As of 2013, there are 29 states that have Renewables Portfolio Standards. There have been multiple media reports addressing attempts to weaken these standards across the country, but few have discussed the work being done to strengthen these standards. This report addresses both sides to the story.

1. “The Report of My Death Was an Exaggeration”: Renewables Portfolio Standards Live On
Justin Barnes and Chelsea Barnes
Keyes, Fox & Wiedman LLP
Originally Released April 12, 2013
Amended with Updated Bill Statuses and New Legislation April 24, 2013
There has been much ado lately about the wave of “bad” Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) bills
popping up in state legislatures around the United States. We have tracked RPS policies closely for many
years and continue to track it as part of our legislative and regulatory tracking services offered through
Keyes, Fox & Wiedman LLP. Recently, we’ve received our share of public inquiries regarding potential
changes to these policies. In fact, we’ve been consulted on many of the RPS related news articles
published this year. We thought it would be both appropriate and helpful to distribute our own analysis
of this situation. At the outset, we would like to state that although there’s good cause for renewables
stakeholders to be concerned, particularly in a few states, despite what you might have read1,2,3,4
,
renewable energy policy is not going down in flames this year. We ask that those of you considering a
hasty career change read on with the following broad findings in mind:
1. Legislative efforts to weaken or repeal RPS policies aren’t new.
2. Legislative efforts to weaken RPS policies have rarely succeeded.
3. There’s still a lot of good stuff happening out there.
In order to justify the assertions above, this article will inventory, categorize and analyze trends of RPS
related legislation introduced so far in 2013; discuss such legislation in the context of RPS policy
evolution over time; and shed more light on what these bills mean for the renewables industry.
First off, if we’re going to start out on a path of making judgments about “good” RPS bills and “bad” RPS
bills, we need to establish a point of reference. What is the purpose of an RPS? What is it meant to do?
1
“Renewable Energy Standard Target of Multi Pronged Attack,” InsideClimate News, 19 March 2013.
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20130319/renewable energy standards target multi pronged attack
2
“The Biggest Fight Over Renewable Energy is Now in the States,” The Washington Post, 25 March 2013.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/25/the biggest fights over renewable energy are
now happening in the states/
3
“States Cooling to Renewable Energy,” The Wall Street Journal, 28 March 2013.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324373204578376840349947404.html
4
“U.S. States Turning Against Renewable Portfolio Standards as Gas Plunges” Bloomberg BusinessWeek, 23 April
2013. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013 04 22/u dot s dot states turn against renewable energy as gas
plunges

2. There are currently 295
states with an RPS policy on the books. Although each state with an RPS policy
established it in a different political climate and existing energy portfolio, we consider the general
purpose of an RPS to be to support new renewable energy generation, or, in some cases, to support
existing renewable energy generation that might otherwise cease to operate. In other words, an RPS is
meant to maintain the baseline of renewables and then expand it, with the key words being “new” and
“renewable.” There’s also an implied assumption of “need” (i.e., only supporting new renewable
generation that would otherwise not be deployed), and that a resource represents a clear
environmental benefit over the alternative. In practice, crafting RPS policy to serve these latter two
goals is a little dicey. The reality is that every established RPS policy has probably benefited some
facilities that would exist in its absence, and agreement on the environmental cost benefit ratio of some
resources is difficult to come by. Having said that, the definition of what constitutes a new renewable
resource is pretty intuitive, and while need and overall environmental benefit may be tougher to define,
we often know them when we see them. That leaves us with a policy that, in theory, supports
technologies such as solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, fuel cells, energy storage and other technologies,
but leaves out traditional fossil fuels, legacy or high impact hydroelectric facilities, some biomass and
biomass related resources, and nuclear energy.
This is not to say that there are not often other goals associated with an RPS, such as job creation,
resource diversity, and pollution reduction. However, despite these other goals, an RPS is not in itself a
comprehensive energy plan, an economic development plan or an air pollution reduction plan. Instead,
by our definition, it simply seeks to support these secondary objectives by encouraging new renewable
energy generation as a primary objective. Our evaluation is done on the basis of how proposed
legislation advances this primary intent, rather than how it relates to other public policy goals, laudable
as they may be. It is also worth noting that some bills propose dramatic changes for which the impacts
are reasonably clear, while in other cases the implications are more nuanced. We have used our own
judgment to separate high impact bills from those with only modest effects. All of this is to say that
classifying RPS legislation is a subjective exercise and we expect that some may disagree with our
assessment.
Based on this premise, we have divided 2013 RPS legislation into four broad categories. First, there are
RPS strengthening bills that generally improve a state’s ability to further advance or better support the
renewables industry. Second, there are RPS weakening bills that broadly hinder existing efforts or
remove support for renewables. Third, there are study bills that examine the costs and/or benefits of a
state’s existing RPS or potential amendments to that policy. Lastly, legislators have introduced more
than 40 bills this year that otherwise amend RPS policies, but do not significantly or clearly strengthen or
weaken the RPS policy as a whole. Within the broad categories of strengthening and weakening
legislation, we have further categorized bills based on the type of modifications proposed.
5
Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency. http://dsireusa.org/ (Accessed 12 April 2013).

3. Weakening Categories
1. Repeal: Completely removes an existing RPS policy from the statutes. We also use this term to refer
to the repeal of an existing carve out for specific resources such as solar or distributed generation.
2. Freeze: Maintains an existing RPS at its current (or recent) level, in terms of percentage or capacity,
but discontinues future requirements to increase the use of renewables.
3. Hydro Water Down: Dilutes an existing RPS policy by allowing existing and/or larger hydroelectric
facilities that currently don’t qualify. Many of these bills have been introduced as thinly disguised
attempts to render an RPS policy ineffective by qualifying resources that already exist in utility portfolios
and minimizing opportunities for new renewables.
4. Fossil Water Down: Dilutes an existing RPS by allowing certain fossil fuel facilities to qualify. Both
fossil water down bills in 2013 would allow natural gas, but in the past, there have also been efforts to
allow certain coal facilities.
5. Nuclear Water Down: Dilutes an existing RPS by allowing nuclear facilities to qualify.
6. Other Water Down: Dilutes an existing RPS by allowing other resources not traditionally identified as
renewable (e.g., energy efficiency, municipal solid waste incineration) to qualify. With respect to energy
efficiency, while some existing RPS policies include an energy efficiency component, and most would
acknowledge that improving energy efficiency is an important part of a state’s overall energy strategy,
allowing energy efficiency to qualify for an RPS without increasing or otherwise modifying the target can
significantly reduce opportunities for renewables.
7. Deceleration: Slows down an existing RPS compliance schedule by extending a compliance goal by
several years.
8. Exemption: Exempts certain utilities, energy suppliers, or a portion of a utility’s load from an existing
RPS. In 2013, most such bills are modest in their proposed effects.
9. Reduction: Reduces the overall renewable energy percentage or MW target of an existing RPS.
10. Alternative Compliance Payment (ACP) or Penalty Reduction: Many states use ACPs or direct
penalties for non compliance with an RPS. A reduction in the ACP level or penalties may reduce utilities’
and suppliers’ likelihood of complying with an existing RPS, or reduce prices for renewable energy
credits (RECs) below the level necessary to stimulate new investment.
11. Cost Cap Restriction: Many existing RPS policies limit any resulting cost increases that are borne by
ratepayers. Caps vary in form and substance, but where they exist, they tend to be set at modest levels.
Consequently, reductions in a cost cap or how the cap is applied to different customers or potential
“costs” can hamper progress towards meeting RPS targets.
12. Increased REC Lifetime: Such revisions may be used to mitigate volatility in REC markets, but in
many cases, they can have the effect of increasing long term REC supply and lowering the demand for
new renewables.
13. Geographic Eligibility Expansion: Most states try to ensure that their RPS policies provide local and
regional benefits (e.g., jobs, pollution reduction) by restricting the location of eligible renewables or
requiring generators to actually deliver renewable electricity into a state or region. While perhaps not a
weakening provision in general, expanding the procurement area has the effect of decreasing
opportunities for in state or in region renewables development by increasing the overall supply of
renewables eligible for the RPS.

4. Strengthening Categories:
Not surprisingly, RPS strengthening bills are for the most part exact opposites of RPS weakening bills.
Here are the types of strengthening bills we’ve analyzed so far in 2013:
1. Expansion: Adds further compliance years with higher percentage targets to an existing RPS without
changing the current targets.
2. Establishment: Creates a new RPS, extends the standard to additional utilities, or establishes a new
carve out.
3. Acceleration: Increases requirements under an existing RPS for some years, but does not change the
requirement for the final year of the current policy.
4. Fix: Addresses a major issue with an existing RPS that is intended to remedy problems hindering
achievement of the policy’s requirements, but does not fall into any other category.
5. Increase: Increases the overall renewables requirement (%) of an existing RPS.
6. ACP or Penalty Enhancement: Increases ACPs or penalties for noncompliance for an existing RPS.
These can take the form of flat administrative fees or per MWh payments and penalties.
7. Geographic Eligibility Restriction: Tightens the definition of facilities eligible to meet an existing RPS
on the basis of location or electricity delivery requirements, creating better opportunities for “local”
facilities. While the legality of explicit in state restrictions is questionable, many states have adopted
measures that accomplish similar goals without issue.
8. Resource Eligibility Restriction: Tightens the definitions of renewable resources eligible to meet an
existing RPS.
Results
Of the RPS related bills introduced in state legislatures thus far in 2013, we classified 306
bills as
strengthening bills and 31 bills as weakening bills. Eighteen states have introduced strengthening bills
and 16 states have introduced weakening bills. Of these states, six states have introduced both
strengthening and weakening legislation. Tables 1 and 2 reflect the number of bills introduced in each
state that qualify as strengthening or weakening, respectively. Figure 1 shows where both strengthening
and weakening efforts are taking place, and Figure 2 shows which types of weakening efforts are taking
place in which states. Readers should note that the tables and figures do not address bills that weaken
or strengthen existing voluntary renewable energy goals7
(e.g., Virginia and Oklahoma), unless a bill
would establish a mandatory RPS in place of an existing voluntary goal. Many bills address multiple
components of an RPS policy and fall into several sub categories, so the tallies below do not match the
total number of bills analyzed. Appendices A and B list all strengthening and weakening legislation
introduced this session, along with a summary of each bill and its status in the legislature as of April 24,
2013.
6
Duplicate and companion bills are counted as one bill in all tallies.
7
A Renewable Energy Goal differs from a Renewable Portfolio Standard in that a goal is not legally binding. RPSs
are stated as requirements rather than voluntary goals and typically contain some form of explicit penalty or ACP
in order to ensure compliance.

5. Table 1: Number of RPS Strengthening Bills, by Type
CO HI IA IL KY MA MD MI MN MO MT NJ NV NH NY PA TX WV Total
Expansion 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
Establishment 1 1 1 1 3 2 4 2 2 17
Acceleration 1 1
Fix 1 1 1 1 4
Increase 1 1 1 2 5
Enhanced
ACP/Penalty
1 1 1 3
Geographic
Eligibility
Restriction
1 1 2
Resource
Eligibility
Restriction
1 1 1 1 4
Figure 1: 2013 RPS Strengthening and Weakening Legislation

6. Table 2: Number of RPS Weakening Bills, by Type
CA CT KS ME MD MN MO MT NC NM OH OR PA TX WA WI Total
Repeal 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Freeze 1 1
Hydro Water
Down
1 2 1 1 1 2 1 3 2 14
Fossil Water Down 1 1 2
Nuclear Water
Down
1 1
Other Water
Down
1 1 1 3
Deceleration 1 2 3
Exemption 1 1
Reduction 1 1 2
Geographic
Eligibility
Expansion
2 1 3
ACP/Penalty
Reduction
1 1
Increased REC
Lifetime
1 1 2
Cost Cap
Restriction
1 1 2

7. Figure 2: Types of RPS Weakening Legislation Across the U.S. in 2013
Analysis
One of the most striking details above is the role that hydropower plays as a mechanism for weakening
an existing RPS. Legislative proposals that extend RPS eligibility to various sizes and ages of hydroelectric
facilities are not a new phenomenon, but this is clearly the most popular type of weakening bill this
year. Half of the states with RPS weakening legislation brewing would extend eligibility to larger and/or
older hydro, accounting for a total of 14 out of the 31 weakening bills. We believe that there are a
number of reasons that legislators have taken this particular path. First, large amounts of hydropower
generation are currently available in many of the states pursuing weakening legislation and it has the
advantage of being one of the least expensive electricity generation options available. Second, adding
an additional resource to the RPS eligibility list has a superficially positive connotation (i.e., expanding
opportunities), though it has the effect of reducing demand for new renewable energy facilities. Finally,
and related to the second point, hydropower is classically identified as a renewable energy resource, so
arguments for expanding its inclusion in a RPS sound a lot more rational than, for instance, adding

8. natural gas as renewable resource. In short, we chalk it up to expediency, public relations, and
marketing.
On the other side of the coin, more than half of the strengthening bills fall into the establishment
category. In most cases, this is the establishment of a carve out within an existing RPS rather than an
entirely new RPS policy, although the Kentucky and West Virginia bills would be new RPS
establishments. In addition, the Iowa bill more or less amounts to a new standard because the state’s
initial targets have already been met. Although the creation of a carve out reduces the standard for
other renewables in some cases, we consider a resource carve out (e.g. for solar, distributed generation,
or offshore wind) a strengthening measure even if it reduces opportunities for other renewables
because carve outs typically address resources that need a special boost or fulfill important policy goals.
In this way, a carve out is usually a focused mechanism that addresses that thorny question of relative
“need” and in doing so serves the overall purpose of an RPS.
In comparing the relative numbers of weakening to strengthening bills, it is hard not to notice that they
are nearly equivalent in number as well as in the number of states in play. Considering the opposite of a
repeal or freeze to be the establishment of a new standard or carve out, it is interesting to note that
establishment bills (17) are more numerous than repeals and freezes (7) by a wide margin. Summing all
of the very direct near term strengthening categories (establishment, increase, and acceleration) and
comparing it to the equivalent weakening measures (repeal, freeze, reduction, and deceleration) the
strengthening bills still outnumber the weakening bills 23 to 12. Adding in those efforts to expand
existing policies (8), which can be seen as affirming the place of an existing standard, and the margin
becomes greater still (31 to 12). The take away here is that while the bulk of strengthening bills are
direct in nature, weakening efforts have been somewhat more focused on more indirect measures such
as the inclusion of large hydropower (only 12 of the 31 weakening bills take a direct approach). This
suggests to us that despite a certain amount of rhetoric to the contrary, most legislators would prefer
not to take a direct anti renewables stance.
Notwithstanding the level of positive activity described above, it would be misleading to fail to note that
our research indicates 2013 has seen more weakening efforts than previous years. By our count, 2011
and 2012 saw approximately 60 major strengthening bills and 50 major weakening bills. Only five
significant water down bills in four states were enacted in 2011 and 2012, while six significant
strengthening measures found success. For the most part, 2013 weakening efforts are taking place in
the same states that they did in prior sessions. Of the 16 states in which weakening legislation has been
introduced during 2013, all but three (Connecticut, Kansas, and Texas) have seen similar efforts during
the past two years.
Successful weakening bills were enacted in New Hampshire and Ohio in 2012, and in Delaware and
Wisconsin in 2011. New Hampshire’s legislation reduced ACP rates, most substantially for the solar
carve out. Ohio added certain waste energy and cogeneration to the list of eligible resources for its
renewable energy standard. In addition, the state added any new, retrofitted, refueled, or repowered
generating facility to the advanced energy resources portion of the standard, which accounts for half of

9. Ohio’s RPS, though some may argue that the advanced energy portion of Ohio’s RPS may not have been
particularly meaningful to renewables in the first place. Delaware’s 2011 legislation allowed fuel cells
capable of operating on renewables to be eligible for the RPS, but no longer required such projects
actually to use renewable energy, and also permits RECs from such facilities to be utilized (albeit at a
reduced rate) for solar carve out compliance. Lastly, Wisconsin’s 2011 bill added large hydro facilities as
eligible for the standard, but not until after 2015.
What does all of this mean? First, of the nine direct repeal efforts made during this two year time
period, none succeeded, which speaks to the challenge of actually repealing an RPS. Furthermore, some
of these efforts are likely “statement” bills intended to spark a debate about the role of government, or
to introduce a bargaining chip for less drastic changes. Second, some nuances in the enacted bills
suggest that other forces beyond anti renewable sentiment were involved, or that near term impacts
will be limited. For instance, the Delaware bill was orchestrated by a fuel cell manufacturer and it
appears the solar carve out was simply a convenient target, while one of the most impactful Ohio
changes was directed at one specific large combined heat and power facility. Third, any enacted bill can
be the subject of subsequent retraction by future legislation. In fact, New Hampshire currently has
legislation that would restore the ACP for the solar carve out to its prior level. Finally, these set backs in
2011 and 2012 were balanced by positive developments, including a major fix to New Jersey’s solar
carve out, the creation of Connecticut’s long term REC contracting programs, the enactment of
California’s 33% by 2020 standard, and a dramatic increase in the requirements under the District of
Columbia’s solar carve out. In our analysis, the strengthening effects far out weighed the weakening.
Of course, that does not mean that efforts underway in 2013 (and perhaps in future years) can be
ignored. Thus far in 2013, there have been no successful repeal efforts, though a few states remain in
the balance. Of the direct repeal bills, North Carolina’s seemed the most likely to succeed as of early
April. . However, even after being backed down from a complete repeal of the RPS to a solar carve out
repeal and freeze the bill failed to pass the House Committee on Public Utilities and Energy on April 24th
.
Other bills, such as those in Kansas and Texas, have also effectively died, while still others remain under
consideration in committee. Among other potentially major weakening measures, two hydro water
down bills in Montana have been sent to the Governor (though both have been amended since
introduction in ways that reduce their impact), while another hydro water down bill in Missouri has
passed one chamber of the legislature. Among strengthening bills, Maryland’s offshore wind carve out
has been enacted, while New Hampshire legislation restoring the solar ACP has passed the House.
Beyond strengthening and weakening bills, one other aspect of current RPS legislation caught our
attention: the proliferation of study or review bills. We have identified nine bills in eight states (CA, KS,
MD, MA, MT, NH, OH and VA) that would require studies of an existing state RPS (or the establishment
of a new RPS in the case of Virginia), or specific aspects of a state RPS. Generally, we consider these to
be positive developments, though sometimes study bills display ulterior motives, such as gathering
ammunition to weaken RPS requirements further down the road. Whatever the motivation, no RPS
policy is perfect and it is entirely reasonable for revisions to be contemplated from time to time. These
changes are best made after a balanced and thorough review of accomplishments, intent, costs and

10. benefits. Moreover, study requirements give us a preview of issues and changes that may appear before
the legislature in subsequent sessions and ideally allow the various stakeholders an extended
opportunity to participate in policy formulation. Broad study bills have been proposed in California,
Kansas, Massachusetts, Montana, Ohio, and Virginia. With respect to more focused efforts, another
California bill proposed the investigation of a carve out for energy storage technologies; a Maryland bill
would convene a task force to study the inclusion of thermal renewable energy resources in the RPS;
and a New Hampshire bill would create a committee to study the state’s standard for existing biomass
and biogas resource tier. The legislation in Montana8
and Maryland has passed both chambers, the New
Hampshire bill has passed the Senate, and both California bills have now been amended to focus more
on electricity reliability and resource diversification in general than RPS policy.
Conclusions
As a broad, long term policy mechanism for stimulating the growth of renewables, an RPS policy can be
seen as a general indicator of a state’s support for renewable energy development. With more than a
decade filled exclusively with new adoptions and expansions behind us, including the banner years
running from roughly 2004 2008, we shouldn’t be too surprised when new adoptions slow. Moreover,
as with any public policy, RPS policies will always have their critics and each new adoption presents a
new target for repeal. From this perspective, the recent increase in RPS weakening efforts is, in a way,
the product of past successes. The effect can be exacerbated by changes in the make up of individual
state legislatures, as some old proponents disappear, perhaps to be replaced by new opponents.
Ultimately this means that the renewable energy community needs to be prepared to continually justify
the existence of an RPS to new policymakers, sometimes in the face of well organized opposition
campaigns.
That said, we dispute assertions that waning support for RPS policies is a national phenomenon, and we
believe the numbers back us up. It is true that in a few states, the legislative environment appears to
have turned less supportive in recent years, but few significant weakening provisions and no repeal bills
have been enacted to date. While it is not beyond the realm of possibility that 2013 could see the first
complete RPS repeal and more than one significant weakening provision, weakening bills are balanced
by an equivalent number of strengthening bills, in a few cases with dueling proposals in the same state.
Most of the bills on either side of the divide will end up in the legislative cemetery, perhaps to rise again
in future sessions. Such is the policymaking process. The current RPS policy landscape was not created in
a day; no demise will succeed without a fight. We urge the renewable energy community to keep close
tabs on the current slew of weakening bills, in part because some represent a real danger and in part
because even those with little chance of passage this time around may appear again. However, we also
suggest that angst be tempered with an acknowledgment that the historical record is overwhelmingly
8
The Montana provision is actually a joint resolution which requests but does not require an interim study, and
does not have the force of law. After passing both houses, the resolution has been filed with the Montana
Secretary of State.

11. positive, and though it is clear that some new challenges exist, nothing suggests to us that enactments
of RPS weakening legislation will be anything but piecemeal.
Solar and Wind Policy Tracking Services from Keyes, Fox & Wiedman LLP
Keyes, Fox & Wiedman LLP is focused on providing clients in the renewable energy and distributed
generation sectors with expert and innovative solutions to their legal challenges.
We now offer solar and wind policy tracking services to provide timely information about pending
regulations and open dockets (solar only), proposed legislation, and other initiatives. Topics include RPS
policies and SRECS, net metering & interconnection, financial incentives, financing mechanisms, feed in
tariffs & reverse auction mechanisms, permitting & zoning, and more. For details and pricing
information, contact Amanda Vanega at avanega@kfwlaw.com.

12. Appendix A: 2013 RPS Strengthening Legislation
State Bill
Number
Summary Bill Status as of
4/24/13
CO SB252 As amended, expands the RPS for cooperatives with more than 100,000 retail
customers from 10% by 2020 to 25% by 2020; applies the same standard to
generation and transmission cooperatives; increases the retail rate impact limit for
cooperatives from 1% to 2%; and applies a 1% of retail sales DG carve out for
cooperatives with less than 100,000 customers. Also allows coal mine methane
and gas generated through pyrolysis of municipal solid waste as eligible resources,
if the PSC makes a determination that electricity generation from these resources
is greenhouse gas neutral; generally removes in state preferences; and instead
applies a 125% multiplier to all non retail DG resources that begin operation by
the end of 2014 and a 300% multiplier for solar resources under the standard for
cooperatives and municipal utilities. The original bill also placed the 1% DG carve
out requirement on municipal utilities covered by the standard, but this has been
removed from the current version of the bill.
Passed Senate;
In House
Committee
HI HB757 Extends the RPS from the current level of 40% by 2030 to 70% by 2040 and 100%
by 2050.
Committee
Recommends
Deferring
IA HB313 Establishes solar goals of 12 MW by 2014; 47 MW by 2015; 105 MW by 2016; 185
MW by 2017; and 300 MW by 2018. The IUB is directed to establish procedures to
encourage utilities to achieve these goals. Note: This bill was not included in the
tally of strengthening bills because it establishes a goal rather than a standard. The
summary is included here only as a point of interest.
In
Subcommittee
IA SB315 Creates a farm based distributed generation carve out of 2% by 2018 for rate
regulated utilities and includes biomass, solar and wind facilities at farms as
eligible resources. Prescribes minimum amounts based on resource and facility
size.
In
Subcommittee
IL HB2864;
SB103
Generally addresses significant issues with the current RPS related to retail electric
choice and customer switching. Directs the IPA to include RECs in procurement
plans beginning 6/1/14; requires the IPA to use funds in the Renewable Energy
Resources Fund to procure RECs until the funds have been depleted; and directs
the Planning and Procurement Bureau to develop procurement plans and conduct
competitive procurement process for RECs related to usage of non eligible retail
customers in utility service areas as part of RPS. Also ends ACPs and renewable
purchase requirements for alternative retail suppliers effective May 31, 2014 and
replaces them with REC payments based on kWh usage.
Passed
Committee
KY HB170 Creates an RPS with a solar carve out for retail electric suppliers. The targets are
set at 2.25% renewables with 0.25% from solar in 2015; 5.5% renewables with
0.5% from solar in 2018; 9.25% renewables with 0.75% from solar in 2021; and
12.5% renewables with 1% from solar in 2023. Requires the PSC to develop tariff
guidelines for purchasing renewable energy.
In Committee
MA HB2932 Expands the RPS by stating that the 1% annual increase scheduled to go on
indefinitely ends 12/31/2014, and instead prescribes that renewables comprise an
additional 10 per cent of sales after this point.
In Committee

13. MA HB2915 Requires electric distribution companies to purchase SRECs in the SREC
Clearinghouse Auction account that remain unsold after the final auction run at a
ratio equivalent to their percentage share of the prior year's RPS compliance
obligation. Purchases will take place at the auction fixed price unless the DOER
establishes a different price that is at least 90% of the fixed price by January 15 of
each year.
In Committee
MD HB226;
SB275
Creates an offshore wind carve out for projects located 10 30 miles off the MD
coast on the Outer Continental Shelf (includes further requirements as well). The
carve out will be determined by PSC, to start in 2017, but may not exceed 2.5% of
retail sales. The OREC price schedule must be approved by PSC on a project
specific basis and may not exceed $190/MWh or last more than 20 years. Exempts
industrial process load of more than 75 million kWh annually and agriculture load
of more than 3,000 kWh per month from the requirements.
Enacted
MD HB1102 Revises the definition of eligible Tier I biomass facilities to only include facilities
that began commercial operation after January 1, 2005 and achieve a total system
efficiency of 65% or greater. Any facility using qualifying biomass that does not
meet these requirements will be a Tier II facility. Disqualifies primarily existing
black liquor and wood waste facilities from being Tier I resources.
Unfavorable
Report by
Committee
MN HB880;
SB763
Accelerates the RPS benchmarks for utilities except Xcel Energy to 19% by 2016;
22% by 2020; and 25% by 2025, while also extending the RPS for these utilities
40% by 2030. Extends the RPS for Xcel to 35% by 2025 and 40% by 2030 and
modifies the existing wind carve out to be 20% by 2016, and 25% by 2020. Creates
a solar energy standard with benchmarks in 2014, 2016, 2020, and 2025, leaves
percentage requirements undetermined.
In Committee
MN HB773;
SB680
Omnibus Solar Jobs Act. Creates a solar requirement in addition to current RPS
requirements of 0.52% solar by 2016; 1.56% by 2020; 4.02% by 2025; and 10.06%
by 2030.
In Committee
MN SB901 As amended, establishes a solar standard of 0.25% in 2016; 1% by 2020; and 2% by
2025 for municipal utilities and electric cooperatives. Establishes a solar standard
of 0.5% by 2016, 2% by 2020, and 4% by 2025 for public utilities. The requirements
are in addition to the current RPS requirements.
Passed
Committee
with
Amendments
MN HB956 As amended, establishes a solar standard of 0.5% by 2016; 2% by 2020; and 4% by
2025 for public utilities in addition to current RPS requirements. Also expands the
current standard to 40% by 2030 for public utilities. One prior version would have
established solar requirements for all utilities.
In Committee
MI SB322 Increases the RPS from 10% by 2015 to 22% by 2022. In Committee
MO SB396 Originally rescinded apparent solar carve out exemption for one utility (Empire
District Electric), but as amended, this section has been removed.
Passed
Committee;
Scheduled for
Senate Hearing
MO SB400 Restricts eligibility to resources that produce electricity that is sold to Missouri
electric customers; rescinds apparent solar carve out exemption for one utility
(Empire District Electric); and restricts hydropower qualification to facilities with a
combined rating of 10 MW per facility.
In Committee
MT SB125 Governor’s suggested amendments increased sets the penalty at $10,000/MW.
Previously would have raised penalties for failure to meet RPS requirements,
adding a $1,000 penalty for each MW of capacity that the utility fails to purchase
under the carve out for community based resources. This operates in addition to
the $10/REC penalty currently in place and is retroactive to the compliance year
beginning 1/1/2012.
Governor
returned with
amendments

14. NJ SB2700 No bill text available: “Expands State’s energy efficiency and renewable energy
requirements.”
Filed
NV SB252 As amended, removes energy efficiency resources placed in service in 2020 or
later as eligible for the standard, and restricts the use of energy efficiency to meet
the standard to no more than 25% for 2013 and 2014; 20% for 2015 – 2019; 10%
for 2020 – 2024; and eliminates its use in 2025 and thereafter. It also modifies the
allowance for utilities to carry forward of excess credits to future years, and
restricts the 2.4 credit multiplier for customer sited solar to systems installed
before July 1, 2014. This bill has been amended significantly since its introduction,
most notably by the removal of a section increasing the RPS requirement from
25% to 35% by 2025 and accelerating the interim requirements beginning in 2014.
Passed Senate;
Sent to House
NH HB542 Raises ACP for all classes of renewables, including significant increases for Class I
non thermal resources and the solar carve out.
Hearing in
Senate
Committee
Completed
NH SB148 Lowers the percentage requirements for 2013 and 2014 and raises ACP for Class III
renewables (existing biomass) in certain years. Changes ACP calculation for Class III
in all years, pending the findings of a study committee. Adds municipal waste
combustion less than 6 MW in capacity to eligible Class III resources, as long as the
technology meets certain emission standards. Establishes an RPS study committee
to analyze the Class III standard, ACP rates and shortfalls.
Committee
Work Session
Scheduled for
5/1/2013
NY AB1273 Creates a distributed generation (1 kW 10 MW) target based on long term (15
yr.) REC or FIT contracts of 0.85% retail sales by 2028 for IOUs and energy
suppliers; and 4.5% of retail sales by 2028 for the NYPA and LIPA. Compliance
ramps up annually beginning in 2015 (0.05% for IOUs/suppliers and 0.25% for LIPA
and NYPA). Also creates a carve out of 25% of the standard for behind the meter
systems of 100 kW or less and limits ownership of resources to NY residents, LLCs
with a majority of NY state residents as members, and NY registered non profits.
Expands the broad current RPS target from 30% by 2015 to 35% by 2028 as well.
In Committee
NY AB2428 Creates a statutory RPS for all retail electricity providers beginning at 0.5% in July
2015, increasing at 0.5% annually up to 6% and then increasing 1% annually
thereafter up to a minimum of 10%. The current RPS was established by regulation
under a somewhat unique centralized structure and does not apply to directly to
retail electricity providers. (Similar to AB1938)
In Committee
NY AB1938 Large, multi topic bill. Legislatively establishes a minimum 10% RPS for retail
electric providers beginning at 0.5% in July 2014, increasing at 0.5% annually up to
6% and then increasing 1% annually thereafter. It also applies this standard to the
Long Island Power Authority (LIPA). The current RPS was established by regulation
under a somewhat unique centralized structure and does not apply to directly to
retail electricity providers or LIPA. (Similar to AB2428).
In Committee
NY AB1375;
SB1627
Creates a "pilot" program intended to support up to 300 MW of new, in state
renewable generation. Allows utility owned generation, utility/IPP partnerships,
and customer owned generation to qualify for meeting the pilot program
requirements.
In Committee
PA HB100 Amends the current RPS for Tier I resources to increase it beginning in 2018 and
expand it to 15% by 2023 (currently 8% by 2021). Also increases the PV carve out
to 0.1959% in 2014 (currently 0.0840%) and then gradually to 1.5% by 2023
(currently 0.5% by 2021). Modifies the current floating ACP for PV resources to
pre defined levels of $250/MWh in 2014, decreasing to $50/MWh in 2022 and
thereafter, and includes an effective in state geographic eligibility requirement for
any PV facility registered after the effective date of the enactment.
In Committee

15. TX HB303 Mandates that at least 2% of RPS renewable energy generation requirement come
from solar energy technology and modifies the overall target from 5,580 MW by
2015 to 35% of in state generating capacity by 2020.
In Committee
TX HB723 Separates out renewable energy facilities into Tier 1 and Tier 2 facilities, with
separate RPS goals and metrics. Tier 1 resources are defined as derived from the
sun or water, and the target is set at 100 MW in 2014, increasing to 1,500 MW by
2022. Tier 2 is defined as from wind with a capacity greater than 150 kW, and the
overall target of 5,580 MW is maintained for this tier.
Left in
Committee
TX HB3583 Requires 10,880 MW of in state renewable energy generating capacity by 2022, of
which 5,000 MW must be renewable energy technology capable of serving peak
demand. Peak demand renewable energy capacity is defined as technology that:
(1) may be dispatched by the operator regardless of environmental or weather
conditions; or (2) during the preceding year, provided energy at a capacity factor
of at least 40 percent between 1 p.m. and 8 p.m. in June, July, August, and
September.
In Committee
WV HB2141 Establishes a mandatory RPS of 5% renewables in 2015, increasing to 15% by 2025
and each year thereafter. Eligible technologies include biomass, geothermal, solar,
wind, and low impact hydro of less than 20 MW, but not the variety of other fossil
based resources currently eligible under the state’s Alternative Energy and
Renewable Energy Standard.
In Committee
WV HB3080 Establishes a mandatory solar carve out within the current Alternative Energy and
Renewable Energy Standard of 2% by 2025, part of which must be met with
distributed solar at varying levels during different time periods.
In Committee

16. Appendix B: 2013 RPS Weakening Legislation
State Bill
Number
Summary Bill Status as of
4/24/13
CA AB762 Allows hydropower of any size that meets certain requirements to be eligible for
the RPS.
In Committee
CT HB5475 Decelerates the RPS compliance schedule as follows: The 2016 deadline is
extended to 2017; the 2017 deadline is extended to 2019; the 2018 deadline is
extended to 2021; the 2019 deadline is extended to 2023; and the 2020
deadline is extended to 2025.
In Committee
CT HB6086 Expands definition of eligible renewable resources to include all types and sizes
of hydropower as a Class I renewable energy source. Class I hydropower
resources are currently limited to run of river facilities of 5 MW or less.
In Committee
CT HB6532 Reduces ACPs from 5.5 cents to 3.1 for Class I resources; extends the life of RECs
to 3 years; and expands the geographic eligibility of resources to include the
entire mid Atlantic region if PURA deems these states have comparable RPS
policies.
Public Hearing
Completed
CT SB1138 Amends the RPS by including hydropower as a new sub tier to Class I resources
(Class IA) without any size or other significant limiting criteria. Extends the Class
I target from 20% by 2020 to 25% by 2025, but allows up to 7.5% to be met with
Class IA resources in 2025. Also includes other resource definition changes,
including increasing the maximum capacity for run of river hydropower facilities
from 5 MW to 30 MW, and making detailed changes to biomass definitions.
Passed
Committee
KS SB82 Decelerates the RPS by extending the 2016 target to 2018 and the 2020 target
to 2024. Also amends cost cap restrictions to provide greater detail on costs to
be evaluated and permits a waiver of requirements if any a renewable energy
investment increase costs by more than 1% over a prudent non renewable
investment, in addition to the current overall utility revenue increase cap of 1%.
Failed to Pass
KS HB2241 Deletes the current 20% by 2020 RPS target and decelerates the remaining
target by moving the 15% compliance requirement from 2016 to 2018.
In Committee
ME SB237 Removes the 100 MW facility size limit that exists for all RPS resources except
for wind. Though it is not hydropower specific, it would potentially allow
significant large hydropower resources to qualify for the standard.
In Committee
MD SB974 Repeals the solar carve out of the state RPS. Hearing
Completed
MD SB976 Expands the definition of Tier 1 renewable resources to include natural gas in
facilities that were previously powered by coal combustion or replaces a coal
generated electric facility.
Hearing
Completed
MN HB306;
SB97
Repeals the renewable energy standard. In Committee
MN HB1640;
SB1488
Eliminates the current 100 MW maximum capacity limits for hydropower
resources eligible for the RPS.
In Committee
MO HB44 Allows all hydropower resources located in Missouri, owned by a Missouri utility
or for which a power purchase agreement exists with a Missouri utility obligated
to comply with the RPS, to qualify as eligible renewable resources beginning in
2018. Also extends eligibility to all hydropower resources in 2021. Hydropower
resources are currently limited to 10 MW in capacity and may not require new
diversions or impoundments.
Senate
Committee
Hearing Held

17. MT SB31 As amended, allows new hydropower of any size except for federal hydropower
projects located in another state, and retains limitations on existing hydropower
projects. Allows expansions of existing hydro completed on or after December
31, 2010 to be eligible as well. This bill formerly revised definition of eligible
renewable resource to include new and existing hydroelectric resources and
removed nameplate capacity limits on hydro resources. Note: A cross tied bill
(SB 45, now on the Governor’s desk) allows expansions of existing hydro
completed or after the effective date of that bill. If both bills are enacted, the law
will include the SB 45 language.
Sent to
Governor
MT SB45 Expands RPS eligibility to 1) include expansions of existing hydropower
resources that increase the facility’s generating capacity, with construction
commencing on or after the effective date of the act and 2) hydropower that
commences commercial operation in Montana on or after 1/1/2013. Federal
hydropower projects located in or outside of Montana are not eligible. For
expansion projects, estimates of the average incremental generation from the
increase in existing generation capacity will be used to determine the eligible
renewable resource.
House
Concurred
with
Governor’s
Amendments;
in Senate
NC HB298;
SB365
As amended in the House, repeals the solar carve out; freezes the standard at
6% by 2015 (through 2018); allows hydropower facilities of any size to qualify
(currently limited to 10 MW); increases the amount of the standard that can be
met with energy efficiency from 25% to 50%; and freezes the swine waste
requirement in 2015 (through 2018). As introduced, this bill proposed a full
repeal of the RPS.
Failed to Pass
Committee
NM HB266 Makes changes to the cost caps associated with the RPS, effectively lowering the
current cost cap from 3% to 2% of a customer's annual electric charges, and
applying maximum dollar amount caps to all customers instead of only
government customers.
In Committee
OH SB34 Repeals the alternative energy and renewable energy portfolio standards. In Committee
OR SB121 Removes age restrictions for hydropower facilities for the purposes of RPS
qualification. The current restrictions on hydropower are fairly detailed as they
apply to different facilities, but only include limited amounts of hydropower
capacity placed in service prior to 1995.
In Committee
OR HB2713 Permits any electricity produced from a hydropower facility located on portions
of the Columbia River that abut Oregon to be eligible for the RPS, with no facility
age or size limitations. Only the portion of electricity used in Oregon may be
eligible. The current restrictions on hydropower are fairly detailed as they apply
to different facilities, but only include limited amounts of hydropower capacity
placed in service prior to 1995.
In Committee
OR HB2925 Allows any hydropower facility to qualify for the RPS, regardless of age or size.
The current restrictions on hydropower are fairly detailed as they apply to
different facilities, but only include limited amounts of hydropower capacity
placed in service prior to 1995.
In Committee
OR HB2792 Repeals the RPS, though it replaces it with more broadly applicable tax on
carbon based fuels and electricity production.
Public Hearing
Completed
PA HB1151 Amends the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard to allow existing MSW
connected to the PA distribution grid to qualify as a Tier I resource. Currently all
qualifying MSW is considered a Tier II resource. Excludes one specific facility.
In Committee
PA HB1073 Amends the RPS to include natural gas as a Tier 1 resource. In Committee
TX HB2026 Eliminates the RPS and related provisions. Left in
Committee

18. WA HJR4200 Amends the state constitution to require hydroelectricity to be recognized as a
renewable energy resource. Such a change would presumably allow all
hydropower regardless of age or size to qualify for the RPS. Currently only
incremental energy produced by efficiency improvements completed after
March 31, 1999 at existing hydropower facilities owned by a utility is permitted
to qualify for the RPS.
In Committee
on
Environment
WA SB5412 Allows energy from efficiency improvements made after March 31, 1999 to
Bonneville Power Authority hydropower facilities to qualify under RPS, based on
a utility’s proportionate “share” of the incremental generation. Currently only
incremental energy produced by efficiency improvements completed after
March 31, 1999 at existing hydropower facilities owned by a utility is permitted
to qualify for the RPS.
No Action
Taken by
Committee
WA SB5648 Allows utilities to use energy conservation in excess of their separate energy
efficiency requirements to count toward renewable energy targets. Utilities are
only permitted to exercise this option once.
Failed to Pass
WA SB5400 Allows a utility that operates outside of Washington (PacifiCorp) to use out of
state non hydropower resources that it owns or has long term PPAs with to
comply with the RPS.
Sent to
Governor
WI AB34 Allows in state nuclear energy to be eligible for the state RPS. Nuclear electricity
may not be used to comply with the standard if the electricity is subject to a PPA
entered into before the effective date of the bill. Also eliminates the 4 year
lifetime for RECs.
In Committee
WI SB47 Freezes the RPS at the 2011 level (i.e., must be 2% above 2010 levels). In Committee