Author Archives Laura Arnold

Rockport Indiana Gasification Plant–Is it dead or alive?

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   May 01, 2013  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

I thought I would share with you two drastically different views on the future of the proposed Rockport Indiana Gasification plant. You decide.

http://www.indystar.com/viewart/20130430/BUSINESS/304300056/Rockport-gas-plant-developers-bit-hope-keep-project-alive

Indiana Gasification Suspends Activity

The following is a statement from Mark Lubber, project manager of Indiana Gasification regarding the recent activity in the Indiana General Assembly regarding the Rockport plant.

If the Supreme Court takes the case, the Ct of Appeals decision is immediately vacated, so the IURC approval is again live.  The Ct of Appeals opinion was not unanimous and we have asked the court to side with Chief Judge Robb’s dissent, which said that the Court could have upheld the IURC approval and dealt separately with the definition problem.  Since then, of course, the parties have dealt with that admittedly inartful definition language by deleting the offending 37 words from the definition of Retail End Use Customer; so the problem identified by the Ct of Appeals no longer exists. 

If the Supreme Court takes the case, we think we have a good chance of winning. 

If the Supreme Court does not take the case, the project is dead.  The legislature and the governor knew this when they opted for the language in the law just-passed.  There was an alternative way for the IURC to have a “final look” at the project to consider if the contract was still good for ratepayers given supposed changes in the energy market.  That alternative was rejected in favor of adopting new standards that the legislature and the governor knew would kill the project.  (Because it would require a different contract and two years of review that the project cannot sustain.) The decision to take this path was a conscious decision to kill the project. 

Since this conscious decision was made, the judgment of the state is very clear: neither the legislature nor the governor support the contract or the project.  Therefore, the claim made by legislative leadership and the governor that everything is fine if the Supreme Court sides with us is a false promise; no one would invest  $750 million where such clear opposition from the government is evident.  The institutions that provide the capital to build a plant of this size will not do business in a state that is so cavalier about the $20+ million dollars we have already invested.   

We will finish the judicial review that has been going on now since December 2011.  We will file today a motion for the Court to schedule oral argument.  We will work hard for a win if the Supreme Court takes the case.  If we win, however, only a clear reversal of position by the Governor would enable the project to go forward.

I also feel compelled to share this post about the above statement from Mark Lubbers.

John Blair ·  Works at Self Employed - freelance photojournalist

Great picture by the way. But more importantly, Leucadia has been luke warm about this project for for a very long time. They have failed to cooperate with the US Department of Energy in securing their $2 billion+ federal loan guarantee as DOE has tried to do and Environmental Impact Statement. In fact, public documents from the DOE show that this project is not even on their radar any longer due to Leucadia's acquiescence. Frankly, as a party to the the Supreme Court proceeding, Valley Watch is kind of amazed that Leucadia is so willing to diss the State of Indiana for finally seeing through their scam to escape the risk of building a multi billion dollar plant and forcing Indiana consumers to assume that risk for them. As it is, their contract is currently null and void due to language that they agreed to when the contract was originally written. But maybe Lubbers is confident that his buddies on the Supreme Court will once again bail this bizarre business plan out. http://www.in.gov/judiciary/citc/files/massa-lubbers.pdf

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

Now fast forward to the story written by Tony Cook with the Indianapolis Star which ran 5/1/2013 in my home delivered edition of the newspaper. So what is the real story here?

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

Rockport gas plant developers have bit of hope to keep project alive

Apr. 30, 2013,

Written by Tony Cook

In the run-up to a Saturday morning vote in the General Assembly, developers of a proposed coal-gas plant in Rockport declared emphati­cally that the legislation would kill the $2.8 billion project.

But on Tuesday, the plant’s developers said they have no plans to drop a case pending before the Indiana Supreme Court, suggesting they see some hope — even if it’s slim — for keeping the project alive.

At issue is a measure that lawmakers approved during their final act of this year’s legislative session. It would require a new, more stringent regulatory review of the contract between the state and Indiana Gasification, a subsidiary of New York-based Leucadia National Corp. that is leading the effort to build the plant.

Lawmakers who supported the bill said they were concerned about the project’s potential impact on ratepayers. They have said the new review would be triggered only if the contract is voided or changed in the courts, where it is being contested.

Indiana Gasification had said the measure would kill the project regardless of any court decision because the additional regulatory hurdles would prove prohibitive.

On Tuesday, though, the company softened that stance. If the Indiana Supreme Court vacates a lower court decision and upholds the entire contract, the project could survive, said Mike Murphy, who handles public relations for the company.

“That’s the only way it could survive,” he said.

Opponents of the project criticized Indiana Gasification for its previous claims that the legislation would kill the project regardless of any court decision. The company’s plans to continue the litigation, they say, reveal that the earlier claims were a veiled attempt to bully lawmakers and the governor into backing off.

“Black is white and white is black with these guys,” said Kerwin Olson, executive director of Citizens Action Coalition, a consumer group that opposes the plant.

The measure is now in the hands of Gov. Mike Pence. He hasn’t signed the legislation, but he said Monday he had a hand in crafting the bill  and is supportive of  it.

Mark Lubbers, project director for Indiana Gasification, said Tuesday the legislation threatens the project because of the message it sends to investors.

“Since this conscious decision was made, the judgment of the state is very clear: Neither the legislature nor the governor support the contract or the proj­ect,” he said. “We will work hard for a win if the Supreme Court takes the case. If we win, however, only a clear reversal of ­position by the governor would enable the project to go forward.”

The plant, which would convert coal to synthetic natural gas, has become a lightning rod of controversy amid concerns that it could drive up home heating bills. Under a deal developers struck with the administration of then-Gov. Mitch Daniels, the state would buy the gas at a set rate for 30 years. If the state can’t sell the gas for a profit, all Indiana ratepayers would have to make up the losses on their monthly natural gas bills.

Opponents, led by Evansville-based Vectren Corp., have said the deal would cost ratepayers more than a $1 billion over the plant’s first eight years of operation. Indiana Gasification has disputed that estimate.

Both sides lobbied law­makers fiercely throughout the session. The Sierra Club and other environmental and consumer groups called, emailed and wrote to lawmakers more than 6,000 times, according to Shane Levy, a spokesman for the Sierra Club.

Indiana Gasification, meanwhile, emphasized the 1,500 jobs it said the plant would create. It found an advocate in Rep. Matt Ubelhor, a coal mine manager who successfully proposed an amendment that watered down a previous version of the bill in the House.

Ultimately, though, a measure similar to the earlier House version was resurrected in a House-Senate conference committee and ultimately was approved.

Call Star reporter Tony Cook at (317) 444-6081 and follow him at twitter.com/indystartony.

Clean Technica: Georgia Set to Increase Solar Energy With New Legislation

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   April 30, 2013  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments
Is this Rural Georgia Economic Recovery and Solar Resource Act of 2014 something to consider introducing in Indiana or your state?
Georgia Set To Increase Solar Energy With New Legislation (via Clean Technica)

A new solar energy bill in the US state of Georgia has been submitted, “Rural Georgia Economic Recovery and Solar Resource Act of 2014.” This bill would create a new model for generation and distribution of electricity, allowing the Public Service Commission to authorize and establish a rural…

Read More

Is a Homeowner Association (HOAs) thwarting solar for your home or your customer? Share your problems and solutions with IndianaDG.

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   April 26, 2013  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   1 Comments

 I have heard about problems for homeowners and installers with homeowner associations (HOAs) in Indiana trying to install solar systems for some time. We have discussed whether it would make sense to join other states which have passed legislation to prohibit unreasonable restrictions on solar installations by HOAs. If you think this makes sense to do here in Indiana, we will need to document this problem. Please send me information about this problem to Laura.Arnold@IndianaDG.net.

I am also interested in learning more about this problem and/or how it was resolved in other states.

Laura Ann Arnold, President, Indiana Distributed Energy Alliance

New comment received 9/27/14 from Nathan who lives in Hamilton County, IN.

Comment:
Inspiring, got my 1st HOA denial today.  I look forward to the fight.  May the odds ever be in residential distributed generation's favor.

 

HOAs Fight Solar, Homeowners Fight Back

By Emily Hois
April 25, 2013

You own your home. You want to save on your electric bill and reduce your carbon footprint. You’ve paid for a roof that can support solar panels. The next step is to research solar installation companies that serve your area, right? Wrong, say some Homeowners Associations (HOAs).

Across the U.S., homeowners who have installed solar panels without approval from their HOA are losing tens of thousands of dollars as they are forced to remove their solar systems. In Nebraska, Tim Adams of Omaha installed a $40,000 rooftop solar system and was sued by the South Shore Heights Homeowners Association, which said the solar panels “violated neighborhood covenants.” Although Adams settled, he vows not to give up the fight. The settlement requires the homeowner to remove his array of blue solar panels by July 1 and forbids him from making any other public comments regarding the case, the HOA, and its associated members.

The Omaha HOA argues that Adams failed to obtain approval before installing the panels, but chances are slim that the board would have approved his request—as the case with David and Angel Dobs reveals. The Georgia couple has asked for permission to install a 30-solar-panel time and time again, having made four revisions to their original proposal. The Vickery Lake Homeowners Association has denied their request every time.

In order to win approval from the HOA, board member Jim Graham said the panels will have to remain out of public view, such as mounted in the Dobses’ backyard and hidden by a fence. But the fence must also be approved by the HOA. The Vickery Lake HOA argues that the panels would “look out of place and could lower home values in the community,” reports theHuffington Post.

But there’s good news for solar power enthusiasts who belong to HOAs: these lawsuits have prompted some states—about two dozen—to limit HOAs' authority to ban solar panels. In Texas, no HOA can prohibit homeowners from installing solar energy systems on their rooftops, fenced-in yards or patios. Colorado HOAs can enforce “architectural guidelines” that can restrict the placement or appearance of solar panels. However, these aesthetic provisions may not result in a significant cost increase for the resident, nor can they hinder the solar system’s efficiency. California’s Solar Rights Act of 1978 prohibits HOAs from interfering with the installation of residential solar panels, although the law does allow for “reasonable restrictions” on solar energy systems. As a result, some HOAs have opposed even modest installations.

So what can homeowners do?

Negotiations are a good starting point. An HOA would be smart to spend time negotiating instead of spending money on court costs. Before starting negotiations, a homeowner can check to see whether their HOA covenant mentions solar systems directly. If not, or if the rules apply indirectly (such as forbidding other rooftop objects), this ambiguity will work in your favor if you go to court. If solar systems are explicitly banned, homeowners may be able to obtain a waiver by demonstrating that certain restrictions are unreasonable.For example, as Colorado recognizes, an HOA may not restrict placement if it causes the panels to lose efficiency—such as positioning them out of public view, and out of optimal sunlight.

Homeowners can also initially propose a solar system that is larger than intended, so that the revisions can include a size reduction that may be enough to satisfy the HOA. If these tactics fail, solar rights laws in your state may provide protection, although legal action is typically required to enforce these laws on a case-by-case basis.

The original article was posted on the SolarReviews blog

Energy CEO: Solar should break up with wind, date natural gas, have distributed babies

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   April 25, 2013  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Energy CEO: Solar should break up with wind, date natural gas, have distributed babies

By David Roberts

David Crane
Fortune Live Media
Davie Crane of NRG Energy.

I’ve been going to climate and energy conferences for a long time, and I’ll be honest, it’s been a while since I’ve heard anything new. Or, uh, interesting.

But I heard just such a thing yesterday at the Bloomberg New Energy Finance Summit that I’m attending in NYC. (I’m on a panel today at noon Eastern, FYI.)

It came from David Crane, the CEO of NRG Energy, one of America’s biggest energy companies, which owns several power subsidiaries and a couple of utilities. Under Crane’s leadership, NRG has moved aggressively into clean energy — including distributed solar, as I wrote about a few weeks ago.

Crane is, unlike many utility types, a big believer in distributed energy. He said yesterday that the whole approach of covering vast swathes of desert in solar panels and piping the energy hundreds of miles through high-voltage transmission lines “was stupid in 2008 and it’s stupid today.” Rather, the key advantage of solar is that it can cover houses and buildings and car parks and other urban structures, enabling them to generate their own power.

What this means, Crane said, is that solar and wind, which have seen themselves as natural allies, are about to “part ways.” Wind needs transmission and solar doesn’t.

Instead, solar needs allies that will help it help customers generate and manage their own power and become energy independent, or at least more resilient against grid failures.

Among those allies will be energy management companies — as Crane said this, he was on stage with the CEO of Nest, the company that makes those cool thermostats. Nest recently struck a deal with NRG (and several other utilities) to help get its product into more homes.

But — and here’s the interesting part — among other allies of distributed solar, says Crane, will be … wait for it … natural gas. Why? Because solar homeowners will need other generation sources when the sun doesn’t shine. The top candidate for that role: natural gas microturbines.

Crane noted that natural gas prices have plunged in recent years. However, average citizens have seen very little benefit, because for the most part (excluding those who have natural gas heat), natural gas only reaches them through intermediaries — manufacturers and electrical generators — who pocket most of the extra value. Crane thinks natural gas should “disintermediate” and pipe directly into homes for microturbines. That way homeowners will harvest the savings of cheap natural gas and make themselves more independent from crappy grids. (Crane noted that there are 130 million wooden utility poles in the country; “the economy of the 21st century should not be based on wooden poles.”)

So … solar and natural gas are natural allies in the development of distributed energy. Interesting, right? I don’t know if I’m totally ready to endorse it. Obviously I’d much rather biogas or something more renewable play that supporting role. But in the near term, there aren’t many alternatives to natural gas in that space. And anything that accelerates distributed energy is good for me.

At least it made me stop short and ponder, and it’s been a while since a conference has done that. What do you think about it?

Midwest Energy News: Indianapolis solar shines, but will the boom continue?

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   April 23, 2013  /   Posted in Feed-in Tariffs (FiT), IPL Rate REP, Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO), Uncategorized  /   No Comments

IndianaDG is working to encourage all Indiana electric investor-owned utilities (IOU's) to offer voluntary feed-in tariffs (VFITs) like the IPL Rate REP and NIPSCO VFIT including Duke Energy Indiana, Indiana Michigan Power Company (I&M/AEP) and Vectren.

Please contact us to learn how you and/or your business can help promote renewable energy and distributed generation opportunities in Indiana. We also want to work with folks in other states that have operating subsidiaries of Duke Energy and American Electric Power (AEP) to put programs like the VFIT on the agenda for future energy development.

Indianapolis solar shines, but will the boom continue?

Posted on by

In this March 31, 2011 photo, workers cover a expansion joint in the roof of the Maj. Gen. Emmett J. Bean Federal Center in the northeast Indianapolis area of Lawrence, Ind. On April 29, the federal government will throw the switch on the building's 6,152 solar panels to begin generating more than 2 megawatts of electricity an hour. That's enough to power about 1,000 homes. (AP Photo/The Indianapolis Star, Alan Petersime)

Workers install solar panels on the roof of the Maj. Gen. Emmett J. Bean Federal Center near Indianapolis in 2011. (AP Photo/The Indianapolis Star, Alan Petersime)

Indianapolis is seeing a boom in solar development, with at least three major solar farms in the works, numerous other significant solar projects proposed and a city initiative to create installations on municipal sites.

March 15 was the groundbreaking of a 12 MW solar farm at the Indianapolis International Airport that is slated for completion by end of the year and billed as the largest airport solar farm in the country; meanwhile another 10 MW solar farm at the airport is also planned. A solar farm of up to 9.6 MW is planned at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway.

A 30 MW solar farm planned for the south side of the city, developed by Minnesota-based Sunrise Energy Ventures LLC, is expected to begin construction this summer and be operating by 2014, as the largest such farm in the Midwest. And the city has a program underway to lease space on the rooftops and grounds of public buildings to solar developers for 10-year contracts, after which point the city might buy the solar panels.

The airport installations are among numerous proposed and in-the-works projects aided by a voluntary feed-in tariff (VFIT) that  Indianapolis Power and Light Company (IPL) launched in March 2010, offering to pay above-market rates to producers of solar energy.

But solar advocates fear the nascent boom could be stalled in its tracks, since the VFIT was a three-year pilot program that expired at the end of March. Clean energy backers are asking IPL to renew the VFIT and also to allow projects on a “waiting list” that were not approved during the program timeline to replace any approved projects that don’t end up happening.

How the program works

The VFIT is a program known as Rate REP that pays IPL customers from 6 to 24 cents a kilowatt hour for energy they generate from wind, solar or biomass, with the rate depending on the type of energy and amount of generation. Solar projects greater than 100 kw get paid 20 cents per kilowatt hour for their power, and smaller projects get 24 cents per kilowatt hour, for 15-year contracts.

Such feed-in tariffs – where the non-utility producers of clean energy are paid above market electricity rates for the power they generate – have been considered crucial to the proliferation of distributed renewable energy generation in Germany and other places.

The policies can benefit utilities by helping them to avoid the cost of building new generating facilities and, in the case of solar, offset peak summer demand.

IPL had committed to offer the VFIT for solar projects equivalent to 1 percent of its customer load, meaning up to 153,000 MW hours or about 100 MW of installed capacity. Participating projects had to get approval from the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission by the end of March.

IPL spokesperson Brandi Davis-Handy said a total of 30 projects are planned that will add up to “nearly 100 MW.” She said nine of the projects are currently operating, and the 12 MW airport farm – developed by Telamon and Johnson Melloh Solutions — is underway.

“If you add in the  99.1 MW of projects operating or in the near-term pipeline plus another 350 kW of customer-owned wind and solar generation, IPL believes that if all of the projects are constructed as planned, there will be more solar PV capacity in the Indianapolis area than in the rest of the Midwest combined,” Davis-Handy said.

More projects in the pipeline

Some local experts, however, fear it is unlikely that the full 100 MW will be realized, since projects that were approved could fall by the wayside because of finances, zoning problems or other obstacles.

Laura Arnold is president of the Indiana Distributed Energy Alliance, a group that promotes distributed generation and clean energy statewide. Arnold said the group is trying to ascertain the likelihood that each project on the VFIT docket will actually come to fruition.

In early April, the group launched a petition drive on its website calling on IPL to let “waiting list” projects take advantage of the VFIT if others fall through.

“Now we’re trying to talk to all the customers who have a contract to get a sense of their willingness” to proceed, she said. “If they have to drop out, would they be willing to let another project on the list move forward? What we’re trying to do is determine people’s interest and willingness to do that, and then make an appeal to IPL. It’s a very limited way to extend the program.”

A February 26 list from IPL shows 31 projects that would add up to the 153,000 MWh cap of the Rate REP program. The projects were submitted through Sept. 6, 2012. The list also includes more than 40 projects submitted for approval by the utility commission between Sept. 10 and Oct. 1, 2012 that didn’t make it into the Rate REP program since the cap was met.

The projects on this “waiting list” are not identified by name, but they include proposals for installations at the Indianapolis Zoo, a high school and other non-profit institutions. If a project is not part of Rate REP it could still potentially sell electricity from solar panels back to IPL through net metering. But depending on the situation this would be less financially viable or even impossible for some that could have benefited from Rate REP, Arnold explained.

“IPL has issued all these press releases about as a result of this program having the largest amount of solar PV of any utility in the Midwest,” said Arnold. “That’s true if all these projects actually get done. Our question to IPL is, ‘Is there a firm commitment to the community to actually bring online that much solar PV?’”

Davis-Handy said that IPL considers the pilot VFIT program a success, but the utility does not currently have plans to extend or expand it.

“There are no immediate plans to renew the program at this time,” she said. “IPL is focused on working through any issues that may arise with the current set of projects regarding construction, interconnection, power quality impacts and system operating experience with a number of relatively large projects connected to our distribution system.”

She said that projects that did not get utility commission approval by the end of March cannot join the VFIT program.

“At this point, no projects have fallen through,” she added.

Sunrise perseveres

The crafting and adoption of the VFIT program was a messy process, with much back and forth about the rates, length of contracts and whether projects had to offset existing customer load.

Ultimately, the program mandated participants had to be IPL customers who would also buy electricity from the utility. Then the utility commission ordered IPL to meet a third of their proposed 100 MW of solar by accepting bids from developers who were not IPL customers, offering to produce solar energy for the lowest possible rate.

Sunrise Energy Ventures won the contracts for that entire amount, with three 10 MW projects which will be paid 8.9, 9.9 and 10.9 cents per kilowatt hour for their electricity for 15-year contracts. About a third of the $56 million construction cost of these projects will be covered by federal tax credits.

Sunrise’s proposal was approved by the utility commission in March, and the project obtained necessary zoning variances on April 2. The solar farm, which will cover almost 300 acres, is right next to residential neighborhoods. It has drawn some vocal opposition from locals concerned about issues including reflectivity and humming noises from the panels, rain drainage and possible impact on property values and future development.

Sunrise managing director Dean Leischow said the company has made various modifications to its plans after discussions with local residents, including increased visual screening of the project.

“If reflectivity was a real issue they would not allow them anywhere near airports, which we all know have embraced solar around the country,” Leischow added.

The future of solar in Indianapolis

Leischow said he thinks both the Indianapolis mayor’s office and IPL have been supportive of solar, and he thinks his company’s project – like the airport solar farm – will be a “keystone” for renewable energy.

“Not only will it be the largest of its kind in Indiana, it is at a cost that is very closely competitive with incremental energy from other sources available, and it is 100 percent clean,” he said.

Arnold said she is encouraged by the fact that Sunrise is willing to develop its project at the relatively low rates it will be paid by IPL.

“We’re very excited this kind of project at those kind of prices is being proposed,” Arnold said. “Anyone, if you give them a high enough price, will build something”; but commitment to a project at low rates can be seen as a vote of confidence in solar power.

Leischow said that while he thinks Indiana officials were on the right track with the VFIT, regulatory and political support needs to continue to keep the momentum going.

“If the state of Indiana is serious in continuing this effort, which we believe it is, then they will need to continue to provide a platform whereby renewable efforts are provided with a similar ability to recoup their investments as firms such as IPL are,” he said, referring to the fact that IPL can recoup costs for its power investments from customers.

Jesse Kharbanda, executive director of the Hoosier Environmental Council, said that both major solar farms could have ripple effects in promoting support for solar power.

“These are fantastic opportunities for the general public to become more aware of the technology,” he said. “It helps dispel the notion that solar can’t be commercial in size in Indiana. Solar is still a relatively new resource; in many people’s minds it’s a modest rooftop installation whereas this is literally a farm.

“It’s a powerful illustration that solar can eventually displace more and more fossil fuels.”

Copyright 2013 IndianaDG