Industry Updates from the UT Renewable Energy Law Conference

Feb 5, 2021

Reading Time : 2 min

Conference Highlights:

  • Akin Gump Counsel Hayden Harms served as Presiding Officer for the Tuesday afternoon presentations.
  • High conference attendance confirms a continued and growing interest in renewable technology. With “green initiatives” being supported by the majority of Congress and the White House, everyone from Fortune 100 corporations to city-dwelling homeowners are looking for opportunities to make and/or save money using renewable technologies.
  • COVID-19 continues to disrupt all segments of the renewable energy industry, but participants have been largely successful in finding ways to allocate risk sufficiently to avoid unnecessary or unexpected costs or delays.

What message resonated most from the Renewable Energy Law Conference? Did you notice any changes from the conference last year?

  • With a new administration in the White House, many issues regarding renewable energy policy are up for debate, including tax credit extensions, import tariffs, carbon pricing, transmission, offshore wind, standalone storage and alternative fuels. How the new administration’s policies are expected to impact these topics over the next four years were questions clearly at the top of many presenters’ and attendees’ minds.

    A key trend we noted last year was the growing attendance of historically hydrocarbon-related companies at the conference—learning how their businesses can incorporate and profit from these new technologies; this year, while we expect many of the same players were in attendance, a key takeaway was how focused participants and presenters were on how the federal government is going to impact existing opportunities, and what new opportunities are anticipated.

What were the key drafting tips related to addressing COVID-19 in commercial contracts?

  • COVID-19 is causing disruptions in just about all business models in the renewable energy sector. Key takeaways for properly addressing COVID-19 are: (i) identify and carve-out all impacts of COVID-19 prior to the effective date of the contract, (ii) determine if COVID-19 will have a large enough impact to require its own section in the agreement, or if it can be addressed in the “force majeure” definition, and (iii) identify acceptable measures of relief (i.e., cost relief vs. schedule relief).
  • If addressed in the force majeure definition, do not forget to (i) anticipate relief for “governmental orders” and (ii) determine if your state follows ejusdem generis (allowing broad applicability of common force majeure events) or if COVID-19 will need to be specifically identified.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

July 8, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE) directing ISO-NE and ISO-NE participating transmission owners to show cause as to why ISO-NE’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (ISO New England Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,215 (2026) (Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 7, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in Leonard Hoffmann v. WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. (Hoffmann), which presents the question whether section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requires pipeline companies using federal eminent domain authority to pay landowners’ attorney’s fees in states where landowners can recover those fees under state law. In the decision giving rise to the Supreme Court’s review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a group of ranchers were not entitled to recover their $383,300 in attorney’s fees incurred while negotiating their compensation—creating a circuit split with four other courts of appeals. Hoffmann will be heard during the Court’s October 2026 Term, and marks the second time in five years that the Court has agreed to interpret NGA section 7.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 6, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued Trump v. Slaughter, fundamentally reshaping presidential removal authority over independent regulatory agencies. The decision overruled a 90-year-old precedent established in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had upheld the constitutionality of commissioner removal protections in the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act). As written, the FTC Act permits a commissioner’s removal “only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” In Slaughter, the Court was asked to reevaluate this standard following the President’s removal of a Democratic-appointed FTC commissioner from office in 2025 without cause. Finding for the President, the Court held that removal was permissible because the FTC Act’s for-cause removal protections for commissioners violate the separation of powers, specifically, the President’s removal power under Article II. The Court explained that the FTC exercises executive power because it promulgates binding rules, investigates and enforces those rules through administrative adjudications, and brings civil enforcement actions in federal court. It found that because it exercises these executive powers, its commissioners “must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive, in whom such power is vested.” While previous recent cases addressing the scope of the Removal Power, Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Collins v. Yellen purported to preserve some kernel of Humphrey’s, the Court made clear that “[i]f anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it.”

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 25, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) directing CAISO and CAISO transmission owners to show cause as to why CAISO’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (California Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 195 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2026) (the Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.