News Stories
Sponsored by Earth Etch. Regulatory insight and compliance solutions for today’s energy markets.
Parties File Initial Comment On Net Energy Billing
OPA argues that, in absence of an NEB project-specific statutory definition of “collocated,” it should be understood as previously defined in MEPUC rules, “an eligible facility that is located on the same premise, property, or development area of a net energy billing customer facility or facilities that are subscribed to that eligible facility.”
OPA also recommends adoption of “a ‘safe harbor’ provision under which subscribers who share either a service address or a mailing address with the generating facility would automatically be deemed to be collocated.”
ReVision argues that the legislature’s intent was that “the customers, not the load, must be collocated with the distributed generation resource,” where “customers” may include multiple entities.
ReVision also recommended that “the term ‘development area’ should be clearly and separately defined to include physically separated properties and buildings if owned by a single customer” and “should also include multiple customers within or abutting an area where development is governed by a single site law permit or where the area was developed together under a common plan of development.
ReVision further argues that “the T&D Utilities should play no role in compliance” since the legislature did not assign them one, while OPA recommends that MEPUC give utilities clear direction on matters such as collocation as they “are in effect the gatekeepers for determining NEB eligibility.”
See all comments filed at docket link below.
As background, Central Maine Power (CMP) is requesting an advisory ruling to clarify determination of whether tariff rate projects are collocated with the projects’ subscribers as required by LD1986. The statutory definition of “collocation” is “an eligible facility that is located on the same premise, property, or development area of a net energy billing customer facility or facilities that are subscribed to that eligible facility.” CMP said that it “has identified potential conflicts determining collocation for facilities serving university campuses or municipalities which may have differing subscriber and project addresses but which a developer could argue falls under the undefined ‘development area’ language in the definition.” CMP is requesting clarification of whether it should: (1) continue to determine collocation by ensuring addresses on NEB applications match subscriber addresses; (2) “accept the attestation from developers at face value,” with no obligation to “fact check” certifications; or (3) “employ a different review mechanism developed in this docket.”
2024-00075 (03/28/2024)
(Request for Advisory Ruling Pertaining to Collocation of Net Energy Billing Facilities)
