Energy (J)

Meet the Co-chairs - TAGLAW

Brede, Jens
Kvale Advokatfirma DA

Meet the Co-chairs - TIAG

Pestana, Felipe Batista dos Reis
Grupo Planus

Energy (J)

Author: Rodrigo Figueroa

During the past couple of years at renewable energy conferences and industry events, the conversation regarding battery energy storage systems has focused on the prevailing notion that energy storage, from an emerging technology standpoint, is where traditional solar was roughly eight to 10 years ago.

In the utility-scale context, despite the increasing deployment of battery energy storage systems, some utilities are still hesitant to purchase energy storage systems because the costs and technology are still evolving. From a contractual standpoint, utility-scale battery energy storage system transactions present unique legal issues and require special analysis of traditional contract provisions.

Read more: Five Legal Issues To Consider When Contracting For Utility-Scale Energy Storage

Author: Bradley J. Nowak

On February 21, 2018, the North Carolina Utilities Commission (the “NCUC”) issued an order (the “Order”) approving, with numerous required modifications, the application of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (“DEC”) and Duke Energy Progress, LLC (“DEP” and, together with DEC, “Duke”) for a joint competitive procurement for renewable energy program (“CPRE Program”).  With the NCUC’s Order, Duke’s first solicitation for competitive procurement of 680 MW of energy and capacity from renewable energy facilities is expected to begin in May 2018.


On November 27, 2017, DEC and DEP jointly filed a petition for approval of their proposed CPRE Program (pursuant to N.C. Gen Stat. § 62-110.8 and NCUC Rule R8-71). Along with the proposed initial CPRE Program guidelines, Duke’s petition requested approval of (i) a pro forma power purchase agreement, (ii) initial CPRE Program plan, and (iii) waivers of regulatory conditions and code of conduct requirements. In the CPRE Program filing, Duke proposed four solicitations, or tranches, to allocate its obligation to procure 2,660 MWs of renewable energy, with Tranche 1 to begin in 2018. For the Tranche 1 CPRE RFP Solicitation, Duke proposes to allocate 600 MWs for the DEC service territory and a maximum of 80 MWs for the DEP service territory.

Following the NCUC’s order on December 1, 2017 requiring the Public Staff to file a report concerning Duke’s proposed CPRE Program and allowing intervention by interested persons, in January 2018, Public Staff submitted its report and comments, and other stakeholders, including the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association (NCSEA), the North Carolina Clean Energy Business Alliance (NCCEBA) and Duke Energy Renewables, Inc., also filed comments on Duke’s proposal.

Read the entire article.

Contact: Sylvain Bergès

The end of the feed-in tariffs for renewable electricity requires producers of “green” electricity to sell their production on the market. To optimize sales and balancing costs, many use the services of an aggregator.

Under Law No. 2015-992 of 17 August 2015 on energy transition for green growth, feed-in tariffs have been phased out for installations of more than 500 kilowatts. Producers now sell their electricity on the market and receive from EDF a monthly premium, named the contract for difference (“CfD”). This premium compensates for the difference between the income from this sale and a reference remuneration level set by the public authorities by a tariff decree, depending on the type of power plant.

Read the entire article.

Authors: James Plumb, Partner and Jasmine Wood, Associate

A compensation dispute between landholders and a major coal seam gas producer over compensation has been determined by the Land Court. 

In a decision handed down 18 August 2017, the Land Court has considered the provisions of the petroleum legislation regarding a review of compensation where the landholders contended there had been a material change in circumstances following the entry into a conduct and compensation agreement (CCA).

Nothdurft & Anor v QGC Pty Limited & Ors 1 provides helpful insight into how the Land Court will apply the material change threshold to compensation reviews. 

To read more click here, or visit

Author: Johanna Kennerley, Senior Associate

Mine rehabilitation and financial assurance (FA) is a hot topic at the moment, with many discussion papers and inquiries being undertaken by various levels and departments within government, including:

  1. The Commonwealth’s senate inquiry into mine rehabilitation (as it relates to Commonwealth responsibilities);
  2. The recent Queensland Treasury Commission’s ‘Review of Queensland’s Financial Assurance Framework’ (QTC FA Review) that reviews the FA regime in Queensland and across many jurisdictions, and provides a recommended solution for Queensland known as the ‘Tailored Solution’;
  3. The Queensland Government’s discussion paper ‘Financial Assurance Framework Reform’ (FA Discussion Paper) which further considers the QTC’s Tailored Solution and seeks public comment on the recommendation; and
  4. The Queensland Government’s discussion paper ‘Better Mine Rehabilitation for Queensland’ (Rehabilitation Discussion Paper), describing the new and improved obligations on resource companies to rehabilitate land post closure, in conjunction with the FA reforms.

This paper aims to provide  detailed analysis regarding the proposed changes to Queensland's FA regime, with specific consideration of the operation of the new pooled rehabilitation funds and the expansion of products available to provide third party surety for FA obligations.

To read the full atricle click here, or visit