Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Electricity’ Category

Exelon CEO Chris Crane

Exelon CEO Chris Crane

Chicago, IL February 14, 2017:  Chicago energy attorneys, Patrick N. Giordano and Paul G. Neilan, announced they filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court Northern District of Illinois today against Anthony Star in his Official Capacity as Director of the Illinois Power Agency.  Village of Old Mill Creek, et al. v. Anthony Star was filed on Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at the U.S. District Court Northern District of Illinois.

Attorneys Giordano and Neilan represent Plaintiffs that are governmental, residential, commercial, and industrial electricity consumers located throughout the State of Illinois. Plaintiffs claim that P.A. 99-0906, executed by Governor Rauner on December 7, 2016, violates the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, and 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause. The underlying basis for the constitutional claims is that the prices charged by electricity generating plants are subject to federal rather than state regulation. A similar case has already been filed in federal court in New York challenging that state’s subsidy of Exelon nuclear plants by the law firm Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, which is headed by preeminent attorney David Boies.

Among other things, P.A. 99-0906 is designed to subsidize Exelon Corp.’s Quad Cities and Clinton nuclear plants. This subsidy will be charged to all Illinois electricity consumers beginning June 1, 2017 regardless of what company supplies the consumer’s electricity. The lawsuit specifically asks that the U.S. District Court grant a permanent injunction blocking the charges from going into effect as scheduled on June 1, 2017. According to Mr. Giordano: “These additional charges will reverse twenty years of deregulation in Illinois which have given us perhaps the one advantage we have over neighboring states: relatively low electricity charges due to an effectively functioning competitive market.” Mr. Giordano also said: “We’re challenging the nuclear bailout provision of the legislation because the prices charged by electricity generators have already been established by the competitive wholesale electricity market subject to federal jurisdiction and cannot be increased by the State of Illinois.”

The estimated impact to all Illinois consumers will be about $3.3 billion over the ten years of the nuclear bailout. Mr. Neilan points out that: “This nuclear bailout is one of four rate increases to Illinois consumers this year, including increased delivery charges, increased renewable energy subsidies, increased energy efficiency subsidies, and these nuclear energy subsidies.” When the nuclear subsidies go into effect on June 1, 2017, Illinois residents and businesses can expect to see an average 3% increase in their electricity bills due to the nuclear subsidies alone.”

Giordano & Associates, Ltd. is Chicago’s first law firm devoted to energy issues. We provide clients with experienced counsel on regulatory, litigation, transactional, and legislative matters in the areas of electricity and natural gas. Pat Giordano can be reached at pgiordano@dereglaw.com.

The Law Offices of Paul G. Neilan, P.C. represents commercial, industrial and governmental energy users in disputes against public utilities, as well as in litigation and transactional matters with non-utility competitive energy suppliers.

FACT SHEET

  1. Village of Old Mill Creek, et al. v. Anthony Star was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on February 14, 2007.
  2. The Plaintiffs are: Village of Old Mill Creek, Ferrite International Company, Got it Maid, Inc., Nafisca Zotos, Robert Dillon,Richard Owens, and Robin Hawkins, both individually and d/b/a Robin’s Nest.
  3. The Defendant is Anthony Star in his official capacity as Director of the Illinois Power Agency.
  4. This case arises from unlawful Illinois legislation that invades the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) over “the sale of electric energy at wholesale in interstate commerce” pursuant to the Federal Power Act. 16 U.S.C. 824(b)(1).
  5. The unlawful legislation is contained in subsection (d-5) Zero Emission Standard of Illinois Public Act 99-0906 (“P.A. 99-0906”), which was enacted on December 7, 2016 and is available at http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/99/HB/09900HB65761v.htm.
  6. Subsection (d-5) Zero Emission Standard of P.A. 99-0906 requires the Illinois Power Agency to procure contracts for Illinois utilities Commonwealth Edison Company, which serves northern Illinois, and Ameren Illinois Company, which services central and southern Illinois, for purchases of Zero Emission Credits (“ZECs”) from nuclear-fueled generating plants.
  7. The ZEC payments will be passed through by the utilities to all Illinois consumers through automatic adjustment tariffs.
  8. A. 99-0906 is designed to provide additional revenues to the Illinois-based Quad Cities and Clinton nuclear plants.
  9. Exelon Corp. owns both the utility ComEd and Exelon Generation, which owns the Quad Cities and Clinton nuclear plants that will sell the ZECs to the utilities.
  10. Although P.A. 99-0906 has many other provisions, this case concerns only subsection (d – 5) Zero emission standard.
  11. Plaintiffs are not challenging any other provisions of P.A. 99-0906. Section 97 of P.A. 99-0906 provides that the provisions of the Act are severable under Section 1.31 of the Illinois Statute on Statutes. 5 ILCS 70/1.31.
  12. In New York, ZEC payments to Exelon nuclear plants in that state are being challenged on the same grounds set forth by Plaintiffs in Illinois. Coalition for Competitive Electricity, et al. v. Audrey Zibelman, et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York on October 19, 2016.
  13. A typical residential customer using 1 mWh (1,000 kWh) per month would pay an additional $2.64 per month beginning June 1, 2017 based on the initial ZEC price established in P.A. 99-0906.
  14. A manufacturing company using 10,000 mWh per month would pay an additional $26,400 per month beginning June 1, 2017 based on the initial ZEC price established in P.A. 99-0906.

Read Full Post »

Clinton Nuke Plant

Clinton Nuclear Plant

The history of the Big Bank Bailouts of 2008-09 is now repeating itself as farce. The 2016 tsunami of crony capitalist entitlement is scheduled to hit Illinois tomorrow in Clinton, where according to news reports Gov. Rauner will sign the Exelon Dividend Protection Act. We’ll have to more to say on the legislation, but one may read the story here.

 

Read Full Post »

Today’s  Chicago Sun-Times discusses the Exelon Bail-Out Bill.

What began as a means of rewarding Exelon Corp. for generating “clean” nuclear energy and  keeping unprofitable plants in Clinton and the Quad Cities open has evolved into a far-reaching and  contentious revamp of state energy policy.

Check out the article here.

Read Full Post »

Coal mine, early 20th century

Coal mine, early 20th century.

There are mines and there are trenches, but they’re not the same. The so-called war on coal is a great story, but it’s a complete fiction. If there’s a war on steam coal, then there has to be a war on nuclear generation as well because they’re both in the same wholesale electricity market. You don’t have to look far to see Exelon and other nuke operators begging their state legislatures for additional subsidies for their plants. When wholesale electricity market prices are favorable, then coal mines and coal-fired plants (and nukes) extol the survival of the fittest in the Free Market, where only the most efficient competitors survive. But when that market turns on them, all of a sudden “the market is flawed,” and customers are no longer just customers; they’re “stakeholders.”

Be very afraid when anyone in the energy business starts calling you a “stakeholder.” It’s code for “we need you to pay us more money, but our reasons are really bad, so we have to fool you into believing that we’re all in this together.”

Coal mines are not being shuttered by the EPA or Hillary Clinton. The straight-up fact is that shale play natural gas has brought power prices down to levels not seen in years. Allied to this is the continued weak demand in what the feds tell us is our country’s longest (and slowest) economic recovery. The consequence is that low market electricity prices have persisted for an extremely long time.

The mines are being closed, and coal companies are declaring bankruptcy, not because politicians are waging some sort of trench warfare, but simply because of the price of coal, which varies directly with the price of natural gas.

Without doubt, new environmental rules have played a part in reducing coal-fired generation. But if you kick in the door on a house that’s in the process of falling down, don’t expect to be paid for the demolition job. A small decrease in the price of natural gas has a disproportionately large impact on demand for steam coal, and thus on the question of whether to shut a coal-fired station.

There’s no war on coal, and Don Blankenship, contrary to his claim, is not a political prisoner.

Read Full Post »

Coal-fired Power

Coal-fired Power

While the Hillary v. Donald Rumble on Monday night garnered all the media attention, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals heard a far more substantive discussion the following morning. An en banc panel of ten federal appellate judges heard oral argument on the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan.

It was a “hot bench,” with lots of questions from the judges. And while Hillary and The Donald put down their swords after 90 minutes, the oral argument on the CPP went on for more than seven hours.

West Virginia’s Solicitor General opened with an artillery barrage in the putative war on coal. The CPP sets target emission rates for fossil fuel generators such as coal, and prohibits them from operating if they exceed those limits unless they purchase carbon credits from generators whose emissions are below their assigned limits. He argued that the CPP thus forces coal plant owners into an impossible choice: they either subsidize their renewable energy competitors or shut down prematurely. In his view, that would affect not just West Virginia but the nation as a whole. W. Va. and other opponents argued that the Clean Air Act does not allow the EPA to require plant owners to invest in different generation resources.

The question of the scope of the EPA’s authority got a lot of attention. The EPA and other proponents of the plan countered that this type of regulation is already commonplace in the power industry. They argued that the emissions trading contemplated by the CPP would be the least expensive method of pollution control, especially when compared to setting emissions caps for each plant. EPA argued that the Clean Air Act mandates that it devise the best system of reductions for any particular pollution type, and that’s what the CPP does. They pointed to the Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, which mandates that the agency act to regulate carbon. And, they continued, the high court’s 2011 ruling in AEP v. Connecticut affirmed the EPA’s regulation of carbon, declaring that because climate change damages were within the EPA’s jurisdiciton, individual states could not sue power companies for climate change harms.

Their opponents argued that other language in AEP casts doubt on the scope of that holding.

Other CPP opponents claimed that because CPP requires major changes to the power grid, that the EPA is infringing on states’ rights because each state is responsible for the reliability of its own electric power system. Numerous shut-downs of coal-fired plants that would follow implementation of the CPP would adversely affect grid reliability.

Once again, it comes down to the Third Branch Default Setting that we’ve seen before in litigation interpreting laws that are both complex and unclear. The almost endless adventures of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, now forgotten like some long-ago war over an equally forgotten issue, comes to mind. Yet the problem is essentially the same. Congress enacts a law, but because of its own inability to agree on what that law should really say, it gets passed with provisions that don’t add up, or are even contradictory. But those problems are down the road, and it’s more important for legislators to get some earned media at the signing ceremony and have some accomplishment to write home to constituents about. Thus it falls the judiciary, sooner or later, to sort things out. C’est la vie, c’est la guerre.

Read Full Post »

Guillotine

Artist’s conception of a traditional annual performance review at a French investment bank

Even Willie Mays missed a fly ball every once in a while.

Reuters reports that investment banking firm Lazard Ltd, which advised SolarCity on its $2.6 billion sale to Tesla Motors Inc, made an error in its calculations that discounted the value of Solar City by $400 million.

But the headline is worse than the actual story, so one might question whether there’s some “clickbait” sensationalism involved. There was a miscalculation according to a regulatory filing made by Solar City, but the miscalculation related to a range of minimum-maximum share prices, rather than to a definite acquisition price.

Using its discounted cash flow model, Lazard came up with an equity value range of between $14.75 and $34.00 per share for Solar City. After closing, Lazard realized that it had double-counted some of Solar City’s projected debt. After corrections to the DCF calculations, the valuation range was adjusted to $18.75 to $37.75 per share.

The $400 million figure sounds bad, and of course it is. But the purchase price the parties ultimately agreed to, which was paid in Tesla stock, came out to $25.37 per share. So regardless of the error, the price paid was still within the range originally provided by Lazard.

I’m sure there are lawyers out there who would, if asked, take the case and file against Lazard, but I would not count myself among them. Lazard and Tesla will probably dust themselves off and move on. No harm, no foul.

What’s really interesting about this case is not that an error was made, but rather how Lazard might handle its repercussions internally. Who made the error? Who checked the figures? While I wouldn’t take the suit, I would certainly place money on heads rolling across the office floors at Lazard’s headquarters.

[Attention carpet cleaning companies: send your brochures to Lazard now.]

Lazard, originally a French merchant company that grew into a major investment banking house in the New World via New Orleans, might just keep an old Rasoir National (see artist’s conception, above) in storage somewhere in a New Jersey warehouse for just this type of occasion.

When the Great Recession occurred, the Wall Street chorus was that it was nobody’s fault, they never saw it coming, and nobody could have seen it coming.

Right.

The rapidity with which Wall Street bankers transitioned from omniscient Masters of the Universe to a collection of Sargent Schultz clones was the closest mankind has yet come to attaining the speed of light. Despite precipitating the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression and imposing on the U.S. taxpayer bailout costs rivaling those of a world war, no one was held accountable. Wall Street was grateful for Bernie Madoff because his Ponzi scheme story was simpler and took the spotlight off them.

But if you are the unfortunate person at Lazard on the Solar City-Tesla deal who’s tagged with responsibility for this DCF error, whether you’re a first-year analyst or a managing director, you can expect a career ending scene such as that depicted above.

Read Full Post »

Soft-diamond Specials waiting to move out

Soft-diamond Specials waiting to move out.

Argument is scheduled for today in bankruptcy court in St. Louis over Peabody Energy’s request for approval of $16,200,000 in executive bonuses for six top executives (In re Peabody Energy Corp., Bankrtcy., E. Dist. Mo.). Peabody, one of a series of coal company insolvencies over the past few years, filed bankruptcy this past April, attributing its difficulties to declining demand overseas, particularly from China, low market prices for coal, and the loss of electricity generation demand to cheaper shale gas. These factors allegedly rendered the company unable to service its $10.1 billion debt load.

The United Mine Workers pension and benefit funds oppose the plan, saying it’s both inappropriate and unfair to pay bonuses to senior executives when employees are losing their jobs.

Peabody Energy counters that the bonuses are essential to turn the world’s largest private-sector coal company around and offer stakeholders the best possible recovery. The company claims that the bonuses are tied to its achievement of certain performance benchmarks through the end of 2017. Reuters reports that the debtor’s unsecured creditors’ committee supports the bonus plan and that the U.S. trustee has not objected.

Though unseen, the ghosts of AIG retention-bonuses-past usually attend these hearings. A debtor proposing such a plan must show that it is based on pay-for-performance and not just an executive retention program.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »