Author Archives Laura Arnold

Ft. Wayne Journal Gazette Editorial: SB 560 is “Oversight end run” of Indiana utility regulatory process

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   February 19, 2013  /   Posted in Edwardsport IGCC Plant, Office of Utility Consumer Counselor (OUCC)  /   No Comments

Dear IndianaDG Readers:

One week ago today (2/14/2013) the Indiana Senate voted on third reading and final passage by 37 to 12 SB 560.

Click Here to see the roll call vote and to find out how your State Senator voted.

The vote was somewhat along party lines with a few notable exceptions as follows:

Republican Sens. Alting (R-Lafayette), Becker (R-Evansville), Smith (R-Charlestown) and Tomes (R-Wadesville) joined 8 Democrat Senators in voting "NO" .

Democratic Sens. Arnold (D- LaPorte), Broden (D-South Bend), Hune (D-Princeton),Skinner (D-Terre Haute) and Tallian (D-Portage) joined 32 Republican Senators in voting "YES" .

Sen. Delph (R-Carmel) was excused from voting.

Keep watching this. This is not over by a long shot.

Laura Ann Arnold

Published: February 19, 2013 3:00 a.m.

Proposed legislation making it quicker and easier for utility companies to get customers to pay for transmission and distribution infrastructure projects is not a step toward efficiency – it’s a step away from proper oversight and consumer protection.

Senate Bill 560, authored by Sen. Brandt Hershman, R-Lafayette, easily passed in that chamber last week and moved to the House for approval. The bill includes multiple components, such as tax incentives for natural gas companies building gas lines in rural areas. The disconcerting element of the bill is that it allows electricity and natural gas utility companies to use cost “trackers” to speed infrastructure projects through the state regulatory review process and add most of the cost for a project to customers’ bills.

Cost trackers are a deregulatory move that allow utility companies to recoup the cost of an infrastructure project – building an electrical substation, upgrading transformers, installing utility lines or poles – from customers before going through a traditional rate increase procedure.

But weakening the regulatory oversight of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission and Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor seems unwise in the wake of the Edwardsport scandal.

Duke Energy’s Edwardsport coal-gasification plant was rife with controversy from the beginning for alleged mismanagement of the project. Then it was discovered that former Indiana Utilities Regulatory Commission attorney Scott Storms was negotiating a job with Duke while handling Duke-related matters before the commission. The ethics breach led former Gov. Mitch Daniels to fire IURC chairman David Lott Hardy.

Traditional rate increase cases can take a long time and cost utilities millions. The extensive process helps protect customers and ensures utilities don’t request rate increases until they can prove a revenue increase is necessary and fair.

If this portion of the bill passes, it would allow an electricity provider to get expedited approval for installing a substation, for example, and get ratepayers to pay for most of the project long before the utility would have to go through the traditional rate increase process.

Proponents of the legislation assert the use of cost trackers will make it easier for utility companies to improve service to customers and address the state’s aging utility infrastructure. And supporters point to the increased use of trackers nationally. There are 18 states that allow natural gas companies to use the tracker process and at least 11 states that allow water utilities to use it.

They believe the bill’s requirement that utilities go through the complete rate increase process within seven years of using trackers will protect customers.

Opponents reasonably think the provision erodes needed regulatory oversight of utilities and forces utility customers to pay for the projects while giving those same customers less ability to contest the project. It allows utility companies to do an end run around the traditional procedure to request a rate increase. By the time the company goes through the full rate case process, the increased rates will likely already be locked in.

Environmental advocates are also concerned it would discourage energy companies from shifting toward renewable energy sources. The bill would make it easier to get power distribution and transmission projects approved, making it less important for companies to find efficiencies.

The new process could also become an impediment to economic development. Indiana economic development leaders have long used the state’s relatively low energy costs as an incentive to attract new businesses. But cost tracker cases always lead to rate increases.

Guest Editorial: Spinning the truth on Leucadia’s Rockport SNG plant in Indiana by Kerwin Olson, CAC

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   February 18, 2013  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Dear IndianaDG Readers:

Please find below a Guest Editorial from Kerwin Olson with Citizens Action coalition about the Indiana Gasification LLC project in Rockport. SB 510 which would remedy the problems with this proposed project is scheduled for a vote in the Senate Utilities Committee on Thursday morning. The most recent video for Indiana Lawmakers also addresses this subject.

FYI, Indiana Lawmakers can now be viewed online: http://www.wfyi.org/indianalawmakers.asp

Laura Ann Arnold

http://www.citact.org/blog/spinning-leucadia

Spinning the truth on Leucadia's Rockport SNG plant

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 14:14

 

by Kerwin Olson

The Indiana Senate Committee on Utilities is prepared to take a vote this week on SB510, the legislation intended to protect captive Hoosier gas ratepayers from the shenanigans of a Park Avenue hedge fund.  So this seemed like an ideal time to discuss some talking points that the folks at Indiana Gasification and Leucadia keep using when promoting the illusory benefits of the proposed Rockport SNG facility, which remains to this day nothing more than a power point presentation.

The first is the idea that somehow this investment will diversify Indiana's energy portfolio. George Orwell would be jealous were he alive to enjoy such crafty penmanship. Only in Indiana would we label the building of new coal-fired power plants as diversification. Not only did Duke Energy succeed in the diversification spin to gain support for their fiasco in Edwardsport, now apparently it's Leucadia's turn to paint the mining, transporting and burning of dirty Indiana coal as something new.  As we've learned throughout the Edwardsport debacle. the only thing new about these synthetic science projects are the exorbitant price tags.

And what's this about a 30 year no-look contract being a great deal because if ratepayers lose on 17% of their bill that's somehow a win because 83% of the bill was low?  I've heard it suggested that overage could amount to upwards of $28/month, so tell that to the senior citizen or disabled veteran on a fixed income making tough and often inhumane choices every day about how to spend each precious dollar and ask them if they feel like they've won when they send that money to Leucadia instead of putting food on the table.  That $28/mo means an awful lot to the single mom working a second job so she can afford day care in order to work the first one.  Statements such as that show just how out of touch the bankers on Wall Street are with real life on Main Street, and is the same line of thinking that led our nation to the brink of financial ruin.

Let's not lose sight of who we're talking about here: ratepayers held captive by State-Franchised monopolies. That's why Indiana Code 8-1-2-42 exists: to protect consumers who have no choice about where to get service from being gouged by a monopoly.  Specifically that law states that the monopoly gas utility cannot charge ratepayers for their gas unless "the gas utility has made every reasonable effort to acquire long term gas supplies so as to provide gas to its retail customers at the lowest gas cost reasonably possible;"  However, thanks to HB1722 in 2007, the Rockport SNG project is exempt from that provision, exposing the 1.7 million Hoosier gas ratepayers to the enormous risk of excessive and unreasonable charges.

Additionally, that law was written in 2007 when the plan was to have the Indiana utilities sign the 30 year no-look back contract with Leucadia, not the State of Indiana.  Understanding that, a complete review of the 2007 legislation could lead one to believe that the exemption from the least cost provision in State law was designed to protect the Indiana monopoly utilities from Leucadia, not to give the Park Avenue hedge fund an end around State law.

Clearly, State lawmakers recognized the inherent risk to the financial solvency of the Indiana utilities and insured them against that danger.  Don't Hoosier consumers deserve the same protection in 2013 that the monopoly utilities received in 2007?

Midwest Energy News: In Indiana, seeking to ramp up wind without state mandates

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   February 14, 2013  /   Posted in Office of Utility Consumer Counselor (OUCC), Voluntary Clean Energy Portfolio Standard Program  /   No Comments

Dear IndianaDG Readers:

Although the Indiana Power of Wind Coalition has not provided the details or specifics yet for the Competitive Procurement of New Electric Power proposal described in the article below, the Coalition did, however, present recommendations to the Regulatory Flexibility Committee last year on this topic.

To get a better idea of what this proposal might look like please see the PowerPoint slides they presented on Sept. 9, 2012, to state lawmakers on the Regulatory Flexibility Committee.

Indiana Power of Wind Coalition_2012-09-06

The presentation includes "Competitive Procurement Lessons Learned in Colorado" by Nicholas G. Muller, founder of the Colorado Independent Energy Association (CIEA).  CIEA members are independent power producers (IPPs).

At that time the Coalition was touting energy procurement programs of Colorado and Michigan. Does anyone have any experience with these programs? Let us know.

Laura Ann Arnold

 

Posted on by

(Photo by Justin Leonard via Creative Commons)

(Photo by Justin Leonard via Creative Commons)

Despite Indiana’s abundant wind resources, renewables provide just 3 percent of the state’s electricity, far less than in other states, and 85 percent of the state’s electricity is generated by burning coal.

Not coincidentally, the conservative state legislature has rejected state renewable energy mandates that have spurred wind development elsewhere in the Midwest.

But a wind-energy coalition thinks they’ve found another way to expand renewable energy in the state, without government mandates.

The Indiana Power of Wind coalition is pushing legislation that would allow wind and natural gas to compete directly with coal on the basis of price when utilities procure new generation. Under the plan, when a utility needs new generation capacity, an independent entity would evaluate all possible sources of new electricity generation, including renewables.

“We want competitive procurement for all forms of energy,” Tony Samuel, a lobbyist for the organization, tells Midwest Energy News. “That speaks to our confidence that wind will be competitive,” he added.

Getting a foot in the door

For years, renewable energy advocates have argued for a state renewable energy standard in Indiana, to no avail. In 2011, legislators passed and Gov. Mitch Daniels signed a bill establishing a voluntary goal of 10 percent renewables by 2025.

But in the year since the law went into effect, none of the state’s utilities have signed up to participate, said Shannelle Montana of EDF Renewable Energy, a San Diego-based multinational wind and solar developer.

Indiana state law makes it easy for the utilities to request new generation, then fulfill those requests themselves by building or expanding coal-fired power plants.

“What we’re seeing is that utilities are specifying they want coal or natural gas [for new generation],” Montana said. “Or, they’re saying we want very traditional baseload structure, which for most companies means coal.”

This excludes newer ways of providing baseload power, including using a hybrid of new natural gas generation and wind, or using wind hedged with buys from the grid, Montana said.

The law also grants those utilities a healthy profit margin on both capital expenses for a new power plant and fuel costs, with that profit paid by the state’s ratepayers, said Kerwin Olson, executive director of the Citizens Action Coalition, an Indianapolis-based ratepayer and environmental advocacy group.

“The more they spend, the more they make,” Olson said.

Meanwhile, the state’s electricity costs have risen as the financial risks associated with burning coal have increased. In 2003, Indiana’s electricity costs were fifth lowest in the nation. In 2012, they were 23rd lowest. At the same time, wind’s costs are becoming increasingly competitive with fossil fuels.

Legislators around the state knew that new wind farms and wind-turbine manufacturing means economic development for rural areas that are hungry for good jobs, Montana said.

“We got a lot of feedback from legislators,” Montana said. “They said, ‘We want wind. We want the business, we want the megawatts, we want the income for farmers.’ They were positive about wind. But they just didn’t want the [mandatory] renewable energy standards,” she said.

“We knew Indiana was not a state that latches onto things that are mandated,” Montana said. “We know that the traditional models—the RES or RPS—were just not going to apply there. So we started thinking outside the box.”

Crafted for conservatives

Under the plan promoted by the wind developers, the state would establish a new, independent administrator in charge of procuring new generation. Rather than serving as judge, jury and executioner, the utilities would forward their requests for new generation to the administrator.

The administrator would then look at the utility’s need and issue a request for proposals (RFP). That RFP would weigh pricing, fuel price volatility, reliability, and economic development to local communities, as well as other factors, such as the background and experience of potential vendors, Montana said.

In addition, both utilities and wind developers would be bound by the prices they put forward, Montana said.

Currently, when utilities building a new power plant in the state incur overruns, they can go back to the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission and ask them to approve a rate increase. For several years, for example, Duke Energy has been pushing for more than $2.5 billion from ratepayers to pay for cost overruns at the new coal-fired power plant it’s building in Edwardsport, Indiana.

Renewable energy developers in Indiana have no such fallback. “We can’t go back to the IURC and say, oops, we overran that cost,” Montana said.

Under the new legislation, “they’re stuck with whatever price they bid, and we’re stuck with whatever price we bid,” Montana said.

However, whoever builds the new generation would get a guaranteed rate of recovery to cover the capital costs of building the power plant or wind farm. They’d get that revenue whether they built a coal-fired power plant or whether they bought and operated a wind farm.

Under current Indiana law, utilities actually have a disincentive to buy and operate a wind farm because they would not receive a guaranteed rate of recovery for their capital expenditures. This provision is another tactic that would help wind energy compete in the state, Montana explained.

“More than anything else, this [legislation] would allow wind to compete with natural gas and coal on its price,” she said.

Political prospects

To make the plan more palatable for legislators who prefer a lean state government, the new administrator for procurement would be a third-party contractor, rather than a new government official. The winning bidder would pay for the administrator and other costs of procurement.

But the biggest selling point for the wind companies, Montana said, is price. Electricity prices in Indiana “have been going up significantly. This will drive rates down because we’re going to have to compete with each other based solely or mostly on price.”

For that reason, the wind industry group is seeking the support of the state’s ratepayer consumer advocacy agency, the Office of Utility Consumer Counselor; as well as the Indiana Utility Regulatory Council and a coalition of large industrial consumers of electricity. They’re also seeking the support of the utilities, key legislators, and Gov. Mike Pence.

The state’s environmental groups have been peripheral to this legislation, but they are natural allies in that they want more clean energy, Montana said.

How much support the proposal will get remains an open question.

During the current legislative session, the utilities are pushing Indiana Senate bill 560, which Olson calls a “Christmas-tree” bill that has all sorts of provisions that the utilities favor. The wind-industry group may or may not lobby a legislator to amend that bill, Samuels said.

Overall the wind group’s legislative strategy remains fluid and flexible, and discussions with all the major players are ongoing, he said.

For legislators who want economic development and believe in free-market economics, Montana maintained, “it’s a hard bill to vote against.”

Recent Studies Demonstrate Net Metering Benefit for Ratepayers in CA, NY, VT and TX; Are you listening Indiana?

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   February 12, 2013  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Dear IndianaDG Readers:

Are you or your customers and clients still experiencing problems with Net Metering? If you are IndianaDG wants to know about it. Whether you are experiencing problems with an REMC, municipal electric utility or an investor-owned utility we want to know. Many electric utility customers want expanded net metering to address aggregate net metering, virtual net metering or community energy systems or third party financing. Many others in rural parts of Indiana just want true net metering rather than net billing.

Progress on these issues can seem and is often slow but change is possible if we work together. The first step is for you to tell me your story and then see if we can develop and implement a game plan. Email me at Laura.Arnold@indianaDG.net to schedule a time we can talk.

Laura Ann Arnold

By Andrew Savage January 21, 2013   |  4 Comments

The body of evidence that demonstrates the benefits of solar net metering to retail electric customers continues to grow.

From California and Texas to New York and now Vermont, there is a growing stack of reports that make the financial case for greater deployment of distributed solar generation and net metering.

On the same day that a Vote Solar Initiative report was released, which found that in California solar net metering provides over $92 million in annual benefits to ratepayers, a newly published Vermont report echoed the same growing body of evidence that documents the benefits of solar net metering.

A recent report on New York found that solar PV delivers between a 15-cent and 40-cent benefit to ratepayers and taxpayers.  Another report from Texas by the analysts at the The Brattle Group found that the total customer benefits of adding solar capacity in the Lone Star State was valued at more than $520 million.

The Vermont legislature charged the report author, the Vermont Department of Public Service, with determining if there is a cross-subsidization with net metering and other retail customers and to examine any benefits or cost of net metering systems to the distribution and transmission system. The report found that solar net metering is a net-positive for the state — a 4-kW PV fixed system provides a 4.3-cent net societal benefit per kWh generated, and a 4-kW 2-axis PV system provides a net 3.3-cent benefit.  A similar conclusion was made for 100kW net metered PV systems.  The report addresses the specific ratepayer benefit as well as the statewide, societal benefit.

This conclusion comes even with Vermont’s statewide solar incentive program factored in, which provides an average 20-cent per kilowatt hour value of solar, or an average solar incentive across the state of 5.3 cents above residential retail electric rates.

The report outlines the calculable benefits of solar net metering, primarily:

  • Avoided energy costs, including costs of line loses, capacity costs, and avoided internalized greenhouse gas emission costs
  • Avoided regional transmission costs
  • Avoided in-state transmission and distribution costs
  • Solar’s coincidence with times of peak demand and market price suppression

An additional benefit explicitly not covered in the study is the economic multiplier associated with the local investment and job creation created from the local manufacturing and installation of net metering systems.  The report also didn’t cover the statewide benefit of retaining more dollars locally.

Net metering in Vermont has grown by a factor of four since 2008, with solar accounting for 88 percent of all net metering systems.  According to the report, most of these systems, or 59 percent, are less than 5kW, and 85 percent are under 10kW.  (Vermont recently passed a efficient, first-in-the-nation solar registration program for permitting solar systems 10kW and below.)  Even with the growth of net metering in the state, net metering systems still produce less than 1 percent of the 35 GWh of power Vermont uses each year.

Andrew Savage is on the management team of AllEarth Renewables, the Vermont manufacturer of the dual-axis AllSun Tracker.

Vote Solar: New Study Shows Net Metering Is Financial Benefit, Not Burden, to Ratepayers; Indiana REMC’s don’t agree

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   February 11, 2013  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Dear IndianaDG Readers:

New studies have been released demonstrating that there is a financial benefit to ratepayers from net metering. Our friends with rural electric co-ops or REMC's here in Indiana still dispute net metering's benefits.

See this front page Newsletter article from the Wabash County REMC Newsletter from Sept. 2011 entitled, "Net metering vs. net billing; When you might have to pay part of your neighbors bill" by Rob Pearson. WABASHSEPT2011 pdf0

This article from Vote Solar is the first of a series of blog posts we will be running on the benefits of net metering.

If you are experiencing difficulties with your local REMC about getting "true" net metering, please contact me at Laura.Arnold@IndianaDG.net.

Better yet, if you support renewable energy and distributed generation and you are an REMC customer please consider running for your local REMC Board of Directors and working from he inside to turn this thinking around.

Laura Ann Arnold

By Adam Browning, Vote Solar January 16, 2013   |  13 Comments

WASHINGTON D.C. -- For years, we've been making the case that in addition to the environmental benefits, solar also adds value to the grid. How much value?  This week, we released a commissioned report to look at both the costs and benefits of net metering in California.

The study was done by Tom Beach of Crossborder Energy, who used actual data from 10,000 solar systems and analytic models from the CPUC.  The report found that when California reaches its current net metering cap of 5% of non-coincident peak load (at about 5.2 GW of solar), the benefits of net-metered projects will exceed the costs by about $92 million annually, across the three large investor-owned utility territories in the state.  That’s a great deal for ratepayers, and good news for the planet.

Take a look.  Here it is, in all its wonky glory (along with a snazzy summary fact sheet): Evaluating the Benefits and Costs of Net Energy Metering in California, Crossborder Energy, January 2013
If you want to learn more, we are hosting a webinar today, Wednesday, to discuss the methodology and results.  Register here (we’ll also post a recording after it is done).

We are releasing this report during a time when we are seeing increasing pushback from utilities around customer-owned solar.  It’s our hope that by doing so, we can contribute to a fact-based discussion on the value of solar to the state.

A couple of other thoughts on the subject:

First, we note that investor-owned utilities in the state are given a monopoly in return for serving the public good.  Every utility in the state is making a profit off that monopoly.  Yet, despite progress, not a single one has a procurement plan sufficient to deal with climate change.  In this context, we believe that if a customer wants to use their own money to install a 100% renewable power system, utilities should be doing all they can to help, not hinder.

We’d also  like to note that utilities have fought every other way for an owner of a rooftop solar system to get fair value for the power that it generates.  Feed-in tariffs?  Fought bitterly.  How about payment for any excess generation from net metered systems? In 2009, the CA legislature passed a law (AB 920 — pdf) requiring utilities to pay “just and reasonable compensation for the value of net surplus electricity” from net metered systems that produce more than the owners load over a year.  Utilities’ idea of ‘just and reasonable’? According to them, it’s day ahead market prices for brown power.  We fought it, but they won — net surplus generation gets compensated at around 4 cents per kWh.  For emission-free, climate-change-fighting, on-peak power delivered inside of distribution networks, right at load.  That doesn’t seem like fair value to us.

So not only are the utilities attacking net metering, but they have also systematically closed all other avenues.  Some call net metering ‘rough justice.’  We say rough justice is better than no justice at all.

This article was originally published on the Vote Solar Blog and was republished with permission.

Copyright 2013 IndianaDG