Catagory:Governmental Affairs

1
Trump Administration To Consider Whether Imports Pose a Threat to the U.S. Energy Infrastructure
2
Split FERC Floats Overhaul of Utility Power Purchase Regs
3
OZ Flash: Newly Issued Proposed Regulations and the President’s Remarks are a Boon to the OZ Incentive
4
2018 Election Guide: A Guide to Changes in Congress – Available Now
5
UPDATED: Comprehensive Energy Policy Legislation A Side-by-Side Comparison of H.R. 8 & S. 2012
6
Comprehensive Energy Policy Legislation: A Side-by-Side Comparison of H.R. 8 & S. 2012
7
Public Meetings on the Clean Energy Fund II: Next Up: Spokane, WA on December 17
8
Greater Sage-Grouse Avoids ESA Listing
9
EPA releases final version of Clean Power Plan
10
Oregon Enacts Energy Storage Legislation

Trump Administration To Consider Whether Imports Pose a Threat to the U.S. Energy Infrastructure

Authors: Stacy J. Ettinger, Steven F. Hill, David L. Benson, William M. Keyser

On May 4, 2020, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross announced an investigation into whether imports of certain power distribution transformers and parts threaten to impair U.S. national security. A few days earlier, on May 1, 2020, President Trump issued an Executive Order declaring a national emergency over potential foreign threats to the security of the U.S. bulk power system.  Both actions, which are in response to perceived foreign threats to the U.S. electrical power grid, will likely result in the imposition of significant restrictions on the importation of covered equipment.  As discussed below, each action will proceed along separate paths.

Commerce Section 232 National Security Investigation

On May 4, 2020, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross announced that the agency intends to initiate an investigation under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962[1] into whether imports of certain power distribution transformers and parts threaten to impair U.S. national security. Secretary Ross indicated the investigation will focus on “laminations for stacked cores for incorporation into transformers, stacked and wound cores for incorporation into transformers, electrical transformers, and transformer regulators.” 

Once initiated, the investigation must be completed within 270 days. Commerce will then provide its report and recommendations to the President, at which point the President has 90 days to determine the nature and duration of action to “adjust” imports.

The law gives the President complete discretion (“in the judgment of the President”) to choose the nature or duration of any action to adjust imports “so that such imports will not threaten to impair the national security.” Previous Section 232 actions included imposition of import tariffs, fees, and quotas, as well as complete embargo of subject imports. For example, in March 2018 President Trump imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum imports as a result of similar Section 232 investigations launched in April 2017. The President also has the option of negotiating agreements with trading partners to limit subject imports, the option embraced by President Trump in the context of the Section 232 investigation launched in May 2018 with respect to imports of automobiles.

Executive Order to Secure U.S. Bulk-Power System from Foreign Adversary Threats

On May 1, 2020, President Trump issued an Executive Order[2] declaring a national emergency over potential foreign threats to the U.S. bulk-power system from foreign adversaries that may seek to commit malicious acts against the United States and its population including malicious cyber activities.  The Order empowers the U.S. government to block imports of certain equipment that could endanger the security of U.S. power plants.

As a practical matter, the new Order does not ban anything, but rather instructs the Department of Energy to issue regulations within 150 days.  These regulations are expected to set forth procedures whereby specifically identified bulk power equipment may be prohibited from importation, acquisition, transfer, or installation.  (This process will likely be similar to that laid out in Commerce Department regulations implementing a 2019 Executive Order declaring a national emergency with respect to the information and communications technology and services supply chain concerns.[3]  Please see our prior alert for an explanation of those Commerce regulations.[4])

The May 1st Order provides authorization to target any acquisition, importation, transfer, or installation (transaction) of to-be-identified bulk-power system electric equipment designed, developed, manufactured, or supplied by persons owned/controlled by/subject to the jurisdiction or direction of a foreign adversary, where the transaction—

  • poses an undue risk of sabotage to or subversion of the design, integrity, manufacturing, production, distribution, installation, operation, or maintenance of the bulk-power system in the United States;
  • poses an undue risk of catastrophic effects on the security or resiliency of United States critical infrastructure or the economy of the United States; or
  • otherwise poses an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons.

The Order provides a somewhat generic definition of the term “foreign adversary” as “any foreign government or foreign non-government person engaged in a long-term pattern or serious instances of conduct significantly adverse to the national security of the United States or its allies or the security and safety of United States persons.”  The Commerce regulations (referenced above) include this same definition which gives the agency discretion to identify foreign adversaries as needed.

Implications

Trump Administration actions in response to perceived foreign threats to the U.S. electrical power grid could include sweeping import restrictions with a significant impact on both the renewable and conventional power industries. Until the Department of Energy issues regulations to implement the Executive Order, the order will not directly impact any power plant project or transaction.   


[1] 19 U.S.C. 1862 (2018); https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2018-title19/html/USCODE-2018-title19-chap7-subchapII-partIV-sec1862.htm.

[2] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/05/04/2020-09695/securing-the-united-states-bulk-power-system.

[3] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/05/17/2019-10538/securing-the-information-and-communications-technology-and-services-supply-chain.

[4] http://www.klgates.com/commerce-proposes-process-to-evaluate-transactions-involving-information-and-communications-technology-and-services-for-national-security-concerns-12-03-2019/

Split FERC Floats Overhaul of Utility Power Purchase Regs

A divided Federal Energy Regulatory Commission proposed major changes Thursday in how it implements the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, with one commissioner saying the change would “administratively gut the statute” that requires utilities to buy power from small-scale renewable energy producers.

The notice of proposed rulemaking fulfills a priority of FERC Chairman Neil Chatterjee to update the agency’s long-standing policies under PURPA, which is four decades old and has been criticized by many — especially in the utility industry — as being outdated.

Partner Will Keyser commented that PURPA reform has been long in the making. Read his quote and the full article here.

Originally reported by law360.com

OZ Flash: Newly Issued Proposed Regulations and the President’s Remarks are a Boon to the OZ Incentive

By Mary Burke Baker, Adam J. Tejeda, Olivia S. Byrne, Elizabeth C. Crouse, Edward Dartley, and Cary J. Meer

Yesterday, the Treasury Department rolled out proposed Opportunity Zone (“OZ”) regulations (the “Proposed Regulations”) and President Trump noted the progress made by his Opportunity and Revitalization Council to eliminate barriers to OZ investments. The administration is clearly all in on maximizing the number of businesses and projects that will qualify for OZ benefits.

Read More

2018 Election Guide: A Guide to Changes in Congress – Available Now

The tumultuous 2018 midterm election, characterized by many as the most consequential in a generation, ended as predicted: the Democrats took control of the House while the Republicans increased their hold in the Senate.

Indeed, it was a tale of two Houses. As of 10:00 a.m. ET on November 7, the Democrats have picked up 28 seats in the House of Representatives, with the prospects of gaining about seven more as the remaining close races are decided, mostly in the west. In the Senate, Democratic Senators in Missouri, Indiana, and North Dakota were defeated while a Republican lost in Nevada, resulting in a net gain of two Senate seats thus far for Republicans with three races too close to call.

To help you assess yesterday’s election, K&L Gates has prepared a comprehensive guide that summarizes the results and their impact on the 116th Congress, which will convene in January. The Election Guide lists all new members elected to Congress, updates the congressional delegations for each state, and provides a starting point for analyzing the coming changes to the House and Senate committees.

Please click here to download the most up-to-date version of the 148-page Election Guide, which will be updated on an ongoing basis as more of the close races are called and committees are finalized.

For additional information regarding the effects of the recent elections, please contact Tim Peckinpaugh or any member of the Public Policy and Law practice.

To view the complete guide online, click here.

UPDATED: Comprehensive Energy Policy Legislation A Side-by-Side Comparison of H.R. 8 & S. 2012

By Tim Peckinpaugh and Kathleen Nicholas

Linked below is our updated side-by-side comparison of the House and Senate energy bills, which are moving to conference to reconcile differences in the hope of producing a final bill.  The principal difference from our earlier side-by-side comparison is the inclusion of several natural resource and energy R&D provisions added to the House bill late last month in order to prepare the bill for conference and permit the appointment of House conferees.This is the first comprehensive energy bill to advance this far in the legislative process in nine years.

Read More

Comprehensive Energy Policy Legislation: A Side-by-Side Comparison of H.R. 8 & S. 2012

Legislative History

In July 2015, comprehensive bills that would modernize U.S. energy policy for the first time since 2007 were introduced in the House and Senate. Notwithstanding their respective controversies, both bills started their legislative journeys with bipartisan support.  That same month, the Senate reported their bill (S. 2012) out of Committee 18-4, and the House bill (H.R. 8) passed unanimously through the Energy and Power Subcommittee.

In the House, the bipartisan spirit appeared to wane in August and September.  The House’s bill lost much of its bipartisan support in the wake of a substitute amendment offered by Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI).  On September 30, the Energy and Commerce Committee marked the Upton substitute, which was reported out of committee on a largely party-line vote, 32-20.  Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ) promised the Republicans that without the bipartisan concessions, H.R. 8 could be vetoed by the President.  And, indeed, after the bill passed through the full Committee, the White House released an official veto threat against the legislation.  Democrats’ attempts at amending the bill on the floor largely failed.  The bill ultimately passed the House in December by a predominantly party-line vote of 249-174, with only nine Democrats voting in favor.

Back in the Senate, S. 2012 first received floor consideration in late January 2016.  The bill’s sponsors and party leadership were hopeful that, in spite of the anticipated introduction of potentially controversial amendments, the bipartisan spirit of the bill would remain intact throughout floor consideration.  This spirit did largely prevail until the Senators from Michigan insisted that the bill’s passage be contingent on Federal funds for Flint, MI, to address its lead water crisis.  Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) eventually pulled the bill from the floor after it failed to overcome a procedural motion.  The Michigan Senators continued negotiations with Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Jim Inhofe (R-OK) to come to an agreement on Flint.  Finally, in April, an agreement came together and S. 2012 was brought back to the floor.  After the consideration of final amendments, the chamber passed the bill by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 85-12.

Up next, the two chambers will form a formal conference committee where they will reconcile the many differences between the two bills.  Both Rep. Upton and Sen. Murkowski have expressed eagerness in getting the bill to the President before the summer recess, which starts July 16.  There is a lot of work yet ahead, but it is expected that efforts will get underway within the coming weeks.  As the Chairperson of the Senate’s committee of jurisdiction, Sen. Murkowski will “hold the gavel” for the conference committee since the House held control of the proceedings during the last major energy bill conference in 2007.  Sen. Murkowski’s optimism and perseverance during the months-long Flint negotiations highlight her ability and willingness to work with her Democratic partner, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), to accomplish this overhaul legislation and present a final package to the President that is not only comprehensive but bipartisan in nature.

Side-by-Side Comparison

In preparation for conference, we updated our side-by-side comparison of the House- and Senate-passed energy bills.  Our analysis shows 20 issue areas that overlap between the House and Senate energy bills. Those commonalities are charted in the attached side-by-side comparison.  This overlap highlights that while the House Democrats cried partisanship during their markup, the House bill still has plenty of similarities to the bipartisan Senate bill.

Following the chart of commonalities is a list of provisions unique to S. 2012 and then a list unique for H.R. 8.

To view the side-by-side comparison, click here.

Public Meetings on the Clean Energy Fund II: Next Up: Spokane, WA on December 17

A series of public meetings are being held across Washington State to provide an update on the Washington State Legislature’s Clean Energy Fund II. The Clean Energy Fund provides grants to projects that support development, demonstration and deployment of clean energy technologies and is administered by the Department of Commerce’s State Energy Office. Personnel from the Department of Commerce will be at each meeting to provide information and answer questions.

The next meeting is being held in Spokane, Washington at Avista Utilities. The meeting details are:

  • When: Thursday, December 17, 2015
    2:00-4:00 p.m.
  • Where: Avista Utilities
    1411 E. Mission Avenue
    Spokane, WA 99202

If you are interested in attending the meeting on December 17 in Spokane, you can register here. We will keep you updated on future scheduled meetings and updates on the Clean Energy Fund II. More information on the Clean Energy Fund II can be found here.

Greater Sage-Grouse Avoids ESA Listing

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“Service”) announced on Tuesday, September 22, 2015, that it would not list the greater sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”).

This decision represents a change of direction for the Service, which announced in 2010 that the grouse was “warranted for listing”, but the Service now says “new information about the status of the species, potential threats, regulatory mechanisms, and conservation efforts indicates that listing is not warranted.”

Specifically, the Service determined that “the primary threats to greater sage-grouse have been ameliorated by conservation efforts implemented by Federal, State, and private landowners.” The Service identified state regulations, new federal regulations, conservation efforts, and advancements in oil and gas technologies as having reduced threats to the grouse “in approximately 90 percent of the breeding habitat through avoidance and minimization measures.”

Read more on K&L Gates HUB

EPA releases final version of Clean Power Plan

EPA issued the Clean Power Plan in its final form today, August 3, 2015. The rule in effect reshapes energy policy nationwide by setting state-by-state carbon emission standards that all states must achieve through a combination of producing energy more efficiently, reducing energy demand, shifting away from coal-fired generation toward natural gas, nuclear power, and renewable energy, and encouraging state and regional policies such as renewable portfolio standards and cap-and-trade programs. The final rule contains significant changes from the version proposed in 2014, including backing down from an initial earlier deadline for compliance, axing energy efficiency as the fourth “building block” for state targets, increasing the targeted GHG reductions to 32% below 2005 levels by 2030 (up from 30%), and using uniform carbon emissions rates for similar types of power plants.[1]   Read More

Oregon Enacts Energy Storage Legislation

On June 1, 2015, the Oregon legislature passed House Bill 2193-B, which requires certain electric companies to procure qualifying energy storage systems by January 1, 2020, subject to authorization by the Oregon Public Utility Commission (the “Commission”). An electric company may recover in rates all costs prudently incurred in the procurement of the energy storage system(s), including any above-market costs associated with procurement. The final version of the bill enjoyed broad support, passing the Oregon Senate by a vote of 17-12 and the House by a vote of 56-3. Governor Kate Brown signed the bill into law on June 10.

To read the full alert, click here.

Copyright © 2024, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.