A Clean Energy Law Is Under Threat. So, What is PURPA, and Why Should You Care? (From InsideClimate News)
In this era of the intentional disregard of various laws by republicans, we shouldn’t be surprised that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is determined to ignore another federal law for the benefit of major utilities, most likely those which continue and intend to continue using fossil fuels to generate electricity. Here’s the story from InsideClimate News:
Federal regulators have taken a big step toward dismantling a law that has been a big part of accelerating the growth of renewable energy. But the law—the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, or PURPA—is obscure enough that the process has gotten little attention outside of industry and advocate circles. PURPA, passed in 1978, was created to allow alternative energy sources access to the grid. It has been essential for renewable energy development in states such as North Carolina, where utilities can shut out competing electricity producers. Under PURPA, utilities have to contract with renewable power projects—if those projects can produce electricity for less than the cost of utilities producing it themselves. To qualify, a project needs to be 80 megawatts or less, and it needs to be located in a state with no access to a wholesale market for selling power, with some exceptions. Projects built using the law made up 14 percent of the 103 gigawatts of renewable electricity capacity built between 2008 and 2017, according to the Energy Information Administration. This includes most of the solar power in North Carolina and most of the wind power in Idaho. Here’s why that could change: Last week, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) gave notice of a proposed rule that would create new barriers for energy companies that want to develop renewable energy projects under the law.
The changes would give states greater leeway to alter the way that owners of projects would be paid, among other provisions. The likely result would be that owners would be paid less, or have less certainty in the payment terms, which would make projects less likely to happen. The Edison Electric Institute, a trade group for utilities, has long called for these types of changes, and the group’s president applauded the proposed rule, saying it would “better protect electricity customers from unnecessary energy costs.” Richard Glick, the sole Democrat on the commission, which now has only three members, dissented from the majority vote on the rule, saying that the proposal “would effectively gut the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act.” “It appears that the commission no longer believes that PURPA is necessary. I disagree,” he said. “I believe that the goals of PURPA—including the need to expand competition and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels—remain as relevant now as ever.” One of the main points of his dissent is that a change of this magnitude needs to come from Congress, and that FERC was overstepping its authority to do this on its own.
