Subscribe to PURPA's Posts

Iowa Considers Feed-In Tariff for Wind

by Ari Peskoe

The Iowa state legislature is moving forward with a bill that would create the first U.S. feed-in tariff specifically for wind generation. If the bill is enacted, Iowa would join Vermont, and the cities of Los Angeles, and Gainesville, Florida as the U.S. jurisdictions currently offering a feed-in tariff. While it may seem like investors need little inducement to invest in wind capacity in Iowa, which already ranks third in wind capacity among U.S. states, the new incentive is aimed at mid-sized facilities, a neglected market in that state.

Under a feed-in tariff, a utility sets a long-term price for renewably generated electricity. A feed-in-tariff benefits generators by providing a standard offer contract and favorable rates, often based on a generous estimate of production costs. Feed-in tariffs are generally credited as one of the main reasons for large increases in renewable generation in several European countries. In the U.S., feed-in tariffs have been less popular. Under the Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA) of 1978, California offered a feed-in tariff in the 1980s that led to a proliferation of wind generation. While other states also offered similar programs under PURPA, none were as successful as California’s.

In Iowa, a state senate committee passed a bill earlier this month that would provide a feed-in tariff to wind facilities smaller than twenty megawatts in capacity and located on agricultural land. Under the standard offer contracts, the rate will be based on each utility’s cost, including a rate of return, for the new development of wind generation, and the term will be 10 years or until construction and financing costs have been recovered, whichever is earlier. 

The new tariff is designed to address a gap in the state’s wind portfolio. As of the end of 2011, about 85 percent of the state’s wind capacity was from facilities larger than 100 megawatts (19 total installations). The state had only five facilities sized between 2 and 20 megawatts, which accounted for less than two percent of capacity. Smaller-scale projects may be easier to site and could attract a different class of investors unable or unwilling to develop a utility-scale project. 

Other windy states have actively developed this mid-range market. Minnesota’s community wind program, launched in 2005, focuses on local ownership and provides front-loaded tariffs for facilities up to 50 megawatts. As of 2011, nearly 400 megawatts of capacity have been deployed under the program. Nebraska followed suit in 2007, but the program has failed to take off. That state, which has the fourth best wind for energy production, ranks just 23rd in total installed capacity.

read more

FERC Declares That Proposed Wind Curtailment Violates PURPA

by Melissa Dorn

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) ruled in September that Idaho Power Company’s (Idaho Power) proposed curtailment policy for purchases from qualifying facilities (QF) violates the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) because it allows the utility to curtail its wind power purchases under previously negotiated power purchase agreements when demand is low.

The Idaho Public Utilities Commission (PUC) had directed Idaho Power to lodge with the PUC a new curtailment policy allowing Idaho Power to halt purchases from QFs that it was otherwise contractually obligated to make when demand for power was low, such as during off-peak periods.  The state proceeding is ongoing.  In response to the filed proposal, Idaho Wind Partners 1, LLC (Idaho Wind) petitioned FERC for an order declaring the new policy to violate section 210 of PURPA.  Certain FERC regulations that implement PURPA require electric utilities to purchase energy and capacity made available to the utility from QFs.

While there are allowances in PURPA for curtailment under certain operational circumstances that cause purchases from QFs to result in higher costs, FERC’s determination turned on the interpretation of when the exception in § 304(f) of the Commission’s PURPA regulations applies.  Idaho Power argued that § 304(f) applied to QF contracts generally — fixed avoided-cost contract and those whose avoided-cost rate is determined at the time of delivery — thus it possessed the authority to curtail unilaterally QF purchases under any QF power purchase agreement. To the contrary, Idaho Wind argued that § 304(f) does not apply to fixed avoided-cost contracts, pursuant to which the parties had already accounted for variability and operational challenges.  Consequently, Idaho Power should not be able unilaterally to curtail a fixed avoided-cost purchase based on economic or operational circumstances.

In granting Idaho Wind’s petition, FERC instructed that the purpose of § 304(f) was to preserve, not override, contractual or other legally enforceable obligations that a utility incurs to purchase from a QF.  Therefore, the PUC could not authorize Idaho Power to curtail unilaterally its QF purchases.

Idaho Power has announced its intention to appeal FERC’s order rejecting the proposed new curtailment policy.

read more




Ranked In Chambers USA 2022
GCR 100 global elite