order said: Its sole function was to grant the Commission an unbounded amount of ‘additional time.’”⁵⁸ The court summarized that, “[a]t bottom, what the Tolling Order did was delete the thirty-day time limit and the deemed-denied provision from the statute.”⁵⁹

Following Allegheny, FERC issues two types of rehearing notices within the thirty-day statutory deadline. First, FERC issues notices of denial of rehearing by operation of law, which indicate that FERC does not intend to issue a merits order in response to the rehearing request.⁶⁰ Second, the Commission issues notices of denial of rehearing by operation of law and providing for further consideration, which indicate that FERC intends to issue a further order addressing the matters raised on rehearing.⁶¹ Under both the Natural Gas Act and the Federal Power Act, FERC retains jurisdiction to modify its rehearing order until it files the administrative record with the court of appeals.⁶² Parties may properly petition for review in the D.C. Circuit or other appropriate U.S. circuit court after issuance of either type of notice.⁶³

2. NYISO

Like MISO and ISO-NE, the New York ISO (NYISO) is a grid in transition. “Grid in Transition” is also the name given to NYISO’s and its stakeholders’ formal initiative to address the rapidly changing resource mix in New York as more renewables come online. In its draft 2021 Master Plan, the NYISO proposed a suite of broad actions that the RTO will need to take to adapt to changing conditions. First, the NYISO explains that, in energy markets, it will have to balance intermittency to handle the new kinds of resources coming online, and improve price formation, given that intermittent resources can result in rapid system changes.⁶⁴ Second, for the capacity market, the NYISO noted a need for comprehensive mitigation review, to improve capacity accreditation and to improve the reliability outcomes.⁶⁵ Third, the NYISO explained that it will need to enable new resources and capabilities to participate in its markets and to improve existing models.⁶⁶ And, fourth, the NYISO stated a need to improve its planning, including through load forecasting enhancements.⁶⁷

Consistent with the NYISO’s planning, on January 19, 2021, the New York Public Service Commission (NYPSC) issued a report evaluating the state of the grid in connection with New York’s aggressive environmental goals.⁶⁸ Although the report concludes that the state is well positioned to achieve its goals, additional efforts will be necessary to accelerate upgrades to the local transmission and distribution system, prepare Long Island’s bulk system for offshore wind, interconnect New York City with new offshore wind, and implement energy storage in strategic locations.⁶⁹

In a decision arguably inconsistent with NYISO’s Grid in Transition initiative, FERC, in November 2020, issued an order rejecting the NYISO’s proposed revisions to its tariff to enhance market power mitigation rules, which, most notably, would have exempted Public Policy Resources (e.g., renewable generators, from offer floors under the buyer-side mitigation program).⁷⁰ FERC determined that the “NYISO’s proposal is unduly discriminatory because it does not provide sufficient justification for prioritizing the evaluation of Public Policy Resources before non-Public Policy Resources, independent of cost.”⁷¹ In a fierce dissent, now Chairman Glick not only called FERC’s decision “deeply misguided,” but he warned that it would “ultimately doom NYISO’s current capacity market construct by forcing New York to choose between [FERC]’s constant meddling and the state’s commitment to addressing the existential threat posed by climate change.”⁷²

3. CAISO

The CAISO has spent the last year focusing on resource and transmission adequacy issues, especially following the rolling blackouts experienced during the summer of 2020.⁷³ In January 2021, the CAISO, California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), and California Energy Commission issued a joint report addressing the root causes of the blackouts.⁷⁴ The report identified three major factors that led to the outages: (1) a climate change-induced extreme heat wave that resulted in demand exceeding resource adequacy and planning targets; (2) inadequate planning targets caused by the transition to cleaner resources; and (3) certain practices in the day-ahead market.⁷⁵

The CPUC instituted a rulemaking proceeding to address the problems experienced during the summer 2020 blackouts,⁷⁶ which yielded an order to investor-owned utilities concerning preparations for the summers of 2021 and 2022.⁷⁷ Most notably in that order, the CPUC established an Emergency Load Reduction Pilot to “serve as an insurance policy against the need for future rotating outages.”⁷⁸ The Emergency Load Reduction Pilot would effectively add another layer of demand response as a last resort.⁷⁹ The CPUC set the Pilot to run for five years, from 2021–2025.⁸⁰

The CAISO has also worked to implement a suite of market enhancements to prepare the grid for summer 2021 and beyond.⁸¹ Among other actions, on March 25, 2021, FERC approved proposed revisions to the CAISO’s Tariff to ensure that the RTO has appropriate operational tools and market rules to address tight supply conditions.⁸² These revisions included (1) providing make-whole payments for certain resources that provide energy during tight system conditions through the hour-ahead scheduling process; (2) improving rules applicable to the participation of reliability demand response resources in CAISO’s real-time markets; (3) revising the pricing of operating reserves during system emergencies; and (4) improving the interconnection process.⁸³

On May 28, 2021, FERC accepted additional revisions to the CAISO’s Tariff pertaining to resource adequacy.⁸⁴ In part, the CAISO proposed revisions (1) adopting minimum requirements for storage resources; (2) requiring substitute capacity for all maintenance outages of resource adequacy resources; and (3) updating the local capacity technical study criteria and permitting CAISO backstop authority.⁸⁵ The CAISO explained that these modifications would “ensure that resource adequacy resources fulfill their obligation to provide capacity when and where it is needed to maintain system reliability.”⁸⁶

On June 25, 2021, FERC approved another set of revisions to the CAISO’s Tariff, subject to compliance.⁸⁷ First, the CAISO proposed to revise its Tariff to “address the scheduling priority for exports.”⁸⁸ The CAISO’s aim was to “address the risk of cutting schedules for native load when conditions change between the day-ahead time frame and real-time, and to preserve CAISO’s access to resource adequacy capacity under stressed system conditions.”⁸⁹ Second, the CAISO “propose[d] a set of Tariff revisions to address the effects wheeling through transactions can have on CAISO’s ability to serve native load.”⁹⁰ FERC accepted the CAISO’s Tariff revisions, but required the CAISO to submit a compliance filing incorporating penalty-pricing parameters associated with the revised scheduling priorities.⁹¹

4. ERCOT

The Electricity Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) faced a severe reliability event from February 14–19, 2021, caused by extreme cold weather, during which more than four million people were without power,⁹² and at least one hundred people died.⁹³ This event is discussed in section F.1.

5. ISO-NE

In what may be near the last of many disputes regarding the prices for resources in the ISO New England, Inc. (ISO-NE) forward capacity markets, FERC resolved two major disputes about the ability of renewables to reduce prices in the capacity market and the default price for resources in those markets. Both disputes were raised in anticipation of ISO-NE’s sixteenth Forward Capacity Auction (FCA) for delivery year 2025–2026, which is scheduled to run in early 2022. First, on June 7, 2021, FERC issued an order on ISO-NE’s and the New England Power Pool’s (NEPOOL) competing FPA 205 filings⁹⁴ concerning price floors to be used for the auction.⁹⁵ Under the ISO-NE Tariff, all new resources submitting offers below the default costs for their technology type (e.g., off-shore wind or utility-scale solar) must justify to the market monitor that their offers are competitive.⁹⁶ A significant disagreement between ISO-NE and NEPOOL emerged on the offer floor for offshore wind: ISO-NE proposed setting the offer floor at the starting point of the auction—such that offshore wind could effectively be excluded—and NEPOOL proposed an offer floor of $0/kW-month—such that offshore wind nearly would be guaranteed to receive a capacity supply obligation and associated payment.⁹⁷ FERC agreed with ISO-NE’s proposal, finding that NEPOOL’s capital cost estimate was unjust and unreasonable.⁹⁸

Second, ISO-NE won FERC approval of its proposed revisions to its Cost of New Entry (CONE) values for the sixteenth auction.⁹⁹ The CONE and related values set the costs of a typical unit (reference unit) that is likely to enter in the next auction, and these values are used to start the auction and can be determinative of the outcome of that auction. Generation suppliers argued that ISO-NE’s filing produced CONE values that were too low. They argued that ISO-NE had failed to support its cost assumptions, such as the costs to procure natural gas.¹⁰⁰ After ISO-NE modified its proposal to adopt a recommendation of the generation suppliers, FERC largely rejected these protests, determining that ISO-NE’s cost assumptions were just and reasonable. FERC directed ISO-NE to change its assumption that the reference unit would not require on-site compression for natural gas deliveries and further directed ISO-NE to submit a compliance filing reflecting the adjustment.¹⁰¹ FERC also rejected challenges to ISO-NE’s proposed method for estimating net energy and ancillary services revenue that resulted in a decrease in the CONE value from prior years.¹⁰²

These two disputes may mark the end of an era as ISO-NE and its stakeholders contemplate how its markets will transform in the coming years. In the first half of 2021, ISO-NE launched a number of studies to evaluate the integration of clean energy sources into the grid. In the Future Grid Reliability Study Phase I, which launched in April 2021 and is expected to be completed in early 2022, ISO-NE will evaluate how the “power system could operate in 2040 in light of current state energy and environmental policies.”¹⁰³ In the 2050 Transmission Study, ISO-NE will consider “how to expand the system to incorporate wind, hydro, and distributed energy resources.”¹⁰⁴ And in the Pathways Evaluations: Forward Clean Energy and Carbon Pricing Studies, ISO-NE will “review market frameworks that may help evolve the power grid to a future state reflecting states’ policies.”¹⁰⁵

6. SPP

On February 1, 2021, the Southwest Power Pool (SPP) launched the Western Energy Imbalance Service (WEIS) market, a five-minute energy imbalance service market in the Western Interconnection. SPP contracts with WEIS participants to operate the imbalance markets and does not require participants to be members of SPP.¹⁰⁶ In seeking approval for the new market, SPP provided that the WEIS market would assist utilities by “(1) addressing BA limitations; (2) addressing the risk of diminishing bilateral trading partners; (3) maintaining a stakeholder-involved governance structure; (4) responding to the changing generation industry; (5) addressing energy imbalance requirements with a broader scope of available resources; (6) improving reliability; and (7) creating and maintaining competitive options for a potential future Day-2 market.”¹⁰⁷ In approving WEIS, FERC noted that a “centralized imbalance market, such as that proposed here, can deliver significant benefits, including reliability benefits that are not easily quantified.”¹⁰⁸ Additionally, FERC explained that “an energy imbalance market can enable participating utilities to meet their energy imbalance needs at lower cost and better integrate increasing levels of variable resources.”¹⁰⁹

SPP continues to coordinate with its neighboring RTO, MISO, to look for ways to increase efficiency along the MISO-SPP seam. In September 2020, SPP and MISO announced a joint generation interconnection study to consider interregional projects to alleviate pressure along the seam.¹¹⁰ SPP and MISO had also considered conducting another interregional transmission study consistent with studies conducted in each of the past few years, but elected to defer that effort until after the interconnection queue study, which would cover some of the same ground.¹¹¹

7. MISO

Consistent with last year’s report, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO) continues to focus on the integration of the increased amount of generation in its interconnection queues. In February 2021, MISO released its Renewable Integration Impact Assessment, which considers the effect of the deployment of renewable resources on the bulk power system and provides a framework for next steps.¹¹² The report focuses on three primary areas—resource adequacy, energy adequacy, and operating reliability.¹¹³ A key finding in the report is that while “[m]anaging the system . . . beyond the 30% system-wide renewable level is not insurmountable[, it] will require transformational change in planning, markets, and operations.”¹¹⁴

Capacity markets are an area of change for MISO as well. MISO has made a significant adjustment to its capacity market rules and expects to put forward even more structural changes later in 2021. On October 27, 2020, FERC accepted MISO’s proposed tariff revisions to enhance the deliverability requirements applicable to conventional capacity resources (i.e., those other than intermittent resources).¹¹⁵ Specifically, MISO proposed to revise its tariff to require that these resources demonstrate deliverability with firm transmission service up to the Capacity Resource’s Installed Capacity level in order to qualify their entire output at the local level.¹¹⁶ MISO explained that the change was necessary to allow maximum capacity qualification only for those conventional resources that are fully deliverable to local zones.¹¹⁷ Ultimately, FERC accepted MISO’s proposal, noting that it “will provide certainty that MISO’s Reserve Requirements are satisfied by fully deliverable Planning Resources, thereby ensuring that MISO meets its reliability needs.”¹¹⁸ With regard to future capacity market changes, MISO announced, in late 2020, its intent to develop a seasonal component to its capacity auction. MISO currently operates a voluntary annual auction for capacity to fulfill the next year’s requirements. A seasonal construct would allow MISO to better manage reliability risks from renewables’ growing share of the resource mix. The proposal is currently working its way through the stakeholder process and is expected later in 2021.

On the transmission front, MISO finally achieved FERC approval of its cost allocation method and criteria for regional economic projects and affirmed that transmission owners are allowed to initially fund generation interconnection projects. First, in April 2020, after rejection of two other proposals to address criteria and cost assignment for local and regional economic transmission projects, MISO submitted a proposal that excluded allocation of local economic projects but was otherwise virtually identical to its two prior proposals.¹¹⁹ In July 2020, FERC approved the proposal over protests including that of transmission developer LS Power.¹²⁰ In response to LS Power’s argument that the voltage criterion to qualify for a regional economic project should start at 100 kilovolts, FERC responded that MISO’s proposal to include projects at 230 kilovolts and above was just and reasonable and that precedent did not support a directive to lower the voltage criterion.¹²¹ LS Power has petitioned for review of the decision in the D.C. Circuit, and briefing is underway.¹²²

Second, in September 2020, FERC affirmed that transmission owners in MISO may elect unilaterally to fund generator interconnections under the pro forma Generator Interconnect Agreement for the capital cost of network updates.¹²³ The orders setting this policy stemmed from the D.C. Circuit’s 2018 decision¹²⁴ vacating and remanding several FERC orders that had barred transmission owners from electing to provide initial funding. In its request for rehearing, the American Wind Energy Association pushed back against the ability for transmission owners to fund during the period between June 24, 2015, and August 21, 2018, arguing that this violated the filed rate doctrine.¹²⁵ FERC disagreed, explaining that “[o]nce a party requested rehearing of the [initial order denying transmission owner initial funding], all parties to this proceeding were on notice that agreements filed in compliance with the Commission’s orders were subject to revision in the continuing litigation.”¹²⁶

8. PJM

PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.’s (PJM) capacity market has continued to be at the forefront of FERC’s agenda. On October 15, 2020, FERC largely accepted a compliance filing concerning the offer floors under the minimum offer price rule (MOPR).¹²⁷ Most notably, FERC accepted PJM’s proposal to exclude independently evaluated, non-discriminatory, fuel neutral, competitive state-directed default service auctions from application of the expanded offer floors.¹²⁸

On January 19, 2021, FERC accepted, with one exception, PJM’s further compliance filing on the MOPR.¹²⁹ In the one exception, FERC rejected a proposed modification to the market seller offer cap mechanism as beyond the scope of the compliance obligation, without prejudice to PJM refiling it.¹³⁰ The market seller offer cap is a level set by PJM, above which all bids must be reviewed by the Independent Market Monitor in unit-specific review.¹³¹ It was revisited three months later as discussed next.

Then, following a technical conference on resource adequacy in March 2021, FERC issued a notice inviting post-technical conference comments on the MOPR.¹³² Around the same time, PJM launched an expedited stakeholder process to consider revising the MOPR.¹³³ PJM’s Board of Directors has approved a plan to roll back the MOPR,¹³⁴ and a formal Section 205 filing is forthcoming as of the date of writing.

On March 18, 2021, FERC issued an Order granting the complaints filed by the Independent Market Monitor for PJM and the Joint Consumer Advocates against PJM concerning PJM’s methodology for calculating the market seller offer cap.¹³⁵ In a 2015 order, FERC approved PJM’s method of calculating the default market seller offer cap by looking to the opportunity cost of accepting a capacity obligation, in a formula based on Net CONE.¹³⁶ In granting the complaints, FERC agreed with the Independent Market Monitor and Joint Consumer Advocates that certain assumptions (namely, the number of expected penalty hours used in the formula) led to unjust and unreasonable results, but FERC ordered additional briefing on a proposed remedy.¹³⁷ The supplemental briefing is complete, and the case is awaiting a FERC decision.

On July 9, 2021, the D.C. Circuit granted, in part, and denied, in part, petitions for review brought against FERC arising from its approval of the revised variable demand curve that PJM uses in its annual forward capacity auctions.¹³⁸ The D.C. Circuit upheld FERC’s orders, including rejection of petitioners’ claim that PJM’s reference resource for Net CONE—a combustion turbine—was unjust and unreasonable because a combined-cycle plant would be a better option, finding that FERC’s decision was adequately supported by the record.¹³⁹ However, the D.C. Circuit agreed with the petitioners that FERC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in approving a ten-percent adder in Net CONE, based on record evidence showing that many combustion turbines do not use the ten-percent adder.¹⁴⁰ Accordingly, the Court remanded the case to FERC for reassessment of the ten-percent adder.¹⁴¹

C. East/Northeast Region

Northeast states are taking full advantage of their expansive shoreline and are turning to offshore wind energy as a source of electricity. While only one 30 MW offshore wind farm is located off the coast of Rhode Island at this time, the Northeastern states continue to strongly pursue offshore wind-farm projects.

1. Massachusetts

Recent legislation requires state utility companies to secure an additional 2,400 MW of offshore wind energy through long-term contracts.¹⁴² This legislation raises the total required offshore wind energy to 4 GW by 2027. Vineyard Wind is one of many offshore wind projects proposed for the federal waters located south of Massachusetts and Rhode Island. The project received federal approval of its Construction and Operations Plan in May 2021,¹⁴³ and, according to current projections, construction is set to be complete by 2024.¹⁴⁴ The project will have up to 84 wind turbine generators, producing approximately 800 MW of energy 12–14 miles southeast of Martha’s Vineyard.¹⁴⁵ The Vineyard Wind project is currently undergoing the permitting process with the Massachusetts Energy Facility Siting Board for approval of the land portion of the project.¹⁴⁶

Mayflower Wind is another offshore wind development with the potential to generate over 2,000 MW. In November 2020, the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities approved Mayflower Wind for long-term contracts of 804 MW.¹⁴⁷ Current projections have the development being functional by the mid-2020s.¹⁴⁸

2. Connecticut

In June 2019, the state of Connecticut put forth a notice that allows and encourages the procurement of up to 2,000 MW of offshore wind energy.¹⁴⁹ In furtherance of this notice, Revolution Wind has entered into a power purchase agreement for 304 MW with a Connecticut state utility company.¹⁵⁰ Revolution Wind is currently in the permitting phase before federal and Rhode Island state agencies. Another project, Park City Windfarm, is still in the initial permitting stages to be developed off of the Massachusetts coast to provide roughly 800 MW of electricity to the Connecticut power grid.¹⁵¹ At the time of this writing, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is undergoing the process to seek approval to prepare an environmental impact statement for the Park City Wind project.¹⁵²

3. Rhode Island

In January 2020, Governor Gina Raimondo signed Executive Order 20-01 setting the goal for Rhode Island’s electricity to be 100% renewable by 2030.¹⁵³ Part of this order “requires a diverse combination of responsibly developed resources to power [the] economy while maintain[ing] reliability, including, but not limited to offshore wind . . . .” ¹⁵⁴

The first offshore windfarm project, the Block Island Windfarm, is producing 30 MW of power for the state.¹⁵⁵ Rhode Island has entered into long-term contracts with Revolution Wind to provide 400 MW to the state. Revolution Wind is a 700-MW project that will be located thirteen nautical miles southeast of the Rhode Island coast.¹⁵⁶ The project is still in the permitting phase with applications under review by the Rhode Island Energy Facility Siting Board for the land portion of the project and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management for the offshore portion.

4. New Jersey

The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection developed and published the Offshore Wind Strategic Plan (OWSP) in September 2020.¹⁵⁷ The OWSP serves as a roadmap to demonstrate how the state of New Jersey plans on achieving the goal to produce 7,500 MW by 2035; this amount would represent fifty percent of the projected energy load in 2035 for New Jersey.¹⁵⁸

The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities approved the solicitations for the Ocean Wind and the Atlantic Shores Offshore Wind projects on June 30, 2021.¹⁵⁹

Developers have started the initial planning phases for the Ocean Wind development, which is planned to be roughly fifteen miles off the coast of southern New Jersey.¹⁶⁰ The Ocean Wind facility is predicted to have the capacity to produce 1,100 MW.¹⁶¹

The Atlantic Shores development is planned to be roughly ten to twenty miles off the coast of New Jersey between Atlantic City and Barnegat Light.¹⁶² The Atlantic Shores facility is contracted to develop up to 1,510 MW of renewable energy.¹⁶³

5. New Hampshire

New Hampshire is working to identify offshore wind opportunities with a focus on locating the facilities in the Gulf of Maine. There is an existing inter-governmental offshore wind renewable energy task force initiated by Governor Sununu with Maine, Massachusetts, federally recognized Tribes in the areas, and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, but due to the pandemic, the group has not met since December 2019.

6. Maine

Maine proposed legislation to prohibit wind projects in state waters until March 1, 2031. However, future “pilot-scale, limited duration” research projects are exempt from the proposed prohibition. ¹⁶⁴ If passed, the proposed Act has the potential to impact the interconnection for offshore wind projects, as the exemption for “utility cables or transmission lines that are intended to support generation of electricity from offshore wind energy facilities located seaward of the territorial waters” only applies if three conditions concerning the impact of offshore wind projects are met by March 1, 2023.¹⁶⁵ The Act includes the creation of the Offshore Wind Research Consortium “to oversee the development and execution of a research strategy to better understand the local and regional impacts of floating offshore wind power projects in the Gulf of Maine.”¹⁶⁶ The consortium must include individuals that represent lobster harvesting, commercial fisheries other than lobster harvesting, and the Commission of Marine Resources.

Presently the Aqua Ventus project has been proposed for the coast of Maine, which will be a demonstration project using a 732-foot tall turbine mounted to a floating concrete base designed by the Advanced Structures and Composites Center at the University of Maine.¹⁶⁷ This project is part of Maine’s proposed floating offshore research array, which was created to research ways to minimize potential harms and maximize benefits of offshore wind to the residents of Maine.¹⁶⁸

7. New York

New York has 4,300 MW of offshore wind projects in the pipeline located in federal waters off the coast of Long Island.¹⁶⁹ The five projects under development are Empire Wind 1, Empire Wind 2, Sunrise Wind, South Fork Wind Farm, and Beacon Wind.¹⁷⁰ In January 2021, the Empire Wind 2 and Beacon Wind projects were selected by New York State to provide generation capacity of 1,260 MW and 1,230 MW respectively.¹⁷¹ Empire Wind 1, Sunrise Wind, and South Fork Wind Farm Project are in the early permitting phase.¹⁷²

8. Maryland

On May 11, 2017, pursuant to the provisions of the Maryland Offshore Wind Energy Act of 2013, the Maryland Public Service Commission (MPSC) approved applications for two independent offshore projects: Skipjack Offshore (120 MW) and U.S. Wind, Inc., “MarWin,” (248 MW).¹⁷³ Skipjack received approval from the MPSC for the selection of the General Electric Haliade-X 12 MW turbine.¹⁷⁴ The Orsted company, the organization heading the Skipjack project, plans to have the Skipjack project functioning by the second quarter of 2026.¹⁷⁵ The MarWin project anticipates generating clean energy by 2024.¹⁷⁶

D. Southeast Region

While COVID-19 captured the national focus, electric utilities in the Southeast also found themselves on edge due to the 2020 Atlantic Hurricane Season, which ran from June 1 to November 30, 2020.¹⁷⁷ This record-breaking hurricane season showed that a single utility operating on the coast could face a billion-dollar storm restoration “bill” from a single major hurricane.

The 2020 Atlantic Hurricane Season was the most active season in recorded history surpassing the 2005 Atlantic Hurricane Season, which included the widely-covered Hurricane Katrina.¹⁷⁸ The 2020 season had thirty named storms, which exhausted the twenty-one names chosen at the start of the season and forced the use of Greek letters for only the second time.¹⁷⁹ Of those thirty storms, thirteen were hurricanes,¹⁸⁰ and six were major hurricanes.¹⁸¹ Twelve storms made landfall in the contiguous United States, the most since 1916; five of those made landfall in Louisiana, a new record.¹⁸² Ten storms formed in September, a new record; two major hurricanes, Eta and Iota, formed in November, another new record.¹⁸³ Hurricane Iota broke the record for the strongest storm to occur in the final month of the season.¹⁸⁴

Hurricane Laura was the most intense and most devastating hurricane to make landfall in Louisiana. Laura was a Category 4 major hurricane¹⁸⁵ that made landfall on August 27, 2020, near Cameron in southwest Louisiana causing an eighteen-foot storm surge. Laura was the strongest hurricane to strike Louisiana since Hurricane Camille of 1969, which produced Category 5 conditions over the southeastern part of Louisiana.¹⁸⁶ The estimated damage from Laura in the United States was $19 billion.¹⁸⁷

Entergy Louisiana, LLC (ELL), the investor-owned utility serving the majority of customers in the Cameron and Lake Charles areas, experienced extensive grid damage, requiring almost a complete rebuilding of the transmission and distribution system and estimated the storm restoration costs associated with Laura to be $1.6 billion.¹⁸⁸ Storm damage to all nine area transmission lines severed Southwest Louisiana from the Bulk Electric System, and virtually all 90,000 customers, including large industrial customers and critical energy infrastructure in the area, were without service. Also, storm conditions destroyed or damaged 12,453 distribution poles and 27,166 distribution spans. By mid-September, ELL had restored service to seventy-five percent of its customers; by October 1, 2020, ELL restored service to all customers.¹⁸⁹ Entergy Texas, Inc. also experienced significant outages and infrastructure damage in southeast Texas.

A month later, Hurricane Delta made landfall as a Category 2 hurricane just east of where Laura made landfall in Southwest Louisiana and affected ELL’s service area again. Delta reached a peak intensity as a Category 4 hurricane but made landfall on October 9 as a Category 2 hurricane and produced a storm surge of six to nine feet to the east of its landfall location along the Louisiana coast.¹⁹⁰ The estimated damage in the United States from Delta was $2.9 billion.¹⁹¹

Delta interrupted service to 616,000 ELL customers¹⁹² with its wider footprint than Laura and tropical-storm-force winds as far away as East Mississippi.¹⁹³ ELL estimated the storm restoration costs associated with Delta to be $215.2 million¹⁹⁴ with 171 transmission structures, 116 transmission lines, 969 distribution poles, and 2,407 distribution spans destroyed or damaged.¹⁹⁵

A third hurricane, Hurricane Zeta, caused significant damage to utility infrastructure in Louisiana, which affected ELL and its smaller sister company, Entergy New Orleans, LLC (ENO).¹⁹⁶ On October 28, 2020, Zeta made landfall as a Category 3 hurricane in Southeast Louisiana and produced a storm surge of six to ten feet to the east of its landfall location along the Mississippi and Alabama coasts.¹⁹⁷ Hurricane-force winds occurred as far east as Mississippi, and tropical-storm-force winds occurred as far east as the Florida Panhandle, northern Georgia, northwestern South Carolina and western North Carolina.¹⁹⁸ The estimated damage in the United States from Zeta was $4.4 billion.¹⁹⁹ Zeta was the latest land-falling major hurricane on record for the continental United States.²⁰⁰

Zeta interrupted service to more than 303,000 ELL customers²⁰¹ and 178,171 ENO customers.²⁰² ELL estimated its storm restoration costs to be $176.7 million²⁰³ with damage to 199 transmission structures, 32 transmission lines, 2,424 distribution poles, and 1,593 distribution spans.²⁰⁴ ENO estimated its storm restoration costs to be $35.8 million²⁰⁵ with damage to 10 transmission structures, 323 distribution poles, and 201 distribution spans.²⁰⁶

Other southeastern states did not experience the level of damage that Louisiana experienced from hurricanes in 2020. Hurricane Sally affected Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, and Georgia. On September 15, 2020, Sally made landfall at Gulf Shores, Alabama coast as a Category 2 hurricane and produced a storm surge of three to five feet to the west of Sally’s landfall location along the Alabama coast and along the Mississippi coast and southeastern Louisiana.²⁰⁷ Sally was the first hurricane to make landfall in Alabama since Hurricane Ivan in 2004.²⁰⁸ Sally produced sustained hurricane-force winds across portions of southern Alabama and the most western part of the Florida Panhandle, and sustained tropical-storm-force winds occurred from southeastern Louisiana eastward to the Big Bend of Florida.²⁰⁹ Sally’s slow rate of travel resulted in high rainfall totals and flooding in Alabama and the Florida Panhandle; for example, Orange Beach, Alabama had nearly thirty inches of rain.²¹⁰ The estimated damage in the United States from Sally was $7.3 billion.²¹¹

Alabama Power Company reported that Sally disrupted service to 680,000 customers²¹² and caused $51 million of storm damage to its transmission and distribution infrastructure.²¹³ Mississippi Power Company reported 2,500 customer outages in its extreme southeastern service area.²¹⁴ Gulf Power Company, which serves northwest Florida, reported that Sally caused 285,000 customer outages and $206 million of storm restoration costs.²¹⁵ Georgia Power Company reported 90,000 customer outages.²¹⁶

Hurricane Zeta also affected these utilities. Alabama Power reported 504,000 customer outages caused by Zeta²¹⁷ and $67 million of storm damages.²¹⁸ Mississippi Power reported 65,500 customer outages.²¹⁹ Gulf Power reported 43,700 customer outages.²²⁰ Georgia Power reported 806,000 customer outages with Atlanta and North Georgia being severely affected.²²¹

The experience in the East Coast of Florida—a near miss from Hurricane Isaias and encounters with the weakened once-Hurricane Eta—was very different from the areas along the Gulf of Mexico. In Florida Power & Light Company’s opinion, its customers had escaped the record-breaking hurricane season, experiencing a combined 450,000 customer outages from those two storms.²²²

The primary driver for the 2020 Hurricane Season’s activity level was warmer-than-normal ocean temperatures.²²³ Before the 2020 Hurricane Season, ocean temperatures were 0.01°C from tying the warmest global ocean temperatures, and the area from the West Coast of Africa, through the Caribbean Sea, to the Gulf of Mexico—the path tropical systems generally take—had much warmer-than-average temperatures.²²⁴ Another contributing factor was that La Niña conditions persisted in the Pacific Ocean,²²⁵ which caused lower vertical wind shear in the Atlantic Ocean, making the Atlantic basin more conducive to tropical storm formation.²²⁶

The National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration (NOAA) is predicting another above-normal hurricane season in 2021. ²²⁷ In May 2021, warmer-than-average sea surface temperatures in the tropical Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea continue to be observed. Although La Niña conditions do not exist in the Pacific Ocean currently, the possibility exists for such conditions to return in the latter part of the season. Thus, the conditions going into the 2021 Hurricane Season suggest the possibility for another active hurricane season for the Southeastern electric utilities.²²⁸

E. Midwest Region

1. MISO-Related Developments

a. February Arctic Event

During the week of February 15, 2021, unusually cold temperatures in the MISO region increased demand for electricity while simultaneously reducing supply due to weather-related transmission emergencies, generator outages, and limited fuel availability.²²⁹ Multiple generators tripped off-line as electricity demand increased on February 16, 2021. MISO declared a Maximum Generation Event at 6:35 p.m. that day. MISO also sought to temporarily increase the North-South Regional Directional Transfer Limit to transfer more energy to MISO’s south region. However, system overloads in neighboring systems prevented the accommodation of the request. MISO declared a Maximum Generation Event Step 5 at 7:40 p.m. MISO’s emergency load reductions ended later that evening, and there were no further emergency load reductions. MISO has indicated that it intends to leverage Long Range Transmission Planning (LRTP) activities to identify intra- and inter-regional planning to ensure reliability, including further evaluation of north-south transfer capability.

b. MISO Report on Commitment and Dispatch of Coal Generators

In September 2020, Potomac Economics, the independent market monitor for MISO, published a report on the commitment and dispatch of coal generators.²³⁰ The report evaluated the operating decisions made by resource owners from 2016 through 2018 and in 2019 and found that the decisions to start or keep coal generators online have generally been efficient. The report found that the decisions of coal resources operated by merchant utilities were different from those operated by MISO’s integrated utilities and were, on average, more efficient. In addition, the report found that, while many of the integrated utilities operated almost as efficiently as merchant utilities, a small share operated much less efficiently.

2. Developments Within the States

a. Indiana

Senate Bill 386,²³¹ signed into law on April 19, 2021, permits electric utilities to securitize assets, including coal plants that have become inefficient to run. The legislation limits securitization to facilities within twenty-four months of retirement and equal to five percent of the utility’s rate base. To securitize an asset, a utility must file a petition with the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) demonstrating that the financing provides “timely rate savings for customers.” The bill also seeks further study on securitization regarding program expansion, possibly allowing additional electricity suppliers to securitize costs associated with retired electric utility assets. On April 7, 2021, the IURC issued a final order²³² (Cause No. 45378) that reduced the credit received by future solar owners served by CenterPoint Energy unit Vectren South. The decision also changed the period for earning credits so that more customer-owned solar generation is credited at the new lower rate. Under Indiana law, the last day new solar customers are eligible for net-metering is July 1, 2022.

b. Kansas

The governor of Kansas signed HB 2072,²³³ a coal-plant securitization bill, into law on April 9, 2021. The bill received strong support in both houses of the Kansas legislature. Similar to Indiana’s bill, the Kansas legislation requires a utility to file a petition with the state’s Corporation Commission demonstrating that the costs are “just and reasonable” and that the new charges are anticipated to provide net quantifiable rate benefits to customers compared to the costs that would result from the traditional method of financing.

c. Michigan

The Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) requested comments from interested parties in October 2020²³⁴ on how FERC Order No. 872 affects the MPSC’s implementation of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA). Order No. 872 included significant revisions to sections 201 and 210 of PURPA affecting the areas of rates paid to qualifying facilities (QFs), rules that treat projects that are located close to one another as a single project, a utility’s obligation to purchase from QFs, legally enforceable obligations (LEOs) and self-certification of qualifying facilities. In January 2021, the MPSC issued an order providing guidance on how it plans to adjust its implementation of PURPA in light of Order No. 872. In its order, the MPSC acknowledged that Order No. 872 applied prospectively and would not alter existing QF contracts or settlement agreements approved by the MPSC. It stated that any future changes to PURPA implementation, including revisions to tariffs or PURPA documents, would be addressed in each utility’s biennial avoided-cost review proceeding. It adopted minimum requirements for competitive bidding (consistent with Order No. 872) and directed MPSC staff to incorporate the requirements into the MI Power Grid competitive procurement workgroup. Finally, the MPSC’s order directed utilities, as part of their next biennial review applications, to provide clear guidance on the criteria that they will use to evaluate a QF’s commercial viability and financial commitment in determining whether an LEO has been formed. The MPSC issued a second order in July 2021 that detailed expedited, more cost-effective review proceedings to settle disputes over LEOs involving QFs.²³⁵

d. Minnesota

After a multi-year stakeholder process, the Energy Conservation and Optimization Act, also known as ECO Act, was signed into law by Minnesota Governor Tim Walz on May 25, 2021.²³⁶ The Act updates Minnesota’s energy efficiency policy, the Conservation Improvement Program (CIP). The legislation significantly increases the amount that an investor-owned utility must spend on energy efficiency improvement programs serving low-income customers. The legislation also increases the average energy-savings goal for electric utilities. The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission has evaluated several proposals to develop and expand the state’s electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure.²³⁷ In March 2021, the MPSC approved two pilot programs to investigate whether charging vehicles outside of peak hours can reduce costs or provide other benefits to the electric system. An off-peak charging rewards program will reward customers when they charge their vehicles during non-peak hours. It also approved a second program that provides rebates for smart charging devices and for the installation of a second service for off-peak charging. The programs were developed in response to a 2019 Minnesota PUC EV order that instructed utilities to file proposals intended to enhance the availability of, or access to, charging infrastructure, increase consumer awareness of electric vehicle benefits, and/or facilitate managed charging or other mechanisms that optimize the incorporation of electric vehicles into the grid. In May 2021, the MPSC approved a pilot program to expand access to electric vehicle (EV) charging stations in multi-unit housing. The program will spend $4.4 million over three years and is expected to lead to the installation of 348 EV charging ports at fifty-one multi-dwelling units.²³⁸

e. Missouri

On July 6, 2021, Governor Michael Parson signed into law House Bill 734, the Missouri Electricity Bill Reduction Act. Similar to securitization bills passed in Kansas and Indiana this year, the legislation authorizes investor-owned utilities to apply to the Missouri Public Service Commission to finance “energy transition costs” through the issuance of securitized utility tariff bonds. To securitize assets, a utility must file an application with the commission requesting a financing order. The application must demonstrate that the securitization would lower present costs to customers.

f. North Dakota

In April 2021, the governor of North Dakota signed legislation related to grid resilience and reliability.²³⁹ Senate Bill 2313 requires the North Dakota Transmission Authority, an arm of the state Industrial Commission, to participate in transmission-related studies and prepare an annual report regarding the resilience of the electric grid. In addition, the bill requires the North Dakota Public Service Commission (PSC) to evaluate integrated resource plans. The legislation also permits the North Dakota PSC to fine utilities for failing to provide reliable service or for not meeting certain parameters required by regional grid operators.

g. Ohio

The Ohio General Assembly passed legislation placing new requirements on wind and solar development in Ohio and making changes to the Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB) process.²⁴⁰ Senate Bill 52 allows county boards of commissioners to designate all or part of an unincorporated area of the county as a “restricted area” in which utility facility wind and solar projects cannot be permitted by the OPSB. The legislation also prohibits “material amendments” to existing facilities in these restricted areas. For a utility, material amendments include changes to the facility’s generation type, increases to the facility’s nameplate capacity, and changes to the boundaries of the facility. For a wind farm, material amendments are defined as an increase in the number of wind turbines or an increase in the height of a wind turbine.

h. South Dakota

In March 2021, Governor Kristi Noem signed legislation requiring persons owning an electric vehicle to pay an annual $50 fee to help fund road improvements.²⁴¹ House Bill 1053 exempts battery-powered motorcycles from the fee.

i. Wisconsin

In April 2021, the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin approved six solar electric generation facilities capable of producing a total of 675 MW.²⁴² The solar projects are estimated to cost $887 million, with an anticipated customer savings of approximately $127 million due to the retirement of higher cost coal-fired generation. The projects will increase utility-scale solar generation in Wisconsin to over 1,750 MW.

F. Southwest Region

1. Developments with ERCOT

In early 2021, the President and CEO of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), provided a 2020 year-end energy and resource update to the ERCOT Board of Directors,²⁴³ reporting:

• Energy use in 2020 was less than one percent lower than energy use in 2019.
• The amount of utility-scale solar capacity added in 2020 (1,693 MW) was the largest amount of solar added to the ERCOT system in any given year, bringing total installed capacity at year’s end to nearly 4,000 MW.²⁴⁴
• Generators in ERCOT added 1,261 MW of wind capacity in 2020, bringing total installed capacity to more than 25,000 MW.²⁴⁵
• The twelve storage projects that came online in 2020 doubled ERCOT’s storage capacity to 215 MW.
• Two new gas-fired projects came online in 2020.
• The amount of electricity produced by wind resources outpaced coal (23% vs. 18% of energy produced) in 2020, and wind set a new ERCOT penetration record of 60% on January 30, 2021.

He also explained that higher reserve margins were expected over the next several years due to new generation resources, including large amounts of utility-scale solar, and that the planning reserve margin for 2021 was 15.5%.²⁴⁶ The CEO also updated the board on progress regarding the ERCOT Passport Program, which is the implementation path over the next several years for incorporating energy storage resources and distribution generation resources into ERCOT systems, as well as real-time co-optimization of energy and ancillary services, which the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) has directed ERCOT to pursue.²⁴⁷

A few days after the ERCOT CEO’s presentation, the world was stunned to watch the nation’s leading energy-producing state struggle and suffer due to energy scarcity as a severe winter storm event hit the Lone Star State in mid-February. Due to the extreme cold temperatures and icy precipitation over several days, as well as cascading system failures related to fuel supply, ERCOT experienced generation outages totaling up to 52,277 MW of nameplate capacity out of its 107,514 MW total installed capacity.²⁴⁸ To maintain the grid, starting at 1:20 am on February 15, ERCOT directed transmission service providers to begin load curtailments, eventually reaching approximately 20,000 MW, with some level of curtailments lasting until February 18, 2021.²⁴⁹ Because of the magnitude of the curtailments, many utilities could not rotate the outages among circuits, which resulted in many customers experiencing sustained electricity outages for several days,²⁵⁰ even as day-time temperatures remained below freezing and roads were icy and treacherous, conditions that are rare in Texas, leaving many Texans unprepared. The Texas Department of State Health Services has identified 210 deaths related to the winter storm event.²⁵¹

During the week of the winter storm event, the PUCT issued orders to encourage generation supply by requiring ERCOT to keep wholesale market electricity prices at the maximum system-wide price cap level under PUCT rules for so long as ERCOT continued to call for outages and was at its highest emergency alert status.²⁵² The price cap for energy of $9,000/MWh was roughly 300 times the average wholesale market price, and the price cap for ancillary services was $25,000/MWh. Natural gas prices in the short-term markets spiked to $400/MMBtu.²⁵³ Retail electric customers with variable rate plans tied to wholesale market prices found themselves with extremely high electricity bills.²⁵⁴ Generators announced monetary losses of tens to hundreds of millions of dollars or more.²⁵⁵ City Public Service of San Antonio announced that its energy costs during the storm approached $1 billion.²⁵⁶ Brazos Electric Cooperative, the largest and oldest generation and transmission cooperative in Texas, filed bankruptcy after ERCOT invoiced it for $2.1 billion due within a week. ERCOT was short-paid by approximately $3 billion with the potential of having to uplift those dollars across the market.²⁵⁷ With the spikes in prices, some gas suppliers and energy traders reported record revenues.²⁵⁸

Within a month, all of the sitting members of the PUCT resigned,²⁵⁹ a majority of the ERCOT board members resigned,²⁶⁰ and the ERCOT board fired ERCOT’s CEO.²⁶¹ By the end of its biennial regular session on June 1, 2021, the Texas Legislature had passed numerous bills to address issues related to the winter storm event and to overhaul the state’s electricity market and grid. In particular, Senate Bill (SB) 3 includes forty-one sections covering a wide range of provisions in response to the February winter storm. Among other things, this law requires (1) that generators, transmission lines, and natural gas facilities and pipelines be weatherized; (2) that utilities provide information to customers about potential outages; and (3) that wind and solar generators meet reliability standards.²⁶² House Bill (HB) 16 bans wholesale indexed retail electric plans for residential and small commercial customers. SB 1580 addresses the securitization of funds to cover amounts that ERCOT was short paid by two of the state’s electric generation and transmission cooperatives in the wake of the winter storm, and HB 4492 provides for a direct investment from the state rainy days fund to help cover ERCOT short pay amounts and a funding mechanism for financing over $2 billion of certain reliability deployment price adder charges and ancillary service charges. HB 1510 addresses securitization of storm recovery costs for non-ERCOT utilities. SB 1281 requires ERCOT to conduct a biennial assessment of the ERCOT power grid to assess the grid’s reliability in extreme weather scenarios. SB 2 addresses ERCOT governance issues requiring every ERCOT board member be a Texas resident, decreasing the overall number of members from sixteen to eleven, increasing the number of board members that are independent instead of market-segment representatives, and changing the board-member appointment process.²⁶³ SB 2154 increases the number of PUCT commissioners from three to five.

The PUCT has initiated numerous projects and rulemakings to address the new legislative directives. And numerous other entities, including FERC and NERC,²⁶⁴ launched investigations into the causes of the event. In a preliminary report submitted to the PUCT, ERCOT identified at least six causes of generator outages: (1) existing generator outages; (2) fuel limitations; (3) weather-related outages, such as frozen equipment; (4) equipment failure and malfunctions not explicitly related to cold weather; (5) forced outages of transmission lines; and (6) generator responses to frequency deviations.²⁶⁵

2. Corporate Mergers/Acquisitions

In October 2020, AVANGRID, Inc. and PNM Resources announced that their respective boards approved the merger of PNM Resources into AVANGRID.²⁶⁶ PNM Resources is the parent company of Public Service Company of New Mexico, which operates in New Mexico, and Texas-New Mexico Power Company, which operates in Texas. In the announcement, the CEO of AVANGRID explained that the merger “is a strategic fit and helps us further our growth in both clean energy distribution and transmission, as well as helping to expand our growing leadership position in renewables.”²⁶⁷

The companies explained that their agreement would require approval from a number of state and federal regulators. In May 2021, the PUCT approved a settlement agreement that included the regulatory ring-fencing provisions that have become common in orders approving merger settlements in Texas (and in recent rate case orders). The settlement agreement also included commitments to provide rate credits for any merger and interest rate savings realized due to the transactions and for Iberdrola to cease operation of its retail electric provider in Texas. As of July 1, 2021, the only remaining needed approval is from the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (NMPRC). A hearing on a stipulated agreement in New Mexico was conducted in August 2021.²⁶⁸ No decision has been issued yet.

3. Resource Construction

The resource plans and requests of utilities in southwestern states continue to reflect the rise of renewable resources as a leading source of new electric generation in the region. For example, in January 2021, PNM filed its triennial Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) with the NMPRC, which, it explained, was the company’s first plan since announcing its commitment to achieve a carbon emissions-free portfolio by 2040.²⁶⁹ The company’s IRP focused on a comparison of two primary paths: (1) a “Technology Neutral” investment scenario that considers all possible technologies that could help meet the 2040 goals; and (2) a “No New Combustion” investment scenario that focuses on investments in renewables and storage.²⁷⁰ Key points of comparison between the two approaches include that the Technology Neutral scenario relies on hydrogen-ready combustion turbines to meet a portion of resource adequacy needs, while the No New Combustion scenario fills this same capacity need with incremental energy storage.²⁷¹ PNM concluded that, based on the analysis conducted in the IRP, both strategies can support the transition to carbon-free while maintaining resource adequacy, but that a number of risks specific to a No New Combustion pathway could lead to degradation of reliability below acceptable levels.²⁷²

In December 2020, Arizona Public Service Company (APS) announced that it will procure approximately 600-800 MW of renewable resources and about 400-600 MW of capacity resources through an all-source request for proposals.²⁷³ According to APS, these resources are expected to be in service by 2024. An addendum to the RFP was announced in May 2021, which seeks an additional 100–150 MW photovoltaic solar resource to be owned by APS and in service by early 2023. The company has set a goal of serving customers with one-hundred percent clean power by 2050. According to APS, as owner and operator of Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, the nation’s largest producer of carbon-free electricity, its current energy mix is fifty percent “clean.”

On June 1, 2021, NV Energy made its triennial IRP filing with the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada (PUCN) that lays out the company’s strategy to advance Nevada’s sustainability goals while maintaining safe and reliable service during extreme temperatures and ensuring low, stable rates for customers.²⁷⁴ Under the IRP, NV Energy will add two new solar-plus storage projects, which total 600 MW of energy and 480 MW of storage, to replace the company’s coal-fired North Valmy Generating Station by 2025. The IRP also indicated that NV Energy will build three grid-tied battery energy storage systems totaling 66 MW in northern Nevada that can be dispatched during times of highest customer demand. The IRP filing also detailed new energy efficiency and demand response options for NV Energy’s residential customers, offered under the PowerShift by NV Energy brand.

Non-utility construction of large renewable projects continues as well. For example, in January 2021, Pattern Energy broke ground on a 1,000-MW group of wind farms in central New Mexico known as the Western Spirit Wind project along with an approximately 155-mile 345-kV transmission line that will connect that wind power to Western United States energy markets.²⁷⁵ The transmission line is being developed by the New Mexico Renewable Energy Transmission Authority, a public-private partnering organization created by New Mexico lawmakers in 2007 to facilitate the development of electric transmission and storage projects.²⁷⁶ 

Not all new proposed utility resource construction, however, is for renewable generation projects. In October 2020, the PUCT approved the request of El Paso Electric Company (EPE) for an amendment to the company’s certificate of convenience and necessity (CCN) for an approximately 228-MW natural-gas-fired generating unit.²⁷⁷ The proposed resource was one component of a resource plan to meet EPE’s projected operational and reliability requirements by 2023. The resource plan also included a 100-MW solar power purchase agreement and a 100-MW solar plus 50-MW storage power purchase agreement. In part, the PUCT found that the new gas unit will operate in a peaking and load-following manner similar to EPE’s other quick-start units, which will assist EPE in responding to the intermittent nature of solar generation.²⁷⁸ The unit’s air permit from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality is being contested. Also, EPE’s request for a CCN from the NMPRC for the unit was denied on December 16, 2020.²⁷⁹ The NMPRC found that the company did not adequately consider alternatives and the proposal will not meet the state’s 2045 net-zero goal. Approximately eighty percent of EPE’s customers are in Texas.

4. Regulatory Activity: COVID-19 Response and Clean Energy Goals

One of the major activities of the past year for each state was addressing the fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic. The NMPRC, for example, issued a moratorium on residential electricity shut-offs statewide during the public health emergency.²⁸⁰ Additionally, many of the state’s utility companies, including electric, gas, and water authorities, publicly committed to suspending shut-offs due to non-payment during the COVID-19 public health emergency.²⁸¹ On June 24, 2020, the NMPRC authorized utilities to create regulatory assets for the accounting deferral of COVID-19-related uncollectible arrearages and other expenses incurred during the period beginning March 11, 2020, and through the termination of the governor’s executive orders related to COVID-19.²⁸²

The Public Utilities Commission of Nevada (PUCN) issued an order noting the state’s utilities had proactively implemented measures to assist customers experiencing hardships related to the pandemic and directing utilities to begin recording in regulatory asset accounts “amounts that reflect the costs of maintaining service to customers affected by COVID-19 whose service would have been terminated, discontinued, and/or disconnected.”²⁸³ On May 5, 2020, NV Energy’s utilities applied for a new Customer Price Stability Tariff to assist larger customers impacted by COVID-19. The program will base energy prices off of new renewable resources being built in Nevada, and is anticipated to bring lower, stable rates to large customers and/or governmental education and health care entities.²⁸⁴ The PUCN granted the application.²⁸⁵

In March 2020, Arizona announced an agreement with the state’s largest electric utilities²⁸⁶ to suspend shut-offs, late fees, and provide flexible payment options.²⁸⁷ On December 20, 2020, the ACC announced approval of a discount and payment program, sponsored in part by the utilities, for electric customers who are behind on their bills as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.²⁸⁸ The program included a $250 upfront credit and auto-enrollment into an eight-month payment plan for all customers at 150% of the federal poverty level who are behind on their bills.²⁸⁹

The PUCT also issued numerous orders in response to the COVID-19 pandemic concerning, among other things, utility disconnections, establishment of a regulatory asset, and creation of an electricity relief program (ERP).²⁹⁰ Under the ERP, the transmission and distribution utilities (TDUs) in ERCOT would implement a rider to facilitate funding the ERP for customers within the customer choice areas of the ERCOT region. The rider would collect funds to be utilized to reimburse TDUs and retail electric providers for unpaid bills from eligible residential customers experiencing unemployment due to the impacts of COVID-19 and to ensure continuity of electric service for those residential customers. On August 27, 2020, the PUCT issued an order to begin concluding the ERP.²⁹¹ On June 11, 2021, the PUCT lifted its moratorium on utility disconnections for non-payment.²⁹²

While new regulatory initiatives were relatively few this past year, regulators in Arizona recently took action on the state’s clean energy goal rules. In May 2021, the ACC voted to advance an amended energy-rules package that will move Arizona’s regulated utilities to 100% carbon-free energy by 2070.²⁹³ According to the ACC, the vote is the result of nearly three years of work by commissioners and ACC staff, including several workshops, and input from a wide range of stakeholders.²⁹⁴ Because of substantive changes to the rules, the amended rules package will now go back through the formal rulemaking process for review and comments before a final Commission vote.²⁹⁵ The approved proposed rules extended the deadline by which utilities must reach 100% carbon-free emissions from 2050 to 2070, with interim standards beginning with a 50% reduction by 2032, a 65% reduction by 2040, an 80% reduction by 2050, and a 95% reduction by 2060.²⁹⁶

5. Legislative and Ballot Initiatives

In November 2020, Nevada voters confirmed a state constitutional amendment increasing the state’s renewable portfolio standard to fifty percent by 2030.²⁹⁷ In Nevada, constitutional amendments must be approved in two consecutive even-numbered election years.²⁹⁸ This ballot initiative was first approved in 2018, and therefore needed approval again in 2020 to become effective.²⁹⁹

In its 2021 regular session, the Texas Legislature adopted, and the governor signed, SB 1202, which excludes EV charging providers from being considered as an electric utility, retail electric provider, or retail electric utility under Texas law.³⁰⁰

G. Western Region

1. Alaska

a. Bureau of Indian Affairs Awards $6.5 Million in Energy and Mineral Development (EMD) Programs to Native Tribes and Corporations

The Bureau of Indian Affairs for Alaska recently awarded $6.5 million in EMD grants to twenty-seven federally recognized tribes and seven Alaska Native corporations. The tribes are supposed to utilize the funding to aid efforts to identify, study, design, and develop projects using energy, mineral, and natural resources.³⁰¹ Proposals are solicited annually from tribes through a competitive review process, and qualifying projects are selected for funding. These projects take on the challenge of connecting often rural American Indian and Alaska Native communities to reliable energy sources.

2. California

a. Governor Newsom Orders a Ban on New Gasoline-Powered Cars by 2035

On September 23, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom announced Executive Order 79-20, which directs the state to require all new cars and passenger trucks sold in California by 2035 be zero-emission vehicles, phasing out gasoline-powered vehicles.³⁰² In California, the transportation sector is responsible for more than half of all California’s carbon pollution, eighty percent of smog-forming pollution, and ninety-five percent of toxic diesel emissions, so this is a priority area for the state in combatting dependence on fossil fuels.³⁰³ The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is tasked with developing regulations to enforce the mandate and also regulate medium- and heavy-duty vehicle operations to be fully zero-emission by 2045 where feasible.³⁰⁴ The Order also requires state agencies, in partnership with private organizations, to accelerate the development of affordable fueling and charging options. Notably, the Order does not prevent Californians from owning gasoline-powered cars or buying or selling them on the used car markets. The Order also tackles fossil fuels at the source by asking lawmakers to end new fracking permits by 2024.³⁰⁵ This outcome was met by dismay on the part of oil companies and also cynicism from environmental groups that this aspect of the bill was all rhetoric and no action.³⁰⁶

Reception of the Order by car companies has been mixed, with companies such as Honda and Ford heralding the announcement while others such as Toyota and General Motors likely to mount an aggressive campaign to fight it.³⁰⁷ In fact, California has made a deal with five major automakers—Ford, Honda, BMW, Volkswagen, and Volvo—to relax their schedules to meet the requirements in exchange for recognition of the authority of the state to take such action.³⁰⁸ The state has also announced that it will not purchase government fleets from automobile companies that do not recognize its authority to issue this requirement (i.e., those that are opposing the Order, such as General Motors, Fiat Chrysler, and Toyota).³⁰⁹

Oil companies also opposed the Order, stating that electric cars are unaffordable for many Californians.³¹⁰ This is exacerbated by the fact that as of 2019, only two percent of cars in California were zero-emission vehicles.³¹¹ Opponents of the Order argue that it interferes with the free market and is an overreach of state government, but the governor argues that this Order will accelerate California’s presence and dominance in the fast-growing electric vehicle market, citing the fact that California is already home to thirty-four electric vehicle manufacturers.³¹² On the other hand, demand for electric vehicles is still relatively low, making up ten percent of new vehicle sales in California.³¹³ Ultimately, the Order needs to be reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency per the Clean Air Act, but, under the Biden Administration, it is unlikely to face challenge. The bigger challenge is whether laws and regulations can make such an ambitious goal a reality when electric vehicles and the infrastructure that supports them are not up to snuff as of yet.

b. California Air Resources Board (CARB) Mandates That Ninety Percent of Ride-Hailing Vehicle Miles Traveled by 2030 to Come From Electric Vehicles

On May 20, 2021, CARB unanimously issued a new regulation that requires that ninety percent of all ride-hailing vehicle miles traveled by 2030 should be from electric vehicles to implement the Clean Miles Standards set forth in Senate Bill 1014, which requires that rideshare companies operating in the state meet annual greenhouse gas and electrification targets.³¹⁴ Small rideshare companies with less than 5,000,000 miles traveled statewide annually are exempt from the requirement but are required to report.³¹⁵ During the comment period prior to the issuance of this regulation, rideshare companies such as Uber and Lyft voiced support for the regulation but encouraged the state to financially support lower-income drivers in the transition.³¹⁶ Uber has also committed $800 million through 2025 to help drivers switch to electric vehicles.³¹⁷ Uber had already pledged to shift 100% of vehicles to electric by 2030 for the United States, Canada, and Europe, and by 2040 for the rest of the world.³¹⁸

A report from CARB indicates that this transition will result in a net savings of $215 million in 2030 due to savings on gasoline and maintenance outstripping increased costs for electricity and home chargers.³¹⁹ This savings also bears true for individual drivers. Per the report, a rideshare driver who clocks 30,000 miles in a year would save $2,212 assuming they take advantage of government subsidies or $712 without such subsidies.³²⁰

The regulation also sets interim requirements such as within two years two percent of miles traveled by rideshare companies fleetwide must be electric vehicles, up to thirty percent in 2026 before culminating in ninety percent in 2030.³²¹ The result of achieving this mandate would be reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 1.81 million metric tons from 2023 to 2030 (i.e., the equivalent of removing 400,000 cars from the roads in the state).³²² The weaker requirements in the early years are criticized for allowing the rideshare companies to not support their drivers during the transition period before the requirements kick in fully because the rideshare companies can rely on high-income drivers to transition in order to meet the low requirements.

3. Hawaii

a. Hawaii Public Utilities Commission Denies a Motion to Reconsider Its Previous Denial of a Bidding Waiver for Biomass Plant

As set forth in Order No. 37205 (Order), the Hawaii Public Utilities Commission (HPUC) denied Hawaii Electric Light Company’s request for a waiver from the Competitive Bidding Framework for its biomass plant on July 9, 2020.³²³ In part, the HPUC determined that several recently approved alternative energy projects in Hawaii demonstrated that competitive bidding can result in firms providing energy to the public at increasingly lower prices.³²⁴ The Framework establishes a competitive process for acquiring or building new energy generation sources in Hawaii.³²⁵ However, competitive bidding may be waived by the HPUC under certain conditions, such as where the waiver will likely result in a lower cost of electricity to the utility’s general body of ratepayers.³²⁶ 

On September 9, 2020, the HPUC denied both Hu Honua’s motion for reconsideration and its request for a hearing on the motion.³²⁷ Additionally, under HAR § 16-601-142, “Oral argument shall not be allowed on a motion for reconsideration, rehearing, or stay, unless requested by the [C]ommission or a commissioner who concurred in the decision.”³²⁸ Because no commissioner concurred in the order and because the HPUC did not request a hearing on Hu Honua’s motion, the HPUC denied Hu Honua’s request for a hearing.³²⁹

The HPUC also denied Hu Honua’s motion for reconsideration.³³⁰ The Hawaii Supreme Court’s ruling in In re HELCO expressly reopened the waiver issue for decision by the HPUC.³³¹ The HPUC looked to the court’s analysis that stated, “In order to comply with statutory and constitutional requirements, the PUC’s post-remand hearing must afford LOL an opportunity to meaningfully address the impacts of approving the Amended PPA on LOL’s members’ right to a clean and healthful environment . . . .”³³² The HPUC concluded that redoing the proceeding and providing Life of the Land and other participants with the ability to address all issues pertaining to the proceeding, including the waiver issue, was the proper course of action to ensure that Life of the Land had a “meaningful opportunity” to address the environmental impacts.³³³

HELCO’s request for a waiver from the Framework was part of the reopened proceeding on remand.³³⁴ Thus, the HPUC determined that it had not exceeded the court’s instructions in addressing the waiver issue.³³⁵ As Hu Honua received actual notice that the waiver issue was reopened as part of the remanded HPUC proceeding, the HPUC determined that Hu Honua was provided sufficient notice.³³⁶ The HPUC also determined that much of Hu Honua’s arguments and evidence failed to meet the standard of new evidence and/or arguments that “could not have been presented during the earlier adjudicated motion.”³³⁷ Hu Honua did not raise an objection to the consideration of the waiver issue and, instead, complied by filing supplemental briefing and pre-hearing testimony that addressed the waiver issue.³³⁸ Ultimately, the HPUC affirmed its decision that the public interest would be best served by requiring Hu Honua’s project to be evaluated alongside other potential renewable energy projects, where all of the project’s benefits and costs could be comprehensively compared to other renewable energy alternatives.³³⁹

4. Nevada

a. Senate Bill Passes and Governor Signs Legislation Into Effect Speeding Up the Greenlink Project, the Largest Extra-High-Voltage Transmission Line Project in Nevada History

On May 31, 2021, the Nevada legislature approved Senate Bill 448, relating to the construction of the planned “Greenlink Nevada” transmission upgrade, a $2.5 billion project with the goal to strengthen the electrical grid, reduce carbon emissions, promote renewable energy development, and position Nevada as a major exporter of clean energy.³⁴⁰ According to NV Energy, the Greenlink Nevada project comprises the following components: (1) Greenlink West, a 525-kV line that spans approximately 350 miles from Las Vegas to Yerington, Nevada; (2) Greenlink North, a 525-kV line that spans approximately 235 miles from Ely, Nevada to Yerington, Nevada; and (3) three 345-kV lines from Yerington, Nevada, to the Reno, Nevada, area.³⁴¹ The bill also addresses spending on electric vehicle infrastructure and requires every transmission provider in the state to join an RTO by 2030.

On June 10, 2021, Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak signed SB 448 into law to accelerate the Greenlink Nevada project.³⁴² The Greenlink project will link Las Vegas and Reno with new solar fields and geothermal plants.³⁴³ SB 448 will accelerate the second phase of the project by approximately three years.³⁴⁴ Subject to regulatory approval, workers will begin construction in 2026 and aim to complete the project in 2028.³⁴⁵ This project will connect the new power line with the existing One Nevada line from Las Vegas into central Nevada, creating a triangle of high-capacity lines running through the middle of the state, which is estimated to generate $690 million in economic activity and support nearly 4,000 jobs.³⁴⁶

Proponents of the legislation included the Senate Growth and Infrastructure Committee, clean energy advocates such as NV Energy, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Southwest Energy Efficiency Project, the Nevada Conservation League, the Governor’s Office of Economic Development Directors, and other large businesses including Google, Ikea, Patagonia, and Uber.³⁴⁷ However, several opponents of the bill included representatives of the Nevada Resort Association and environmental groups such as Basin and Range Watch and the Center for Biological Diversity.³⁴⁸ The Nevada Resort Association testified in opposition to the project, stating that the cost of building transmission lines and EV infrastructure would increase their rates, advocating for the Nevada Public Utilities Commission to have more authority over the transmission build-out.³⁴⁹ The environmental groups opposing the project have raised concerns about the environmental impact of the project and its potentially harmful effects on animal populations, particularly along the northern leg linking Reno and rural Nevada.³⁵⁰

b. MGM Unveils 100-MW Solar Array to Power Thirteen Las Vegas Resorts

In conjunction with the renewable-energy developer Invenergy, in June 2021, MGM Resorts International announced the launch of its 100-MW solar array, the MGM Resorts Mega Solar Array.³⁵¹ This project will be the hospitality industry’s largest directly sourced renewable electricity project worldwide.³⁵² Spread across 640 acres of land, the solar panels will generate up to ninety percent of MGM Resorts’ Las Vegas daytime power needs, spanning sixty-five million square feet of buildings across thirteen properties and more than 36,000 rooms on the Las Vegas Strip, including the Bellagio, ARIA, Mandalay Bay, MGM Grand, and The Mirage resorts.³⁵³ MGM Resorts International will be the sole user of the electricity generated, agreeing to buy power under a twenty-year contract with the owners of the solar field, AEP Renewables and Invenergy.³⁵⁴ Invenergy, holding a twenty-five-percent stake, and, as the developer of the project, will perform operations and maintenance for the solar field.³⁵⁵ Supported by Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak and Senator Jacky Rosen, the project has been touted as representing Nevada’s role as a national leader in renewable energy.³⁵⁶

5. Oregon

a. Oregon Passes Bill Requiring Power Suppliers to Reach Zero Emissions by 2040

Oregon’s state legislature passed House Bill 2021—which is on Governor Kate Brown’s desk and which she is expected to sign—sets an ambitious target for its retail electricity providers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with electricity sold in Oregon to consumers by eighty percent by 2030, ninety percent by 2035, and one hundred percent by 2040.³⁵⁷ The timetable set by the bill impacts primarily Oregon’s two major power companies, Portland General Electric and Pacific Power, although five other electricity service suppliers are also subject to the requirements set forth in the bill.³⁵⁸ These two investor-owned utilities, which supported the bill, must submit clean energy plans in 2022 showing annual incremental goals in pursuance of the 2030, 2035, and 2040 requirements.³⁵⁹ While other states have similar targets, Oregon’s is more ambitious than most in the country.³⁶⁰

The bill also altogether bans expansion or new construction of power plants that burn natural gas or other fossil fuels; provides $50 million in grants for community renewable energy projects in cities outside of Portland; requires power companies to consider input from low-income customers, environmental justice constituents, federally recognized tribes, and other important underrepresented groups in determining strategies for reducing emissions; and allows cities to create green tariffs, meaning that cities may agree to pay utilities more money for power from a cleaner mix of sources.³⁶¹

Opponents argued that the bill would raise prices for customers and put the power grid at greater risk of blackouts. Republicans voted almost unanimously against the bill.³⁶² This was a compromise bill from the cap-and-trade bills that Democrat lawmakers had been trying to pass in Oregon with limited success in the preceding years. Republican lawmakers walked out on each of the previous such bills, which caused Governor Brown to pass Executive Order No. 20-04 in early 2020, which ordered various state agencies and commissions to enforce greenhouse-gas emission targets.³⁶³

6. Washington

a. Washington State Department of Commerce and Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission Adopt Administrative Rules for Implementation of CETA

In December 2020, the Washington State Department of Commerce (DOC) and Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC) adopted administrative rules for the implementation of CETA.³⁶⁴ CETA, a Washington state law passed in 2019, requires an electricity supply free of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2045.³⁶⁵ The UTC and DOC adopted administrative rules after a year and a half of working with stakeholders representing the interests of residential and business customers, environmental and labor advocates, low-income and disadvantaged communities, and electric utilities.³⁶⁶ These rules were pulled from other legislation and administrative guidance including the Energy Independence Act, Clean Energy Implementation Plans and Integrated Resource Planning, and Purchase of Electricity/Resources.³⁶⁷

The rules that the UTC promulgated will apply to the investor-owned utilities operating in Washington such as Puget Sound Energy, Avista, and Pacific Power.³⁶⁸ The rules promulgated by the DOC will apply to sixty-four electric utilities in Washington, including municipal utilities, public utility districts, and rural electric cooperatives.³⁶⁹ CETA allowed utility companies to delay progress on providing renewable energy based on cost considerations.³⁷⁰ These new rules provide detailed requirements for utility companies that were granted CETA’s deferred implementation.³⁷¹ Through 2021, the UTC and DOC will work on implementing CETA and may additionally provide rules for interstate wholesale markets, to ensure that electricity purchased meets CETA’s clean energy standards.³⁷²

b. Proposed $1.7 Billion Wind and Solar Project in South Central Washington State

Scout Clean Energy (Scout), owned by Quinbrook Infrastructure Partners, a global private equity firm, is putting together a project that could construct up to 244 wind turbines across a twenty-four-mile area along Horse Heaven Hills and several solar sites that could cover more than 6,500 acres that include a battery complex to store and release the electricity.³⁷³ The project could produce up to 1,150 MW of power that could generate enough electricity to power 275,000 homes.³⁷⁴ Currently, the project does not have contracts with utility companies that will use the power.³⁷⁵ However, Scout plans to start bidding to deliver electricity to Seattle City Light, Puget Sound Energy, Portland General Electric, and other regional utilities.³⁷⁶ The utility companies predict they will require additional energy from renewable sources into the future, although they currently benefit from the region’s abundant low-carbon hydropower.³⁷⁷ Benton County Public Utility District (Benton Utility), Benton County commissioners, and some nearby homeowners oppose the project.³⁷⁸

Furthermore, Scout’s relationship with local government officials was impacted by the company’s choice to sidestep the Benton County permitting process and instead go through the state process.³⁷⁹ All three Benton County commissioners oppose the project.³⁸⁰ The commissioners relayed that the majority of public comments that they received also oppose the project.³⁸¹ Homeowners in newer subdivisions that have been built in the Horse Heaven Hills oppose the project because the turbines would become part of their views.³⁸²

Washington’s Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council will make a recommendation to Governor Inslee about whether to approve the project.³⁸³ The council’s review is anticipated to take at least a year.³⁸⁴

H. Contributors

The report was written by the following members of the Electricity Committee and other attorneys who generously contributed their expertise and time to report important events in their own regions during 2020–2021.

Mark Strain, Partner

Duggins Wren Mann & Romero, LLP

Austin, Texas

(512) 495-8817

[email protected]

Stephen T. Perrien, Partner

Taggart Morton, LLC

New Orleans, Louisiana

(504) 599-8511

[email protected]

Everett Britt, Partner

Duggins Wren Mann & Romero, LLP

Austin, Texas

(512) 495-8874

[email protected]

George W. Watson III, Partner³⁸⁵

Robinson & Cole LLP

Providence, Rhode Island

(401) 709-3351

[email protected]

Stephanie Green, Associate

Duggins Wren Mann & Romero, LLP

Austin, Texas

(512) 495-8878

[email protected]

Leticia C. Pimentel, Associate

Robinson & Cole LLP

Providence, Rhode Island

(401) 709-3337

[email protected]

Carey Olney, Of Counsel

Duggins Wren Mann & Romero, LLP

Austin, Texas

(512) 495-8807

[email protected]

Charles C. Read, Of Counsel³⁸⁶

Latham & Watkins LLP

Los Angeles, California

(213) 891-8103

[email protected]

Glenn Rippie, Partner

Jenner & Block, LLP

Chicago, Illinois

(312) 923-2610

[email protected]

Marc T. Campopiano, Partner

Latham & Watkins LLP

Costa Mesa, California

(714)755-2204

[email protected]

Jennifer Amerkhail, Partner

Jenner & Block, LLP

Washington, D.C.

(202) 639-6027

[email protected]

Endnotes

1. Participation of Distributed Energy Resource Aggregations in Markets Operated by Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators, 172 FERC ¶ 61,247 (2020).

2. Id. at PP 2, 114.

3. Id. at P 2.

4. Id. at P 26.

5. Id. at P 129.

6. Id. at P 130.

7. Id. at P 171.

8. Id. at P 204.

9. Id. at P 225.

10. Id. at P 236.

11. Id. at P 262.

12. Id. at P 59.

13. Participation of Distributed Energy Resource Aggregations in Markets Operated by Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators, Order No. 2222-A, 174 FERC ¶ 61,197, at P 5 (2021) (referencing Order Nos. 719 and 719-A).

14. Id. at P 22.

15. Participation of Distributed Energy Resource Aggregations in Markets Operated by Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators, 175 FERC ¶ 61,227, at P 6 (2021).

16. FERC indicated that it will decide the issue in Docket No. RM21-14-000, Participation of Aggregators of Retail Demand Response Customers in Markets Operated by Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators.

17. Nat’l Ass’n of Regul. Util. Comm’rs v. FERC, 964 F.3d 1177 (D.C. Cir. 2020) [hereinafter NARUC].

18. Elec. Storage Participation in Mkts. Operated by Reg’l Transmission Orgs. & Indep. Sys. Operators, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 (2018).

19. NARUC, 964 F.3d at 1186–87.

20. See id. at 1187–88.

21. Id. at 1188.

22. Id. at 1188 & n.6.

23. Ass’n of Bus. Advocating Tariff Equity v. Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 173 FERC ¶ 61,159 (2020).

24. See Ass’n of Bus. Advocated Tariff Equity v. Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 156 FERC ¶ 61,234 (2016).

25. See Ass’n of Bus. Advocating Tariff Equity v. Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 171 FERC ¶ 61,154 (2020).

26. Id.

27. Ass’n of Bus. Advocating Tariff Equity, 173 FERC ¶ 61,159, at P 3.

28. Id. at P 127; see also id. at P 128 (addressing the errors).

29. See Ass’n of Bus. Advocating Tariff Equity v. Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., Nos. 16-1325 and 20-1513 (D.C. Cir. filed Sept. 19, 2016, and Dec. 23, 2020).

30. See Entergy Ark., Inc., 175 FERC ¶ 61,136, at P 2 (2021).

31. See Constellation Mystic Power, LLC, 176 FERC ¶ 61,019, at P 1 (2021).

32. Elec. Transmission Incentives Policy Under Section 219 of the Federal Power Act, 175 FERC ¶ 61,035 (2021).

33. Id. at P 5.

34. Id. at PP 7–8.

35. Id. at PP 2–4, 6–7 (Chatterjee, Comm’r, dissenting).

36. Id. at PP 4–6 (Danly, Comm’r, dissenting).

37. GreenHat Energy, LLC, 175 FERC ¶ 61,138 (2021).

38. Id. at P 3.

39. Id.

40. Id. at P 4.

41. Id. at P 9.

42. Id. at P 8.

43. See id., App. A at 5.

44. PacifiCorp., 175 FERC ¶ 61,039 (2021).

45. Id. at P 3.

46. Id.

47. Id.

48. Id. at P 1.

49. News Release, FERC, FERC Seeking Director for Office of Enforcement (Apr. 21, 2021), https://cms.‌ferc.‌gov/news-events/news/ferc-seeks-director-office-enforcement.

50. Allegheny Defense Project v. FERC, 964 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (en banc).

51. Id. at 2–4.

52. 15 U.S.C. § 717r(a); see also 16 U.S.C. § 825l(a).

53. See 15 U.S.C. § 717r(a); 16 U.S.C. § 825l(a).

54. Allegheny, 964 F.3d at 6 (alteration omitted).

55. Id. at 13.

56. Id. at 13–14 (alteration in original).

57. Id. at 14.

58. Id.

59. Id. at 15.

60. See, e.g., Staff Presentation, Recent Changes in Commission Rehearing Practice – Item A-3, FERC (Sept. 17, 2020), https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/news/recent-changes-commission-rehearing-practice-item-3.

61. See id.

62. 15 U.S.C. § 717r(a); 16 U.S.C. § 825l(a).

63. Id. § 825l(b).

64. NYISO, 2021 Master Plan: Reliability and Markets for the Grid of the Future 8–12 (initial draft June 2021), https://www.nyiso.com/documents/20142/21942500/2021%20‌Master‌%20Plan‌_%20‌Ini‌tial%20Draft.pdf/9bde3ed4-56ec-9047-dcc3-a74f746a75fb.

65. Id. at 13–15.

66. Id. at 16–19.

67. Id. at 19–20.

68. N.Y. Dep’t of Pub. Serv. Staff et al., Initial Report on the New York Power Grid Study (Jan. 19, 2021), https://‌www.nyserda.ny.gov/-/media/Files/Publications/NY-Power-Grid/full-report-NY-power-grid.pdf.

69. Id. at 2.

70. N.Y. Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 172 FERC ¶ 61,206, at PP 4–5 & n.12 (2020).

71. Id. at P 29.

72. Id. at P 2 (Glick, Comm’r, dissenting).

73. See, e.g., Debra Kahn & Colby Bermel, California Has First Rolling Blackouts in 19 Years—and Everyone Faces Blame, Politico (Aug. 18, 2020), https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/‌2020/‌08/18/california-has-first-rolling-blackouts-in-19-years-and-everyone-faces-blame-1309757.

74. CAISO, CPUC, Cal. Energy Comm’n, Final: Root Cause Analysis, Mid-August 2020 Extreme Heat Wave (Jan. 1, 2021), http://www.caiso.com/Documents/Final-Root-Cause-Analysis-Mid-August-2020-Ex‌treme-Heat-Wave.pdf.

75. See id. at 3–5.

76. Order Instituting Rulemaking to Establish Policies, Processes, and Rules to Ensure Reliable Electric Service in California in the Event of an Extreme Weather Event in 2021, R.20-11-003, Order Instituting Rulemaking Emergency Reliability (Cal. Pub. Utils. Comm’n Nov. 19, 2020), https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/‌Pub‌lishedDocs/Published/G000/M351/K809/351809897.pdf.

77. Order Instituting Rulemaking to Establish Policies, Processes, and Rules to Ensure Reliable Electric Service in California in the Event of an Extreme Weather Event in 2021, R.20-11-003, Decision Directing Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, and San Diego Gas & Electric Company to Take Actions to Prepare for Potential Extreme Weather in the Summers of 2021 and 2022, D.21-03-056 (Cal. Pub. Utils. Comm’n Mar. 26, 2021), https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M373/K745/373745051.pdf.

78. Id. at 2.

79. See id. at 21–26.

80. Id. at 19.

81. See Initiative: Market Enhancements for Summer 2021 Readiness, CAISO, https://stakeholdercenter.‌caiso.‌com/‌StakeholderInitiatives/Market-enhancements-for-summer-2021-readiness (last visited July 27, 2021).

82. Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 175 FERC ¶ 61,160 (2021).

83. Id. at PP 5–9.

84. Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 175 FERC ¶ 61,168, at P 14 (2021).

85. Id. at P 8.

86. Id.

87. Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 175 FERC ¶ 61,245 (2021).

88. Id. at P 11.

89. Id.

90. Id.

91. Id. at P 167.

92. Tim Stelloh et al., Millions in Texas Without Power as Deadly Storm Brings Snow, Freezing Weather, NBC News (Feb. 16, 2021), https://www.nbcnews.com/news/weather/knocked-out-texas-millions-face-record-lows-without-power-new-n1257964.

93. Paul J. Weber & Jamie Stengle, Texas Death Toll From February Storm, Outages Surpasses 100, Associated Press (Mar. 25, 2021), https://apnews.com/article/hypothermia-health-storms-power-outages-texas-ffeb5d49e1b43032ffdc93ea9d7cfa5f.

94. Under the NEPOOL Participants Agreement, when ISO-NE intends to submit a proposed market rule, the NEPOOL Participants Committee can require—with a sixty-percent vote—ISO-NE to include in its Section 205 filing a competing proposal from NEPOOL.

95. ISO New England, Inc., 175 FERC ¶ 61,195 (2021).

96. Id. at P 40.

97. Id. at PP 58, 62, 63.

98. Id. at P 76.

99. ISO New England Inc., 175 FERC ¶ 61,172 (2021).

100. Id. at P 21.

101. Id. at PP 63–67.

102. Id. at P 123.

103. Vamsi Chadalavada, ISO New England, ISO New England’s Approach to Future Grid Studies 4 (Feb. 18, 2021), https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2021/02/npc-20210218-chadalavada-presentation-r.pdf.

104. Id. at 5.

105. Id. at 6.

106. See Sw. Power Pool, Inc., 173 FERC ¶ 61,267 (2021).

107. Id. at P 23.

108. Id. at P 30.

109. Id.

110. See SPP-MISO Joint Study Team, SPP-MISO 2021 Joint Targeted Interconnection Queue Study: Scope of Work (Feb. 19, 2021), https://spp.org/documents/64101/spp-miso%20jtiq%20‌detailed‌%20‌scope‌%2002192021%20final.pdf.

111. See Amanda Durish Cook, No MISO-SPP Joint Study in 2021, RTO Insider (Mar. 28, 2021), https://‌www.‌rtoinsider.com/articles/20044-no-miso-spp-joint-study-in-2021#.

112. MISO, MISO’s Renewable Integration Impact Assessment (RIIA) (Feb. 2021), https://cdn.misoenergy.‌org/‌RIIA%20Summary%20Report520051.pdf.

113. Id. at 5–9.

114. Id. at 2.

115. Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 173 FERC ¶ 61,095 (2020).

116. Id. at P 7.

117. Id. at P 9.

118. Id. at P 25.

119. See Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 172 FERC ¶ 61,095, at PP 5, 7, 19.

120. See, e.g., id. at P 22.

121. Id. at PP 46–48.

122. LSP Transmission Holdings II, v. FERC, D.C. Cir. Nos. 20-1466, 21-1005 (filed Nov. 23, 2020, and Jan. 5, 2021).

123. Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 172 FERC ¶ 61,248 (2020).

124. Ameren Servs. Co. v. FERC, 880 F.3d 571 (D.C. Cir. 2018).

125. Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 172 FERC ¶ 61,248, at PP 15–16.

126. Id. at P 24.

127. Calpine Corp. v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 173 FERC ¶ 61,061 (2020), order on reh’g, 174 FERC ¶ 61,109.

128. Id. at P 69.

129. Calpine Corp. v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 174 FERC ¶ 61,036 (2021).

130. Id. at P 16.

131. Indep. Mkt. Monitor for PJM v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 174 FERC ¶ 61,212, at P 2 (2021).

132. See Modernizing Electricity Market Design, Docket No. AD21-10, Notice Inviting Post-Technical Conference Comments (FERC Apr. 5, 2021), https://cms.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2021-04/AD21-10-000%20TC.pdf.

133. See PJM, Critical Issue Fast Path—Minimum Offer Price Rule, https://www.pjm.com/committees-and-groups/cifp-mopr (last updated July 27, 2021).

134. PJM Board of Managers Approves Proposal to Address Capacity Market Reform, PJM Inside Lines (July 8, 2021), https://insidelines.pjm.com/pjm-board-of-managers-approves-proposal-to-address-capacity-market-reform.

135. Indep. Mkt. Monitor for PJM v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 174 FERC ¶ 61,212 (2021).

136. Id. at P 4.

137. Id. at PP 65, 71–72.

138. Del. Div. of Pub. Advoc. v. FERC, 3 F.4th 461, 463 (D.C. Cir. 2021).

139. Id. at 465.

140. Id. at 469.

141. Id.

142. S.9, 192d Gen. Court, Current Sess. (Mass. 2021).

143. Press Release, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Biden-Harris Administration Approves First Major Offshore Wind Project in U.S. Waters (May 11, 2021), https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/biden-harris-administration-approves-first-major-offshore-wind-project-us-waters.

144. Id.

145. U.S Dep’t of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Mgmt., Record of Decision: Vineyard Wind 1 Offshore Wind Energy Project Construction and Operations Plan, 3–11, (2021).

146. Petition of Vineyard Wind LLC for Approval of New Transmission Lines Pursuant to G.L. c. 164, § 72, EFSB Docket No. 20-01/ DPU Docket No. 20-57, 1-2 (Mass. D.P.U. 2020).

147. Petition of NSTAR Electric Company d/b/a Eversource Energy for Approval of a Long-Term Power Purchase Agreement Pursuant to ST. 2008, C. 169 §83C, Docket Nos. 20-16, 2017, 20-18, at 1 (Mass. D.P.U. Nov. 5, 2020).

148. Mayflower Wind: The Project (2021), https://mayflowerwind.com/the-project (last visited July 8, 2021).

149. Dep’t of Energy & Env’t Prot., Substitute for House Bill No. 7156- Section 1- Procurement of Offshore Wind Facilities: Notice of Scope of Proceeding and Request for Written Comment, at 1 (June 2019), https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DEEP/energy/20190607DRAFTOSWNoticeofScopeofProceedingpdf.pdf.

150. Application of Revolution Wind, LLC for License to Construct and Alter Major Energy Facilities, Docket No. SB-2021-01, at 1, (R.I. PUC Dec. 30, 2020).

151. Park City Wind Overview (July 7, 2021), https://www.parkcitywind.com/project-overview.

152. Docket No. SB-2021-01, at 1, (R.I. PUC Dec. 30, 2020).

153. Exec. Order 20-01 (R.I. 2020).

154. Id.

155. Deepwater Wind Block Island LLC—Renewable Energy Resources Certification Application for Generation Unit: Block Island Wind Farm Application, Docket No. DWBI-4607, at 4, (R.I. PUC Mar. 9, 2016).

156. Construction and Operations Plan Revolution Wind Farm, Bureau of Ocean Energy Mgmt. (Apr. 29, 2021), https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents/renewable-energy/state-activities/RevWind-COP-Volume%20I.pdf.

157. Exec. Order 92 (N.J. 2019).

158. Ramboll US Corp., New Jersey Offshore Wind Strategic Plan: Navigating Our Future 7–11 (2020).

159. Press Release, N.J. Bd. Pub. Utils., NJBPU Approves Nation’s Largest Combined Offshore Wind Award to Atlantic Shores and Ocean Wind II, at 1 (2021), https://www.bpu.state.nj.us/bpu/library/pdf/PressRelease_OSW_SecondSolicitation.pdf.

160. In the Matter of the Development of an Offshore Wind Strategic Plan in Furtherance of the Implementation of Executive Order Number 8 and Executive Order Number 92, NJ BPU Docket No. QO200080560, Order Releasing the Offshore Strategic Plan at 1–3, (Sept. 9, 2020).

161. Id.

162. Atl. Shores, Atlantic Shores Offshore Wind: About Us, https://www.atlanticshoreswind.com/about-us (last visited July 12, 2021).

163. Id.

164. Act to Establish a Moratorium on Offshore Wind Power Projects in Maine’s Territorial Waters, S.P. 512, L.D. 1619, 130th Legis., 1st Spec. Sess. (Me. 2021).

165. Committee Amendment to S.P. 512, L.D. 1619, An Act to Establish a 10 Moratorium on Offshore Wind Power Projects in Maine’s Territorial Waters, Maine sec. 1. 35-A Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. §3405.3.D.

166. Id. sec. 2. 35-A Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 3406.2.

167. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, New England Aqua Ventus 1, 10–14, https://2blypr312v4ypfi9w15dwdrv-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/EA-2049-Public-Scoping-Meeting-Presentation-2021_0.pdf.

168. Aqua Ventus Maine, Aqua Ventus, https://maineaquaventus.com/index.php/the-project (last visited July 9, 2021).

169. New York State, Offshore Wind Projects (2020), https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/All-Programs/Programs/Offshore-Wind/Focus-Areas/NY-Offshore-Wind-Projects (last visited July 8, 2021).

170. Id.

171. Id.

172. Id.

173. Skipjack Offshore Energy, LLC’s Qualified Offshore Wind Project’s Compliance with Conditions Approved in 2017, Md. PSC Docket No. 6929, Order No. 89622 Order Approving Turbine Selection, at 1 (Aug. 20, 2020).

174. Id.

175. Orsted, Skipjack Wind 1: Powering Delmarva with Offshore Wind, https://skipjackwindfarm.com/en (last visited July 9, 2021).

176. U.S. Wind, US Wind’s MarWin Project At-a-Glance, https://uswindinc.com/marwin (last visited July 9, 2021).

177. Hurricane seasons officially run from June 1 to the following November 30. This period is the most likely time for tropical cyclone to form. Tropical cyclones, however, will form whenever conditions are favorable for formation. Nat’l Ctrs. for Env’t Info., 2020 North Atlantic Hurricane Season Shatters Records (Dec. 17, 2020), https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/2020-north-atlantic-hurricane-season-shatters-records [hereinafter Season Shatters Records].

178. Id.

179. Id.

180. A hurricane is a tropical cyclone having maximum winds greater than or equal to thirty-nine miles per hour. Nat’l Hurricane Ctr., Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale, https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutsshws.php.

181. A major hurricane is a tropical cyclone having maximum winds greater than or equal to 111 miles per hour.

182. Season Shatters Records, supra note 177.

183. Id.

184. Id.

185. “Category 4” refers to a maximum wind speed measurement under the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale; under the scale, a hurricane is assigned a 1 to 5 rating based only on the hurricane’s maximum sustained wind speed. Hurricanes rated Category 3 and higher are known as major hurricanes. Nat’l Hurricane Ctr., supra note 180.

186. Richard J. Pasch et al., National Hurricane Center Tropical Cyclone Report Hurricane Laura (May 26, 2021), https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/index.php?season=2020&basin=atl.

187. Id.

188. Application of Entergy Louisiana, LLC for Recovery in Rates of Costs Related to Hurricanes Laura, Delta, Zeta and Winter Storm Uri and for Related Relief, LPSC Docket No. U-35991 (Apr. 30, 2021), https://lpscpubvalence.lpsc.louisiana.gov/portal/lpsc-web-portal [hereinafter ELL Application].

189. Id.

190. John P. Cangialosi & Robbie Berg, National Hurricane Center Tropical Cyclone Report Hurricane Delta (Apr. 19, 2021), https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/index.php?season=2020&basin=atl [hereinafter Hurricane Delta Report].

191. Id.

192. ELL Application, supra note 188, at 8.

193. Hurricane Delta Report, supra note 190.

194. ELL Application, supra note 188, at 12.

195. Id. at 8–9.

196. ENO provides retail electric and gas service in the City of New Orleans.

197. Eric Blake et al., National Hurricane Center Tropical Cyclone Report Hurricane Zeta (May 10, 2021), https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/index.php?season=2020&basin=atl.

198. Id.

199. Id.

200. Id.

201. ELL Application, supra note 188, at 9.

202. Application of Entergy New Orleans, LLC for Certification of Costs Related to Hurricane Zeta, Council Docket No. UD-21-02 (May 21, 2021) [hereinafter ENO Application].

203. ELL Application, supra note 188, at 12.

204. Id. at 10.

205. ENO Application, supra note 202, at 2.

206. Direct Testimony of John W. Hawkins, Jr. at 54, Council Docket No. UD-21-02.

207. Robbie Berg & Brad J. Reinhart, National Hurricane Center Tropical Cyclone Report Hurricane Sally (Apr. 14, 2021), https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/index.php?season=2020&basin=atl [hereinafter Hurricane Sally Report].

208. Alabama News Center Staff, Alabama Power Completes Restoration Following Historic Hurricane Sally, Ala. News Ctr. (Sept. 20, 2020), https://alabamanewscenter.com/2020/09/20/alabama-power-completes-restoration-following-historic-hurricane-sally [hereinafter Hurricane Power-Sally].

209. Hurricane Sally Report, supra note 207.

210. Id.

211. Hurricane Sally Report, supra note 207.

212. Alabama Power-Sally, supra note 208.

213. Southern Co., Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Form 10-K, at II-4 [hereinafter Southern Co. 10-K].

214. Wednesday: Service Restored to All Customers Impacted by Hurricane Sally, Miss. Power News (Sept. 16, 2020), https://mississippipowernews.com/2020/09/16/wednesday-crews-respond-to-outages-related-to-hurricane-sally.

215. NextEra Energy, Inc., Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Form 10-K, at 75.

216. News Release, Southern Power Co., Georgia Power Restores Power to Nearly 90,000 Customers Following Hurricane Sally (Sept. 17, 2020), at https://southerncompany.mediaroom.com/2020-09-17-Georgia-Power-restores-power-to-nearly-90-000-customers-following-Hurricane-Sally-announces-estimated-restoration-times-for-those-remaining.

217. Alabama Power Crews Working Around the Clock to Restore Widespread Outages, Ala. News Ctr. (Oct. 30, 2020), https://alabamanewscenter.com/2020/10/30/alabama-power-crews-work-diligently-to-restore-service-to-customers-affected-by-hurricane-zeta.

218. Southern Co. 10-K, supra note 213, at II-4.

219. Hurricane Zeta: Friday Morning Update, Miss. Power News (Oct. 30, 2020), https://mississippipowernews.com/2020/10/30/hurricane-zeta-friday-morning-update.

220. Gulf Power Has Already Restored Power to Nearly 43,700 Customers Affected by Hurricane Zeta, Gulf Power News (Oct. 29, 2020), https://www.gulfpowernews.com/power-restored-43700-customers-after-zeta.

221. News Release, Southern Co., 1 p.m. Update: Power Restored to 99% of Georgia Power Customers Impacted by Hurricane Zeta (Nov. 2, 2020), https://southerncompany.mediaroom.com/2020-11-02-1-p-m-Update-Power-restored-to-99-of-Georgia-Power-customers-impacted-by-Hurricane-Zeta.

222. News Release, Florida Power & Light, FPL Customers Escape the Worst of Record-Breaking 2020 Hurricane Season (Dec. 2, 2020), http://newsroom.fpl.com/news-releases?item=126196.

223. Season Shatters Records, supra note 177.

224. Tom Di Liberto, May 2020: Global Temperatures Tie for Record Hottest, NOAA (June 15, 2020), https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/may-2020-global-temperatures-tie-record-hottest.

225. La Niña and its counterpart, El Niño, are Pacific Ocean climate patterns that can affect weather worldwide.

226. Season Shatters Records, supra note 177.

227. NOAA Predicts Another Active Atlantic Hurricane Season, NOAA.gov, (May 20, 2021), https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/noaa-predicts-another-active-atlantic-hurricane-season.

228. This is proving to be true. Hurricane Ida made landfall on August 30, 2021, near Port Fourchon, Louisiana, as a strengthening Category 4 storm with maximum sustained winds of 150 mph, causing massive devastation and electric utility outages in Louisiana and Mississippi before moving on to cause severe damage in the Northeast states later in the week.

229. MISO, The February Arctic Event: February 14–18, 2021, https://cdn.misoenergy.org/2021%20Arctic%20Event%20Report554429.pdf.

230. Potomac Econ., A Review of the Commitment and Dispatch of Coal Generators in MISO (Sept. 2020), https://www.potomaceconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Coal-Dispatch-Study_9-30-20.pdf.

231. An Act to Amend the Indiana Code Concerning Utilities, S.B. 386, Pub. L. No. 80-2021 (enacted Apr. 19, 2021) (codified at Ind. Code § 8-1-40.5).

232. Final Order, Petition of Southern Ind. Gas & Elec. Co. d/b/a Vectren Energy Delivery of Indiana, Inc. for Approval of a Tariff Rate for the Procurement of Excess Distributed Generation Pursuant to Ind. Code § 8-1-40 et seq., IURC Cause No. 45378, (Apr. 7, 2021).

233. An Act Concerning Utilities, H.B. 2072, 2021 Kan. Session Laws ch. 66 (enacted Apr. 9, 2021).

234. In re Commission’s Own Motion, to Examine the Changes to the Regulations Implementing the Public Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, 16 USC 2601 et seq., pursuant to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Final Order No. 872, Michigan PSC Case No. U-20905, Order (Jan. 21, 2021).

235. In re Commission’s Own Motion, to Examine the Changes to the Regulations Implementing the Public Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, 16 USC 2601 et seq., pursuant to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Final Order No. 872, Michigan PSC Case No. U-20905, Order (July 2, 2021).

236. Act of May 25, 2021, Minn. Laws Ch. § 29, H.F. 164 (codified in Minn. Stat. §§ 216B.2401–.2403, 216B.241).

237. Press Release, Minn. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, Minnesota Public Utilities Commission Continues Paving Way for More Electric Vehicles (Mar. 11, 2021),https://mn.gov/puc/newsroom/#/detail/appId/1/id/471495.

238. Press Release, Minn. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, Minnesota Public Utilities Commission Approves EV Pilot Program for Multi-Unit Housing (May 20, 2021), https://mn.gov/puc/newsroom/#/detail/appId/1/id/482673.

239. An Act Relating to Resource Planning, Planning Reserve Margin, and Reliable Service Obligation, S.B. 2312, 2021 N.D. Legis. Assemb. (enacted Apr. 19, 2021).

240. An Act to Permit a Board of County Commissioners to Designate Energy Development Districts and to Permit a Board of Township Trustees or a Board of County Commissioners to Prevent Power Siting Board Certification of Certain Wind and Solar Facilities, S.B. 52, 2021 Ohio Gen. Assemb. (enacted July 12, 2021).

241. An Act to Establish an Annual Fee for Certain Electric Motor Vehicles, H.B. 1053, 2021 S.D. Leg. Assemb. (enacted Mar. 3, 2021).

242. Press Release, Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, PSC Approves 675 MW of New Solar Generation in Wisconsin (Apr. 22, 2021), https://apps.psc.wi.gov/APPS/NewsReleases/default.aspx.

243. See Urgent Board of Directors Meeting Item 7.1 CEO Update (Feb. 9, 2021), http://www.ercot.com/content/wcm/key_documents_lists/214055/7.1_CEO_Update.pdf (accessed July 13, 2021) [hereinafter ERCOT CEO Update].

244. By June 1, 2021, ERCOT reported total installed solar capacity had risen to 6,200 MW with an additional 3,600 synchronized to the grid and awaiting final approval for full commercial operations. See PVGR Integration Report, ERCOT.com, http://mis.ercot.com/misapp/GetReports.do?reportTypeId=19325&reportTitle=PVGR%20Integration%20Report%20&showHTMLView=&mimicKey (accessed July 13, 2021).

245. By June 1, 2021, ERCOT reported total installed wind capacity had risen to 32,079 MW. See Wind Integration Report, ERCOT.com, http://mis.ercot.com/misapp/GetReports.do?reportTypeId=13105&reportTitle=Wind%20Integration%20Reports%20&showHTMLView=&mimicKey (accessed July 13, 2021).

246. See ERCOT CEO Update, supra note 243, at 5.

247. Id. at 10.

248. ERCOT Board Presentation, Review of February 2021 Extreme Cold Weather Event 13 (Feb. 24, 2021), http://www.ercot.com/content/wcm/key_documents_lists/225373/2.2_REVISED_ERCOT_Presentation.pdf

249. Id. at 15.

250. Id. at 10.

251. See News Updates, Tex. State Dep’t Health Servs., Winter Storm-Related Deaths—July 13, 2021, DSHS.Texas.gov, https://dshs.texas.gov/news/updates.shtm#wn (accessed July 13, 2021).

252. Calendar Year 2021-Open Meeting Agenda Items Without an Associated Control Number, PUCT Project No. 51617, Order Directing ERCOT to Take Action and Granting Exception (Feb. 16, 2021); Second Order Directing ERCOT to Take Action and Granting Exception to Commission Rules (Feb. 16, 2021) (later filed in Issues Related to the State of Disaster for the February 2021 Winter Weather Event, PUCT Project No. 51812, Memorandum to Move Filings to Project No. 51812 (Mar. 1, 2021)).

253. See Mark Watson, ERCOT Tracker: Power, Gas Prices Hit Records During Feb. 14 Winter Storm, S&P Global Platts (Mar. 10, 2021), https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/natural-gas/031021-ercot-tracker-power-gas-prices-hit-records-during-feb-14-winter-storm.

254. See U.S. EIA, Today in Energy Average Texas Electricity Prices Were Higher In February 2021 Due to a Severe Winter Storm (May 7, 2021), https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=47876 (accessed July 13, 2021); Rebecca Hersher, After Days of Mass Outages, Some Texas Residents Now Face Huge Electricity Bills, NPR (Feb. 21, 2021), https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-winter-storms-2021/2021/02/21/969912613/after-days-of-mass-outages-some-texas-residents-now-face-huge-electric-bills.

255. See Justin Horwath, February Storm Caused over $10B in Losses for Investor-Owned Power Companies, S&P Glob. (May 19, 2021), https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/february-storm-caused-over-10b-in-losses-for-investor-owned-power-companies-64327770.

256. See Joey Palacios, CPS Energy’s Costs During Winter Storm Crisis Reach Nearly $1 Billion For Energy, Fuel It Had to Buy, Tex. Pub. Radio (Mar. 1, 2021), https://www.tpr.org/news/2021-03-01/cps-energys-costs-during-winter-storm-crisis-reach-nearly-1-billion-for-energy-fuel-it-had-to-buy.

257. See ERCOT Memo to Credit; CRR; Settlements, ERCOT.com (June 29, 2021), http://www.ercot.com/services/comm/mkt_notices/archives/5891.

258. See Marcy de Luna & Paul Takahashi, Winners, Losers Emerge from Texas’ Historic Winter Storm, Hous. Chron. (May 18, 2021), https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Winners-losers-emerge-from-Texas-winter-storm-16183947.php.

259. Cassandra Pollock & Shawn Mulcahy, Texas’ Last Public Utility Commission Member Resigns at Gov. Greg Abbott’s Request, Tex. Trib. (Mar. 16, 2021), https://www.texastribune.org/2021/03/16/texas-public‌-‌utilty-commission-resignation.

260. Mitchell Ferman, Another ERCOT Board Member Resigns as Lawmakers Criticize Power Grid Operator for Massive Electricity Outages, Tex. Trib. (Feb. 26, 2021), https://www.texastribune.org/2021/‌02/‌26/‌ercot-resignation-power-outages.

261. Kay Jones & Ashley Killough, Texas Power Grid CEO Is Fired Following Widespread Outages During Winter Storms, CNN (Mar. 4, 2021), https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/03/us/texas-storms-ercot-ceo-fired/‌index.html.

262. See Tex. Senate Rsch. Ctr., Bill Analysis, S.B. 3, at 1–2 (June 1, 2021), https://capitol.texas.gov/‌tlo‌docs/‌87R/‌analysis/pdf/SB00003F.pdf#navpanes=0.

263. See Tex. Senate Rsch. Ctr., Bill Analysis, S.B. 2 (June 2, 2021), https://capitol.texas.gov/tlo‌docs‌/‌87R/analysis/pdf/SB00002F.pdf#navpanes=0.

264. News Release, FERC, FERC, NERC to Open Joint Inquiry into 2021 Cold Weather Grid Operations (Feb. 16, 2021), https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/news/ferc-nerc-open-joint-inquiry-2021-cold-weather-grid-operations.

265. ERCOT, February 2021 Extreme Cold Weather Event: Preliminary Report on Causes of Generator Outages and Derates 11–12 (Apr. 6, 2021), http://www.ercot.com/content/wcm/lists/226521/‌51878‌_ERCOT_Letter_re_Preliminary_Report_on_Outage_Causes.pdf.

266. See Press Release, Avangrid, Avangrid and PNM Announce Merger Plans (Oct. 21, 2021), https://www.avangrid.com/wps/portal/avangrid/pressroom/pressrelease/2020/20-10%20pnm%20merger%20announcement.

267. Id.

268. See Avangrid, Press Release, Draft Stipulation Agreement Reflects Interests of PNM, AVANGRID and 13 Other Signatories to Bring over $270 Million in Benefits to New Mexico; New Mexico Regulatory Approval Is Last Remaining Approval Required for Merger (May 31, 2021), https://www.avangrid.com/wps/portal/avangrid/pressroom/pressrelease/2021/21-05-31%20nm%20regulator%20procedural%20sch.%20pnm.

269. See PNM, 2020 Integrated Resource Planning (2020), https://www.pnmforwardtogether.com/irp (last visited July 13, 2021).

270. PNM 2020–2040 Integrated Resource Plan Executive Summary 4 (Jan. 29, 2021), https://www.pnmforwardtogether.com/assets/uploads/PNM-2020-IRP-EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY-NEW-COVER.pdf.

271. Id.

272. Id. at 5.

273. See Press Release, Ariz. Pub. Serv. Co., APS in Market for More Solar on Path to 100% Clean Energy, Bus. Wire (May 2, 2021), https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210503005122/en/APS-in-Market-for-More-Solar-on-Path-to-100-Clean-Energy#:~:text=The%20company%20is%20committed%20to,energy%20mix%20is%2050%25%20clean; Ariz. Pub. Serv. Co., Request for Proposals, available at www.aps.com/rfp.

274. See NV Energy, News Release, NV Energy Continues to Invest in Nevada’s Clean Energy Economy, (June 2, 2021), https://www.nvenergy.com/about-nvenergy/news/news-releases/nv-energy-continues-to-invest-in-nevadas-clean-energy-economy. A copy of the filing is available online: https://www.nvenergy.com/about-nvenergy/rates-regulatory/recent-regulatory-filings (accessed July 13, 2021).

275. See Usman Khalid, Pattern Energy breaks ground on 1 GW of Wind Projects in New Mexico, PatternEnergy.com (Jan. 4, 2021), https://patternenergy.com/news/news/pattern-energy-breaks-ground-1-gw-wind-projects-new-mexico.

276. See N.M. Renewable Energy Transmission Auth., Transmission Lines: Creating a Highway for Clean Energy, https://nmreta.com/transmission-lines/#transmissionprojects (accessed July 14, 2021).

277. Application of El Paso Electric Company to Amend its Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for Additional Generating Unit at the Newman Generating Station in El Paso County and the City of El Paso, PUCT Docket No. 50277, Order (Oct. 16, 2020).

278. Id. Finding of Fact No. 54.

279. In the Matter of El Paso Electric Company’s Application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Construct, Own, and Operate Generating Unit 6 at the Newman Generating Station, NMPRC Docket No. 19-00349-UT, Order Adopting Recommended Decision with Additional Instruction (Dec. 16, 2020).

280. In the Matter of the Adoption of an Immediate Emergency Rule Prohibiting the Discontinuation of Residential Service During the Time Period of the Governor’s Executive Orders 2020-004 through 2020-0010, NMPRC Case No. 20-00069-UT, Order Finding Need for the Adoption and Issuance of an Immediate Temporary Emergency Rule Prohibiting the Discontinuation of Residential Customer Utility Service (Mar. 18, 2020).

281. See State of New Mexico, I need assistance, NewMexico.Gov, https://www.newmexico.gov/i-need-assistance/ (accessed July 13, 2021).

282. In the Matter of the Adoption of an Immediate Emergency Rule Prohibiting the Discontinuation of Residential Customer Public Utility Service During the Time Period of the Governor’s Executive Orders 2020-004 Through -0010, NMPRC Case No. 20-00069-UT, Order Authorizing Creation of a Regulatory Asset by Public Utilities for Costs Associated with Emergency Conditions at 14 (NMPRC Jun. 24, 2020).

283. Emergency Order related to utility service and COVID-19, PUCN Docket No. 20-03021, Order at 2 (Mar. 27, 2020).

284. Application of Nevada Power d/b/a NV Energy File Under Advice Letter No. 504 to Establish Customer Price Stability Tariff Schedule No. CPST, PUCN Docket No. 20-05003, and Application of Sierra Pacific Power Company d/b/a/ NV Energy Filed Under Advice Letter No. 629-E to Establish Customer Price Stability Tariff Schedule No. CPST, PUCN Docket No. 20-05004, Order (Jan. 19, 2021) (addressing petition for reconsideration or rehearing).

285. Id.

286. News Release, Governor Ducey Announces Electric Utility Relief Package (Mar. 26, 2020), https://azgovernor.gov/governor/news/2020/03/governor-ducey-announces-electric-utility-relief-package.

287. Id.

288. See Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, COVID-19 Relief Coming: Low-Income APS, TEP Customers Will Receive $250 off Past-Due Balance (Dec. 10, 2020), https://www.azcc.gov/news/2020/12/10/covid-19-relief-coming-low-income-aps-tep-customers-will-receive-250-off-past-due-balance.

289. Id.

290. See, e.g., Issues Related to the State of Disaster for Coronavirus Disease 2019, PUCT Docket No. 50664, Order Directing Certain Actions and Granting Exceptions to Certain Rules (Mar. 26, 2020); Order Related to COVID-19 Electricity Relief Program (Mar. 26, 2020); Order Related to Accrual of Regulatory Assets (Mar. 26, 2020); see also Reports on the COVID-19 Electricity Relief Program, PUCT Docket No. 50703, Reports of Transmission and Distribution Utilities on the COVID-19 Electricity Relief Program (Mar. 26, 2020).

291. PUCT Project No. 50664, Fourth Order Related to COVID-19 Electricity Relief Program (Aug. 27, 2020).

292. PUC Lifts Moratorium on Utility Disconnections for Non-Payment, Public Utility Commission of Texas (June 11, 2021), https://www.puc.texas.gov/agency/resources/pubs/news/2021/PUCTX-REL-DNPsResume.pdf (stating available aid and market health conditions drove resumption of normal business practices).

293. See Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, May 26, 2021 Special Open Meeting Highlights (May 26, 2021), https://www.azcc.gov/news/2021/05/26/may-26-2021-special-open-meeting-highlights (accessed July 14, 2021).

294. Id.

295. Id.

296. Id.

297. See Nevada Question 6, Renewable Energy Standards Initiative, Ballotpedia (2020), https://ballotpedia.org/Nevada_Question_6,_Renewable_Energy_Standards_Initiative_(2020).

298. Id.

299. Id.

300. See Tex. SB 1202 (June 7, 2021), https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=87R&Bill=SB1202 (accessed July 14, 2021) (relating to the applicability of certain utility provisions to a vehicle charging service).

301. BIA Awards over $6.5 Million in Energy and Mineral Grants to 34 Tribes and ANCs, Native News Online (July 6, 2021), https://nativenewsonline.net/business/bia-awards-over-6-5-million-in-energy-and-mineral-grants-to-34-tribes-and-ancs.

302. Cal. Exec. Order No. 79-20 (Sept. 23, 2020), https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/9.23.20-EO-N-79-20-Climate.pdf.

303. Press Release, Office of Governor, Governor Newsom Announces California Will Phase Out Gasoline-Powered Cars & Drastically Reduce Demand for Fossil Fuel in California’s Fight Against Climate Change (Sept. 23, 2020), https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/09/23/governor-newsom-announces-california-will-phase-out-gasoline-powered-cars-drastically-reduce-demand-for-fossil-fuel-in-californias-fight-against-climate-change.

304. Id.

305. Rachel Becker, Newsom Orders Ban of New Gas-Powered Cars by 2035, CalMatters (Sept. 25, 2020), https://calmatters.org/environment/2020/09/california-ban-gasoline-powered-cars-in-2035.

306. Id.

307. Id.

308. Id.

309. Id.

310. Id.

311. Cal. Energy Comm’n, California Energy Commission Zero Emission Vehicle and Infrastructure Statistics (2021), https://tableau.cnra.ca.gov/t/CNRA_CEC/views/DMVDataPortal_15986380698710/STOCK_Dashboard?:showAppBanner=false&:display_count=n&:showVizHome=n&:origin=viz_share_link&:isGuestRedirectFromVizportal=y&:embed=y.

312. Becker, supra note 305.

313. Id.

314. Press Release, Cal. Air Resources Bd., California Requires Zero-Emissions Vehicle Use for Ridesharing Services, Another Step Toward Achieving the State’s Climate Goals (May 20, 2021), https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/california-requires-zero-emissions-vehicle-use-ridesharing-services-another-step-toward.

315. Id.

316. Tina Bellon, California Regulator Adopts EV Mandate for Uber, Lyft Ride-Hail Fleets, U.S. News (May 20, 2021), https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2021-05-20/california-regulator-adopts-ev-mandate-for-uber-lyft-ride-hail-fleets.

317. Id.

318. Andrew J. Hawkins, Uber Pledges to Shift to ‘100 Percent’ Electric Vehicles by 2030, Verge, (Sept.8, 2020), https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/8/21427196/uber-promise-100-percent-electric-vehicle-ev-2030.

319. Rachel Becker, California approves electric car mandate for Uber and Lyft, CalMatters (May 19, 2021), https://calmatters.org/environment/climate-change/2021/05/uber-lyft-electric-cars-california-mandate-weighed (citing CARB Staff Report on Proposed Clean Miles Standard Regulation, March 30, 2021).

320. Id.

321. Id.

322. Id.

323. Haw. Pub. Util. Comm’n, Order No. 37205, Haw. Elec. Light Co. Application for Approval of a Power Purchase Agreement, No. 2017-0122 (July 9, 2020), https://dms.puc.hawaii.gov/dms/DocumentViewer?pid=A1001001A20G09A95329C00373.

324. Id. at 22.

325. Consumer Advocacy—Public Utilities (DCA), Competitive Bidding Framework & Waiver Projects, Haw. Dep’t Com. & Cons. Affs. (2021), https://cca.hawaii.gov/dca/electric/comp_bid.

326. Id.

327. Haw. Pub. Util. Comm’n, Order No. 37306, Haw. Elec. Light Co. Application for Approval of a Power Purchase Agreement, No. 2017-0122 (Sept. 9, 2020), https://puc.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/2017-0122.Order-No.-37306.09-09-2020.pdf.

328. Order No. 37306, supra note 327, at 8; see also Haw. Admin. R ch. 16-601-142.

329. Haw. Pub. Util. Comm’n Order No. 37306, Haw. Elec. Light Co. Application for Approval of a Power Purchase Agreement, No. 2017-0122, at 8 (Sept. 9, 2020), https://puc.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/2017-0122.Order-No.-37306.09-09-2020.pdf.

330. Id.

331. In re Haw. Elec. Light Co., 445 P.3d 673 (Haw. 2019); see also Haw. Pub. Util. Comm’n, Order No. 37306, supra note 327.

332. Haw. Pub. Util. Comm’n, Order No. 37306, supra note 327.

333. Id. at 13.

334. Id. at 16.

335. Id. at 15.

336. Id. at 18–19.

337. Id. at 20.

338. Id. at 16.

339. Id. at 46–47.

340. See S.448, 2021 Leg., 81st Sess. (Nev. 2021), https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/81st2021/Bill/8201/Text.

341. See NVEnergy, Greenlink Nevada (2021), https://www.nvenergy.com/cleanenergy/greenlink.

342. Doug Puppel, Greenlink Nevada Gets Green Light to Power Up, ENR Southwest (June 21, 2021), https://www.enr.com/articles/51957-greenlink-nevada-gets-green-light-to-power-up.

343. Id.

344. Id.

345. Id.

346. Id.; see also Sean DeLancey, Massive Energy Overhaul Bill Awaits Nevada Governor Signature, KTNV Las Vegas (June 9, 2021), https://www.ktnv.com/news/a-massive-energy-overhaul-bill-is-on-gov-sisolaks-desk-waiting-on-a-signature.

347. Riley Snyder, Massive Clean Energy Bill Expanding Transmission, Electric Car Charging Stations Gets First Hearing; Resorts Opposed, Nev. Indep. (May 18, 2021), https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/massive-clean-energy-bill-expanding-transmission-electric-car-charging-stations-gets-first-hearing-resorts-opposed.

348. Id.

349. DeLancey, supra note 346.

350. Id.

351. Christopher Helman, MGM Resorts Doubles Down on Las Vegas Solar Power Forbes (June 29, 2021), https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2021/06/29mgm-resorts-doubles-down-on-las-vegas-solar-power/?sh=4b4a342d70ae.

352. Kelsey Misbrener, MGM Unveils 100-MW Solar Array to Power 13 Las Vegas Resorts, Solar Power World (June 29, 2021), https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2021/06/mgm-unveils-100-mw-solar-array-to-power-13-las-vegas-resorts.

353. Id.

354. Id.

355. Id.

356. Helman, supra note 351.

357. Or. Enrolled House Bill No. 2021 (HB 2021-C).

358. Dirk VanderHart, Oregon Lawmakers Approve Ambitious Carbon-Reduction Goals for State Energy Grid, Or. Pub. Broad. (June 26, 2021), https://www.opb.org/article/2021/06/26/oregon-lawmakers-carbon-emissions-reduction-goals-state-energy-grid.

359. Beveridge & Diamond, Oregon Sees Washington’s 2045 Target for Grid Decarbonization, Lowers by 5, JD Supra (July 7, 2021), https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/oregon-sees-washington-s-2045-target-4328183.

360. Connor Radnovich, Oregon Legislative Session Ends, Bills Pass on Wildfire Resiliency, Clean Energy, Salem Statesman J. (June 26,2021), https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/2021/06/26/major-funding-legislation-among-bills-passed-near-end-2021-session/5359707001.

361. VanderHart, supra note 358.

362. Id.

363. Or. Exec. Order No. 20-04, https://drive.google.com/file/d/16islO3GTqxVihqhhIcjGYH4Mrw3zNNXw/view; see also Dirk VanderHart, Gov. Kate Brown Orders State Action on Climate Change, Or. Pub. Broad. (Mar. 10, 2020), https://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-governor-kate-brown-climate-change-executive-order-cap-and-trade-bill.

364. Clean Energy Transformation Act, Wash. Util. & Transp. Comm’n (2020), https://www.utc.wa.gov/regulated-industries/utilities/energy/conservation-and-renewable-energy-overview/clean-energy-transformation-act.

365. Id.

366. Id.

367. Id.

368. Id.

369. Press Release, Wash. Util. & Transp. Comm’n, State Agencies Adopt Rules to Implement Washington’s 100% Clean Electricity Law (Jan. 5, 2021), https://www.utc.wa.gov/news/2021/state-agencies-adopt-rules-implement-washingtons-100-clean-electricity-law.

370. Id.

371. Id.

372. Id.

373. Hal Bernton, A Proposed $1.7 Billion Wind and Solar Project Generates Hopes and Fears in South Central Washington State, Seattle Times (May 4, 2021), https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/a-proposed-1-7-billion-wind-and-solar-project-generates-hopes-and-fears-in-south-central-washington-state.

374. Id.

375. Id.

376. Id.

377. Id.

378. Id.

379. Bernton, supra note 373.

380. Id.

381. Id.

382. Id.

383. Id.

384. Id.

385. Mr. Watson and Ms. Pimentel express their appreciation for the research and drafting assistance of their intern Eden Yerby.

386. Mr. Read and Mr. Campopiano gratefully acknowledge the research and drafting assistance of the following Latham & Watkins summer associates: Dan Del Giorno and Irfan Mahmud.