Author Archives Laura Arnold

Duke Energy Jim Rogers leaves as Chairman of the Board but will his influence continue to be felt? Is that good or bad?

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   January 01, 2014  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Duke Energy’s Rogers leaves a mark on his industry

BY BRUCE HENDERSON

bhenderson@charlotteobserver.com December 28, 2013

Rogers Exit

Jim Rogers’ seven-year run atop Duke Energy ends this month in a rush of industry tributes, legacy look-backs and, like a retiring Super Bowl champion, a trip to Disney World. Rogers is 66. MARK HAMES — mhames@charlotteobserver.com

CHARLOTTE — Jim Rogers’ seven-year run atop Duke Energy ends this month in a rush of industry tributes, legacy look-backs and, like a retiring Super Bowl champion, a trip to Disney World.

Rogers, 66, is as remarkable for his longevity as for the 12 percent annual shareholder return he claims over his career or the three major mergers he engineered. The last, with Raleigh-based Progress Energy, made Duke the nation’s biggest electric utility.

He was a chief executive in the energy industry for 25 years; the average CEO lasts 5.5 years. He leaves Duke as chairman of the board.

Harder to measure is Rogers’ influence over an industry that is, by their scale and reliance on fossil fuels, one of the country’s largest polluters.

Coal-fired power plants like Duke’s release chemicals that are major components of the ozone that chokes asthmatic children. Sulfur compounds from coal blanket the Smokies in a fog of haze. Mercury poisons blackwater rivers on North Carolina’s coast.

Even as technology makes power plants cleaner, they billow billions of tons a year of carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas linked to climate change.

Rogers, perhaps more than any major utility leader, stands at the crossroads of energy and environment. The self-described “maverick” has been an early adopter of green measures for his industry, often while finding a way to make money from them.

“When you approach stuff where you are compromising, you find yourself in the unenviable place where people who don’t want any environmental legislation don’t like you, and where people who don’t think you’ve done enough, the environmentalists, don’t like you,” he said in a recent interview. “But compromise is the way forward.”

At congressional hearings, industry meetings and global forums, Rogers has championed emission controls, energy efficiency and new technology leading to a low-carbon future. Sunny and self-confident, with experience as a federal regulator and as a lawyer in private practice, Rogers moves easily between overlapping worlds.

Duke University’s Tim Profeta, a former Senate staff member who worked on carbon legislation, said Rogers was the rare CEO willing to tackle utilities’ environmental footprint. Rogers, he said, has a knack for finding positions that benefit both the environment and shareholders.

“A single CEO cannot change the entire economic system and what it prioritizes – only policy can,” said Profeta, director of the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, where Rogers serves on the board. “I think it could be fairly said that he made substantial effort, and more effort than many of his peers, to move the needle in the right direction.”

But Rogers’ high profile, and Duke’s growing size, led his toughest environmental critics to make him a personal target. Greenpeace, the international group, opened a Charlotte office and regularly protests outside Duke’s uptown headquarters.

“All you really need to do to understand Rogers’ legacy is to look at the new coal-fired power plant that has been renamed in his honor,” said the group’s energy campaign director, Gabe Wisniewski, referring to the former Cliffside plant west of Charlotte. “The impacts of that investment and the millions that Duke has spent on fossil fuels is going to last a lot longer than the talking points that Rogers put out.”

Collaboration and planning

Rogers said his approach, which he describes as based on collaboration and compromise, turns the extremes of opposing sides against him.

“I’ve always said to myself, run to the problem, embrace it, find a way to transform what appears to be a challenge or problem into an opportunity for your customers as well as your investors,” he said.

That pattern began in 1990, when Rogers became one of the few utility CEOs to embrace a market-based federal crackdown on power plant emissions that cause acid rain.

Then at Public Service Company of Indiana, Rogers shifted his power plants to low-sulfur coal and installed scrubbers. He took advantage of the program’s emissions-trading component to reduce costs.

Years later, at the start of President Barack Obama’s first term, Rogers was part of a business-environmental coalition that supported a similar market-driven plan to control carbon dioxide. The legislation known as cap-and-trade failed, but Rogers argued it would help utilities plan for the future, and smooth out costs, as they began to replace aging power plants.

In 2009, Duke won North Carolina’s approval for its save-a-watt program. Designed to boost energy efficiency among customers, it also allowed Duke to earn a return on its investment in the program.

The Platts Global Energy Awards, the Oscars of the energy world, honored Rogers for lifetime achievement at a swank ceremony in New York this month. In November, readers of the trade journal Power Engineering voted Rogers the most influential person in the industry.

Push for green

Prompted by North Carolina’s 2002 Clean Smokestacks Act, Duke has slashed in-state emissions of two chronic pollutants, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, by 89 percent and 83 percent, respectively, from 1998 levels.

Upcoming federal air standards led Duke to retire seven of its 14 N.C. coal plants as part of a $9 billion modernization program. Its two N.C. utilities have raised rates a total of four times since 2009 to pay for six new plants.

Duke’s rapid move to natural gas, a cleaner-burning fuel whose price has plummeted, helped it meet an internal carbon-reduction goal eight years early. But carbon emissions could climb again if electric demand goes up and natural gas prices rise.

Duke still ranked second in carbon emissions among U.S. utilities in 2012, behind Columbus, Ohio-based American Electric Power.

And of the seven new power plants built on Rogers’ watch, two were fueled by coal.

Green-energy advocates say the billions spent on the new plants could have been spent on solar power, which has plummeting costs, and wind energy.

“All of Jim Rogers’ many talking points about ‘passing the grandchildren test’ and ‘moving at China speed’ move the hearts of investors and environmentalists alike,” said Greenpeace’s Wisniewski, “and he just utterly failed to deliver.”

At least not at the scale or speed Greenpeace and its allies expect.

Duke launched a program to install solar arrays on North Carolina rooftops in 2009, and this month won state approval to sell green energy to large customers such as data centers. It will meet the tiny solar portion of the state’s 2007 green-energy mandate years ahead of schedule.

Duke Energy Renewables, a non-regulated business that operates mostly outside of North Carolina, is among the nation’s largest wind and solar developers. Illustrating the downside of renewable energy, Duke agreed in November to pay $1 million for killing 14 golden eagles at its Wyoming wind farms.

“I put more than $3.5 billion into solar and wind, but I built it where the wind blows and the sun shines and sold it to other utilities and municipals around the country,” Rogers said. “So I haven’t done it here, but I have done it.”

After years of butting heads with Duke, Jim Warren of the Durham green-energy group NC WARN still isn’t sure how to read Rogers.

“My best guess is that Jim Rogers is someone who wanted to do more toward clean energy than he ever found a way to make happen during his time,” Warren said. “I favor that over a more cynical approach that he was more a figment of corporate PR or greenwashing.”

Warren acknowledges the problems in refocusing a company of Duke’s $49 billion bulk while growing stock dividends and meeting state demands for cheap electricity. He also points out the political and financial clout the nation’s largest utility can wield – the heft, Warren maintains, to reshape the industry.

“To his credit, he’s patient, he listens, I think he’s thoughtful,” Warren said.

“I certainly don’t dislike him as a person. I would have to say that I’m still rooting for him to do something heroic.”

Rapidly changing world

Rogers envisions a different energy industry than the one he rose through.

New technologies and policies, such as North Carolina’s green energy law, will continue to erode utility monopolies. Ever-cheaper solar arrays will steal market share from billion-dollar power plants. Mergers and acquisitions will continue to shrink the number of companies like Duke. Demand for power, flat in recent years, could continue to wobble or shrink.

Rogers said Duke is positioned to adapt because of its mergers, cost-cutting and internal streamlining. After combining five companies into one since 1988, Duke says its workforce is 40 percent smaller but generates 130 percent more electricity per worker.

“I feel like I’m really leaving the company in a good place, a strong place,” he said. “It’s a leader in the industry, and a lot of that 12 percent in (annual shareholder) value I’ve created has really come from doing these combinations along the way.”

The last merger, which folded Progress Energy into Duke last year, was hard-won. Duke’s directors ditched Progress CEO Bill Johnson as Duke’s new chief executive, leading to a pair of state investigations and rattling investors.

“In the utility industry it can take 18 months or longer to close a deal, and in this world a lot can change in 18 months,” Rogers said. “And a lot did.”

Duke learned too late, he said, of growing troubles with Progress’ nuclear fleet as its earnings stumbled. Directors “dealt with those issues.”

Now he’s ready to reinvent himself.

He and wife Mary Anne will stay in Charlotte. He will also maintain, for three years, his office in Duke’s former Church Street headquarters.

“I’m kind of curious as to what comes and I’m excited about the possibilities,” he said.

Rogers has been paid solely in stock throughout his time at Duke. He and his wife own about 1 million shares, according to securities filings, that are worth $72 million. More stock awards will vest in future years.

He serves on a half-dozen boards and is weighing offers to teach at two universities. He’s also researching a book, on the 1.2 billion people without electricity, that he says could lead to a collaboration to address the problem.

“The most interesting thing about Jim,” said Duke University’s Tim Profeta, “is what he’s going to do from here.”

Henderson: 704-358-5051; Twitter: @bhender

 

Watch the Purdue lecture on 10/24/13 from Duke Energy Chairman Jim Rogers – Shedding Light on America’s Energy Future

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   December 30, 2013  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. - Duke Energy Corp. Chairman Jim Rogers, regarded as one of the most dynamic executives in the utility industry the past two decades, returned to Purdue University on October 24, 2013 for a talk as part of the Discovery Lecture Series.

Did you miss Jim Roger's speech at Purdue University this fall?

Watch it now on YouTube.

 

Purdue-based SUFG Forecasts 32% increase in electricity rates by 2023

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   December 30, 2013  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Panel forecasts huge jump in Indiana electric rates

-10duke31.179497.jpg20101028.jpg

A Purdue-based group has released a study that predicts an unprecedented rise in future electricity rates coupled with a stagnation in energy demand.

The State Utility Forecasting Group, a state-funded panel of researchers based at Purdue University, predicts a 32-percent increase in Indiana’s electricity rates by 2023. The report predicts the rise in rates, coupled with an increase in energy-efficient programs, products and buildings, will lead to a stagnation in energy demand over the next 20 years.

The group attributed three factors to the projected rate increase: costs associated with more stringent Environmental Protection Agency rules, costs associated with additions and modifications to power plants and costs associated with the resources needed to meet electricity demands.

“This is something we've never seen before: essentially no growth in electricity,” said Douglas Gotham, the group’s director, in a prepared statement.

The group prepares the report every two years for the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission. The group announced the findings today in a news release after presenting the report on Dec. 20 to the commission.

Call Star reporter Chris Sikich at (317) 444-6036. Follow him at Twitter.com/ChrisSikich.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is an excerpt from the report. The report contains lots of information and data.

Table 1-1. Annual Electricity Sales Growth (Percent)
by Sector (Current Forecast vs. 2011 Projections)

Sector Current (2012-2031) 2011 (2011-2029)
Residential 0.37 0.71
Commercial 0.33 0.89
Industrial 1.29 2.11
Total 0.74 1.30

Paul Gipe: Time to Break Free of Net-Metering; We Need a “FIT” Policy for Renewable Energy to Soar

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   December 29, 2013  /   Posted in Feed-in Tariffs (FiT), solar, Uncategorized  /   1 Comments

Time to Break Free of Net-Metering; We Need a “FIT” Policy for Renewable Energy to Soar

Posted by Paul Gipe on December 26, 2013

 

Maybe the electric utilities are right, for a change. Maybe net-metering—the ability to run your kilowatt-hour meter backwards, with solar panels on your roof or a windmill in your backyard–is not the best policy for America, or for Americans. (See related, “As Solar Power Grows, Dispute Flares Over U.S. Utility Bills.”)

But the utilities’ populist appeal to fairness and equality is disingenuous. When did electric utilities ever care about justice–or the poor?

If they are right about net-metering, it’s for all the wrong reasons.

They want to stop solar photovoltaics (solar PV) now. They want to put it in the grave before it takes even more market share from their comfy business. Climate change and future generations be damned.

The utilities are under threat as never before. They see what’s happened in Germany, where utility profits are plummeting as Germans take more and more control of their own electricity generation. Utility companies will be ruined if they let that happen here. So now’s the time to kill net-metering and with it rooftop solar PV while they still can.

Maybe we should let them.

I can hear the howls of derision from the usual suspects: the solar PV industry, the solar leasing companies, and their sycophants in the advocacy community.

Yes, we should fight a rearguard action to keep the utilities and their legions of attorneys fully engaged. In the meantime, while the utilities are busy snuffing out net-metering, we can bypass them altogether and implement a far superior policy that will put a lot more solar on people’s roofs—solar that people can own themselves, independent of the banking industry offering them deals “to good to be true.”

After all, one of America’s most revolutionary energy policies was introduced in 1978 when the utilities were too busy trying to kill another competing industry to notice as the Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA) passed Congress.

PURPA allowed independently-owned renewable generators to be connected to the grid. Suddenly, the grid was no longer the utility industry’s sole domain. PURPA said you could connect your solar PV system to the grid, but it didn’t spell out how much you would get paid for your electricity.

PURPA laid the foundation for what came next—a policy that not only allowed you to connect to the grid, but that also set the price, a “tariff” in utility jargon, that you would be paid for the electricity you fed into the grid—feed-in tariffs, or FITs.

Feed-in tariffs are the alternative to net-metering and their time has come. FITs have been likened to PURPA on steroids and they are as American as apple pie. It was a crude feed-in tariff that launched renewable energy in California during the early 1980s. In that program, you could connect your biomass, wind, or solar plant to the grid, get paid a fixed-price for ten years, and then get paid a floating price for another twenty. And it worked—spectacularly. For two decades following that first feed-in tariff, the Golden State generated about 2 percent of its electricity from wind energy alone.

Since then, Europeans picked up the renewable energy torch, particularly in Denmark, where last year the Danes generated 43 percent of their electricity from biomass and wind energy, and in Germany.

Germans don’t use net-metering, and yet last year they produced one-fifth of their electricity from wind, solar, and biogas. No, the Germans use feed-in tariffs. They saw what we accomplished decades ago then set out to adapt and refine the concept. The result is a modern system of feed-in tariffs that has catapulted Germany to the front ranks of renewable energy development—rooftop solar PV included.

Numerous other countries around the world have followed suit, adopting feed-in tariffs of their own making. In fact, more countries use feed-in tariffs than use net-metering.

Most significantly, more renewable energy—by far–has been developed with feed-in tariffs than has been installed through net-metering. The International Energy Agency found in a recent study that only 2 percent of solar PV worldwide was installed primarily through net-metering. The numbers are just as lopsided for wind energy, biogas, and other renewables.

What sets modern feed-in tariffs apart from those developed in California during the early 1980s—and from net-metering–is that the price paid for electricity from different renewable sources differs as well.

In the old California system, a wind farm was paid the same price as a biomass plant or a solar plant, even though they were quite different from one another. The same is true today with net-metering. Each technology that runs the kilowatt-hour meter backwards is effectively paid the same price, the retail price of electricity, regardless of how much the electricity actually cost to produce.

In the modern or “advanced” system like that used in Ontario, Canada, wind energy is paid one price and rooftop solar another. Each technology is paid a price that reflects the average cost of generating electricity with that technology.

This approach decouples the price paid for renewable energy from both the wholesale and retail prices of electricity. Feed-in laws essentially bypass all the ideological theory and arcane mumbo-jumbo that obscure electricity rate-setting in the US.

For each technology and each application, prices are determined so as to provide a fair and reasonable rate of return. This enables anyone—anyone who wants to invest in building the infrastructure that will power America in the 21st century–to profit from renewable energy.

It is this simple idea—to pay a fair price for renewable energy—that has enabled German citizens to build and own nearly half of all the wind turbines, solar PV, and biogas plants in the country. Individual German citizens—not their utility companies–have invested more than $100 billion in renewable energy. They have done so because they are paid a fair price for their electricity and because they can install the size, type, and amount of renewables that is the most economic for them and the best fit for their communities.

Net-metering served a useful purpose in the dark days of the Reagan-Bush-Clinton era. Net-metering then was a call to arms for hobbyists and guerrilla solar activists out to prove a point–solar works, your meter will run backwards, and the lights will stay on.

But net-metering was never intended to be a policy for the industrial development of renewable energy. It alone can’t do that. Retail electricity prices in North America are simply too low to make rooftop solar PV, for example, profitable without hefty subsidies.

Why run your kilowatt-hour meter backwards at 10 cents per kilowatt-hour when it costs you 20 cents to 30 cents per kilowatt-hour to generate it with solar PV? Without federal or state subsidies, net-metering seldom makes any economic sense, even today with the rapidly falling cost of solar PV.

Net-metering was an appealing policy at one time, because it gave politicians the perfect cover for appearing to take action on the public’s demand for renewable energy, while doing nothing of substance to threaten entrenched electric utilities’ political and economic power.

Thus, politicians would typically set a low limit on the amount of renewables that could be installed in a region under net-metering—often just a few percent. They certainly wouldn’t set the limit at anything like what the Germans (5 percent solar PV) or Italians (7 percent solar PV) have already accomplished.

Moreover, they typically also limit the size of any individual installation, often a paltry 10 kilowatts, and sometimes—when they’re generous–up to 2 megawatts. (We certainly wouldn’t want to rock the utility’s boat, now, would we?)

Worst of all, net-metering limits renewable development to an existing “meter”. This precludes “greenfield” sites that don’t already serve a utility customer, a further restriction on who can use net-metering and how big a renewable project they can build.

With all the restrictions on net-metering, many Americans are prohibited from installing and owning their own solar, wind, or biogas power plants where they want to and of the size that works best for them. Net-metering locks out apartment-dwellers and renters from participating in the renewable energy revolution.

Net-metering is not–nor can it ever be–a comprehensive renewable energy policy. If we take climate change seriously, net-metering simply won’t get us where we want to go: massive amounts of renewables in the ground, and quickly. Net-metering will never give us “plus energy” houses or “plus energy” buildings, because we often literally have to give our surplus electricity to the utility company for free. How fair is that?

Yes, net-metering has served a purpose. And yes, we should not abandon it without a strong comprehensive renewable energy policy to replace it.

But the time has come from Americans to break free of the straight jacket imposed by net-metering. It is time to liberate Americans from the tyranny of utility-company control of our lives and from the politicians and regulators who serve these companies. It is time to free Americans of all walks of life–from rich to poor, from conservative to liberal, from rural to urban—to produce renewably generated electricity when they want, where they want, and in the amount they want—and to do so for a profit. What could be more American?

As the late German politician Hermann Scheer, one of the co-founders of Germany’s modern system of advanced renewable tariffs, frequently said, the time for half-measures–for timid responses–is past. There is no time to lose.

 

IBJ: Benton Co. (IN) Wind Farm Sues Duke Energy Indiana for Breach of Contract

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   December 27, 2013  /   Posted in wind  /   No Comments

Wind farm says Duke violated contract

2013-12-21 | Indianapolis Business Journal | IBJ.com

The owner of a northern Indiana wind farm says Duke Energy Indiana Inc.—which had agreed to buy energy the 87-turbine operation produces—breached its contract, “proving disastrous.”

Benton County Wind Farm LLC, based in Earl Park, is suing Duke in federal court in Indianapolis for unspecified damages, claiming the power company has not honored its agreement.

wind-farm-factbox.gif

The suit alleges the company’s actions have resulted in the wind farm “frequently [being] forced to curtail operations. As a result, the Wind Farm’s electrical output and revenues have been sharply reduced.” But many of the details of Duke’s alleged contract breach are redacted in the 23-page complaint.

An executive for one of the wind farm’s parents, Orion Energy Group in Oakland, Calif., would not say whether the alleged payment shortcomings put the farm’s future in jeopardy.

“If it was not significant, we would not have filed the complaint,” said Jim Eisen, Orion’s general counsel.

A Duke spokeswoman would only say, “We’re reviewing the filing.” The utility’s attorneys had not filed an official court response to the lawsuit by IBJ deadline.

In 2006, the companies set up a 20-year contract in which Duke would buy 100 megawatts of electricity the wind farm produces once it went online in 2008. A 2007 agreement gives another 30 megawatts to Vectren, but Vectren’s obligations are “not an issue,” according to the lawsuit.

Orion Energy Group LLC began running the wind farm in 2008 as the state’s first commercial-scale operation. The farm’s 87 turbines tower over the 350-resident town of Earl Park northwest of Lafayette.

The wind farm has needed Duke’s business from its launch to cover the construction costs, the company says in its lawsuit. The project cost about $150 million.

Duke signed up to receive the energy as it was looking to diversify its energy portfolio with more renewable resources. The utility began searching as early as 2004 for a developer to build a 100-megawatt wind farm.

“Clean, carbon-free, wind-generated energy is a good addition to our power sources,” Jim Stanley, then-Duke Energy Indiana’s president, said in a statement soon after the wind farm began operating.

“The agreement was the first significant, long-term purchase of wind power in Indiana. It’s also a boost to the local economy.”

Duke takes the electricity and sells it onto the power grid through Midcontinent Independent System Operator Inc. in Carmel.

“The MISO re-sale prices are affected by many factors and fluctuate constantly, often within a single hour,” the lawsuit says. “Under the [contract], Duke bears all risks arising from these market fluctuations.”

Duke has to pay a fixed price, the amount of which was redacted from court records, to Benton County Wind Farm, regardless of what Duke earns reselling through MISO. Duke is only excused from its obligation to pay the wind farm in “narrowly defined” emergencies, the lawsuit says.

MISO’s pricing system and a glut of wind energy appear to be at the root of the court case.

A computer algorithm bases prices on two “significant factors”: bids that utilities submit when selling energy and costs relating to congestion on the grid.

Duke and other power sellers had to submit price bids for traditional forms of energy, such as coal and natural gas.

Companies selling wind energy did not have to bid until recently, when the renewable resource surged in popularity in Indiana.

Wind farms popped up around northern Indiana, which has become a hot spot for the energy source.

BP and Dominion Energy started the 600-megawatt Fowler Ridge Wind Farm, also in Benton County. And the county is now home to EDF Renewable Energy’s 106-megawatt Hoosier Wind Farm.

MISO’s transmission grid wasn’t able to handle the burst of new wind energy, according to an August 2012 report by Synapse Energy Economics Inc. in Cambridge, Mass.

“This leads to costly congestion and uneconomic curtailment, or spilling, of available wind,” the report said.

An oversupply congested the grid and drove down the prices at which utilities could sell the energy, which has happened nationally. In some cases, companies have to pay to dispense their power onto the grid. They will often claim tax credits that turn their upfront losses into profits.

MISO changed its rules in March, requiring sellers to submit bids for their energy, like they did for fossil fuels.

When bids are too high, MISO’s automated system electronically signals the energy producer—in this case, the Benton County Wind Farm—and tells it to reduce its output.

The lawsuit redacts what Duke specifically did, only noting the utility “curtail[ed] electrical production by refusing to offer the Wind Farm’s power to MISO at competitive prices and then refusing to compensate [the wind farm] when the Wind Farm is directed by MISO not to produce power.”

Eisen, from parent company Orion, would not elaborate on the situation beyond what documents say.

Contract terms say the wind farm is set up to produce 100 megawatts for Duke, so Duke must buy all 100 megawatts, without refusal.

“Duke’s refusal to [redacted] or to compensate BCWF for generation lost due to Duke’s bidding practices has proven disastrous for BCWF,” the lawsuit says. “As a result, the Wind Farm has produced substantially less power than it is capable of producing with a corresponding collapse of the Wind Farm’s cash and tax revenues.”•

 

Copyright 2013 IndianaDG