Author Archives Laura Arnold

ThinkProgress: FERC Order 1000: The most Exciting Energy Regulation You’ve Never Heard of; Issue Is/Was in SB 560

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

Dear IndianaDG Readers:

I know that the issue of competition in electric utility transmission isn't the sexiest topic out there. But with SB 560 introduced during the 2013 session of the Indiana General Assembly by Indiana State Senator Brandt Hershman (R-Buck Creek), this issue has hit Washington Street here in Indianapolis at the State House.

There is not a consensus among even the electric utility players here in Indiana on this topic. That's why Sen. Hershman has filed an amendment which most likely will be adopted to SB 560 that will remove language from his bill addressing this controversial topic. The rumor is though that after the language is removed from SB 560 it will be inserted into a Vehicle Bill. What do you ask is a Vehicle Bill? These are bills introduced to serve as placeholders during the state legislative process. They are introduced with "no content" and are parceled out later to address issues that pop up after the bill filing deadline.

Please understand that this issue is complicated and complex. I just think the article posted below helps to explain why it is important to renewable energy development.

SB 560 is on the Senate Second Reading Calendar today so the onerous language may be stripped out this afternoon to reappear somewhere else.

Watch this blog for details as the story unfolds. Please contact me at Laura.Arnold@IndianaDG.net if you have an interest in this issue.

Laura Ann Arnold

FERC Order 1000: The Most Exciting Energy Regulation You’ve Never Heard Of

By Climate Guest Blogger  on Oct 22, 2012 at 11:30 am

by Adam James and Whitney Allen

What does ultra-rich timeshare mogul David Siegel have in common with transmission lines?

Both have had trouble with planning.

While we’ll admit that revamping the transmission planning process for the electrical system won’t grab as many headlines as building a 90,000 square foot, 13 bedroom, 23 bathroom home, we do guarantee that it will have a much bigger impact on the majority of Americans.

We know that last week’s announcement from FERC that it will begin enforcement of Order 1000 isn’t a natural-born attention-getter, but read on: because if you care about clean energy this is actually really important.

Turbocharging Renewable Development

So what is Order 1000? Last year, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued a Final Rule to reform the “electric transmission planning and cost allocation requirements for public utility transmission providers.”  This ruling is set to, as Bloomberg put it, “turbocharge the biggest transformation of the U.S. electricity market in decades, with far-reaching consequences for the economy, consumers, utilities and investors.” Let’s dig into the fundamental transformation which is being turbocharged here, and why we should care.

Well first, as a starting point: new transmission lines are a catalyst for clean energy development.

Historically, the gap between where energy is available and where it is needed has been pretty easy to overcome, because fossil-fuel burning plants can be placed almost anywhere and then scaled according to the needs of local cities and communities. Transmission is crucial to link the grid together, but isn’t as crucial for developing carbon intensive resources.

However, as we move into an age where the environmental consequences of fossil fuel reliance are untenable, society must move towards alternative energies if we want to maintain a liveable planet. The trouble is that the areas optimal for developing renewable resources sometimes do not match with population centers, and that a much wider dispersal of renewables is needed to ensure reliability. So transmission lines are necessary to meet the energy where it’s at, carry it to where it is needed, and link it into the larger grid.

Changing the Thinking of Planning

The stumbling block has been over who is going to pay for the lines. States that have a heavy reliance on incumbent, centralized fossil fuels are not going to pay for transmission lines to bring renewables across state boundaries, because they have no economic incentive to do so. This insular state-centric approach to energy management disproportionately hurts renewable energies since they are more widely dispersed.

So the importance of Order 1000 is that it changes the planning and valuation process for transmission lines. To use FERC’s language:

“Local and regional transmission planning processes must consider transmission needs driven by public policy requirements established by state or federal laws or regulations.  Each public utility transmission provider must establish procedures to identify transmission needs driven by public policy requirements and evaluate proposed solutions to those transmission needs.”

Whereas the planning process used to only have to consider reliability and efficiency, it now also must consider state and federal laws.

Enter Renewable Portfolio Standards, which are state laws that mandate a certain percentage of electricity must come from renewable energy sources. Every region has at least one state RPS to consider, and some have several. This means that their transmission planning process must now consider (and value) lines that get enough renewables online to meet state targets. In short, regions will have to work together to get more renewables online — and fast.

Piecing Together the Clean Energy Puzzle

By building off Order 890, which required transmission providers to organize into different regions, Order 1000 represents another huge step in the right direction. The enforcement of this rule will ensure that our electrical grid moves forward in a way that is conducive to building a clean economy from the ground up, spurring economic development and creating jobs along the way. By increasing the amount of renewables in the electrical grid, systems operators will get more experience with balancing renewable resources — and by increasing the distribution of renewables across the country, we can decrease their variability.

What are the implications? Look no further than the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s report on integrating 80 percent renewable electricity. New, smart transmission plays a big role in getting us there: meeting a target of 80 percent renewables would require 110-190 million miles of new transmission and 47-80,000 miles of new intertie capacity across the three interconnections. The cost of building this new transmission, as we have argued before, is well within the average U.S. expenditures for transmission over the last 13 years. The difference is how the lines are planned and placed. In this 80 percent scenario, transmission use would increase by 8 percent (from 32 to 40 percent) to maintain reliability across the national grid, and carbon emissions would decline 80 percent.

The climate threat is very real, and with electricity generation composing a whopping 40 percent of total U.S. emissions, every step this country takes towards a clean energy future makes a difference. FERC Order 1000 is one way to help us get there.

Adam James is a Special Assistant for Energy Policy at the Center for American Progress. Whitney Allen is an intern on the energy policy team at the Center for American Progress.

Bloomberg: U.S. Solar Will Eclipse Wind in 2013, Says Duke Energy Renewables

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

By Ehren Goossens - Feb 5, 2013 10:48 AM ET

The U.S. will install more solar power in 2013 than wind energy for the first time as wind projects slump and cheap panels spur demand for photovoltaic systems, according to the head of Duke Energy Corp. (DUK)’s renewable-energy development unit.

The U.S. may install 3 gigawatts to 4 gigawatts of wind turbines this year, and solar installations will probably exceed that, said Gregory Wolf, president of Duke Energy Renewables.

U.S. wind projects have come to a near-standstill this year after the scheduled Dec. 31 expiration of a federal tax credit. Wolf anticipates more solar projects going into operation in 2013 than wind farms after panel prices fell more than 60 percent in the last two years.

“I would expect a lot of momentum still on solar,” Wolf said in an interview yesterday.

“We really ramped up our solar in 2010,” said Wolf.“Today most of the projects are half or less of the cost now than then.” Duke Renewables’ portfolio of renewable-energy projects exceeds 1.7 gigawatts.

The production tax credit, which provides 2.2 cents a kilowatt-hour for electricity from wind farms, was extended for a year on Jan. 1. Uncertainty over its fate spurred developers to race to complete wind farms by the end of last year and to not plan new ones. U.S. wind installations reached an estimated 11.8 gigawatts in 2012, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

The U.S. installed about 3.2 gigawatts of solar power last year and may reach 3.9 gigawatts this year, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Cheap panels and lower construction costs have been aided by policy support that “has been a little more consistent and long-term,” Wolf said.

‘Green Halo’

Duke invested more than its $500 million target in renewable energy last year, and more than $2.5 billion to date, Wolf said.

“We’re not in this business just because we want a green halo for Duke,” he said.

The largest U.S. utility owner by market value enters into long-term power purchase agreements for wind and solar plants that have “an attractive profile in terms of risk and returns,” Wolf said. “If we find really good projects, we’ll see if we can find a way to make them work.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Ehren Goossens in New York at egoossens1@bloomberg.net

Original article: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-05/u-s-solar-will-eclipse-wind-in-2013-says-duke-energy.html

IndianaDG Joins Coalition to Support Protecting Hoosier Ratepayers from Financial Risk from Coal Gasification

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   February 06, 2013  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

For more details on SB 510 and how to watch on-line see http://wp.me/p37Lx8-13C

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

February 6, 2013

Contact: Kerwin Olson, Citizens Action Coalition 317-702-0461

Andy Bean, Sierra Club 317-222-1189
Shane Levy, Sierra Club 415-977-5724

Indiana Public Interest Groups Announce Support for Legislation to Protect Hoosiers from Gas Rate Hikes

AARP, Sierra Club, Citizens Action Coalition and Others Applaud General Assembly for Considering Legislation

INDIANAPOLIS – Today, a broad coalition of groups joined together to urge Indiana lawmakers to protect ratepayers from the huge financial risk associated with the proposed Leucadia coal gasification plant.  Groups including the Sierra Club, Citizens Action Coalition (CAC), AARP, the Indiana Community Action Association (INCAA), the Indiana Coalition for Human Services, Valley Watch, Spencer County Citizens for Quality of Life and others called on the General Assembly to either repeal or significantly alter the current financing agreement with developer Leucadia Corp. that places most of the project’s financial risk on the backs of Indiana ratepayers. The Senate announced on Tuesday that it will conduct a hearing on Senate Bill (SB) 510 at 8:30am Thursday morning.

“Leucadia’s coal gasification project in Rockport is a bad deal for Hoosier ratepayers and families,” said Kerwin Olson, Executive Director of Citizens Action Coalition. “Hoosier ratepayers shouldn’t have to bail out a dirty, expensive plant and take on the lion’s share of the financial risk while an out-of-state hedge fund rakes in massive profits. The General Assembly should act to ensure that Indiana’s residential, commercial, and smaller industrial gas customers are not stuck with such a raw, risky deal.”

"Many older Hoosiers are already under enormous financial stress.  They spend a disproportionate share of their income on health care and utility costs," stated June Lyle, State Director for AARP.  "They should not be further burdened by a deal that will require them to pay above-market rates for natural gas.”

In 2010, the Indiana Finance Authority, acting on the state’s behalf, signed a 30-year contract with Leucadia Corp. – an out-of-state Wall Street hedge fund – that places virtually all of the financial risk for the untested coal gasification technology on the backs of Hoosier families and ratepayers. In 2011, the Utility Regulatory Commission approved the contract by discounting the risk to ratepayers resulting from the huge differences between the projected market price for natural gas and the formula price for the project’s synthetic gas.  However, in 2012, the Indiana Court of Appeals invalidated the original contract.  As a result, the legislature is currently considering Senate Bill 510 and House Bill 1515, which would require significant ratepayer protections in any new agreement.

"At our agencies, we witness on a daily basis the struggles low-income ratepayers face in keeping up with the rising cost of living, including their utility bills, which are rising at a rapid pace," said Ed Gerardot, Executive Director of INCAA. "SB510 promises to deliver some protection and relief to vulnerable Hoosiers in mitigating these increasing costs of energy."

"If the proposed coal to synthetic gas plant can't be stopped, Spencer County will have another industrial facility adding its toxic waste to the air, soil and water.  We support SB 510, which would change the language of the contract between the state and Leucadia Corp. This bill will protect residential natural gas users from the high cost of the synthetic gas in a more realistic time frame,” said Chuck & Janet Botsko, local residents of Rockport who would be directly threatened by the pollution from the coal gasification project.

“We applaud the General Assembly for recognizing the severe consequences of this deal and conducting the first hearings on the legislation,” said Steve Francis, Chair of the Hoosier Chapter of the Sierra Club. “Still, more needs to be done. The General Assembly should act to move the bills forward to the floor, and then protect families across the state by voting them into law.”

Other groups calling for the General Assembly to act to protect Hoosier ratepayers include the League of Women Voters, Indiana Distributed Energy Alliance, and Save The Valley.

The Citizens Action Coalition is a non-profit organizational member of Indiana Distributed Energy Alliance.

 

Journal-Courier: What’s next for Indiana’s BioTown USA? IndianaDG asks what should we do now to help?

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   February 06, 2013  /   Posted in Feed-in Tariffs (FiT), Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO), Uncategorized  /   No Comments
Written by    Hayleigh Colombo,

Feb. 04, 2013,

jconline.com

What's next for BioTown USA? After fading out of national spotlight, town makes some renewable energy inroads

LAF N Biotown Redux

LAF N Biotown Redux
Purchase Image Zoom

IN PHOTOS: BioTown never really materialized, even with the installation of an E-85 fuel pump and anaerobic digester. / J&C photos by Brent Drinkut, file

On this wintry afternoon between lunch and dinner, the USA Family Restaurant is quiet except for a table in the back where seven local residents sit, drinking coffee, trading good-natured insults and discussing the day’s news.

Topping the agenda — a Minnesota company’s plans to invest up to $350 million in an iron ore pellet plant in Reynolds that will create 120 jobs.

Not bad for a tiny crossroads town boasting one stoplight, one gas station, 533 residents and 150,000 pigs. But if grand plans stir a little cautious déja vu these days in Reynolds, it’s perhaps understandable.

Nearly eight years earlier, Indiana’s newly inaugurated governor, Mitch Daniels, dropped by with another big plan — to make Reynolds energy independent, using corn, soybeans, manure and other renewable sources. Reynolds would become known as BioTown USA, Daniels predicted.

Today, “BioTown” is as dependent on the energy grid as ever. The iron ore pellet plant, when built, will make it even more so. Yet, although BioTown, as such, never materialized, inroads have been made in the use of renewable energy.

On a windy stretch of land just outside town, a farmer’s privately owned anaerobic digester turns hog waste and other organic material into electricity — enough to supply most of the town’s needs, although it’s not sold directly to the town.

As with any experiment, some things were learned even though BioTown didn’t live up to its name. And residents haven’t forgotten the experience that placed the town in a national spotlight.

“There’s some good things that have happened here,” says Cindy Campbell, a longtime Reynolds resident. “But we’re on a slow track to embracing alternative energy. The idea that we would be a hub of it or a symbol, I think that’s gone.”

• Read the entire package in our BioTown USA special section.

'Mind-blowing experience'

Back at USA Family Restaurant, Daniels’ visit to Reynolds in 2005 brings back vivid memories.

“How do you describe a time like that?” longtime resident Rick Buschman says. “It was full of hope, promise and everything else. It all just seemed so surreal. It was a mind-blowing experience.”

To be sure, the spark ignited by Daniels’ vision for Reynolds spread far beyond White County. The story of Reynolds’ planned transformation was told near and far as national news media, including CBS and The New York Times, picked up the story.

In 2006, BioTown hype reached fever pitch as a concert tour bus carrying members of Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young made a detour in Reynolds to refuel with soybean-based biodiesel. A special truck was summoned because plans to install a biodiesel pump hadn’t yet materialized.

David Crosby gave a plug for BioTown’s promise, and Graham Nash, while waiting for his meal to arrive at USA Family Restaurant, said, “Someone has to lead us out of this dark hole of dependence on foreign oil ... and it might as well be you.”

From Daniels to Crosby and Nash to The New York Times, Reynolds embraced its celebrity status while it lasted.

“There was so much promise about what would happen,” Cindy Campbell reflects. “That in a short amount of time we’d be self-sustaining. ... There’d be changes in things like our infrastructure, the maintenance of the town. It’d look more vibrant and beautiful. They were promising things we wouldn’t be able to achieve any other way.”

One by one, the elements needed to make the dream happen either failed to materialize, or materialized and then failed. Buschman views BioTown as a great concept that never got its chance.

“All of the processes that needed to come together couldn’t come together,” he says, his knuckles whitening a bit around his coffee cup. “It was a valiant effort.”

What went wrong

The original plan for BioTown was one piece of a 20-year strategic plan, developed by Indiana’s then-new Department of Agriculture, to harness agricultural resources for economic development purposes.

Daniels and other state agencies saw potential in using corn, soybeans, manure, sewage and other biowaste as renewable sources of energy, not just for corn-based ethanol used in gasoline but for everyday energy needs. Out of Indiana’s myriad small towns, Reynolds was chosen to be the prototype of this potential bioenergy independence.

By the agriculture department’s estimates, Reynolds and the surrounding agricultural countryside produced 74 times more energy than the town consumed in 2005, making it a prime test ground for an anaerobic digester, greenhouse and other projects.

The state’s BioTown plan, however, did not include money to make it happen. Rather, Daniels and others figured private investors would see the value in the project and put their money on the line.

Initial interest was promising.

General Motors Corp. in late 2005 agreed to provide 20 town residents, chosen by lottery, with flex-fuel vehicles at no charge for two years. Flex-fuel vehicles run on gasoline or on E-85, which is 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. Incentives also were offered for flex-fuel vehicle purchases, and eventually more than 150 flex-fuel cars were sold through the BioTown promotion.

The next year, the Reynolds BP gas station installed an E-85 tank and pump .

Though not included in the original BioTown plans, Indianapolis-based Algaewheel Technologies LLC got into the game, providing a $2.7 million algae wheel for the town’s wastewater treatment plant. The device purifies sewage by feeding it to algae that’s harvested and used as biofuel.

But bigger ideas stalled, notably the part where the town would derive its energy from a central anaerobic digester that turns waste, manure and biosolids into electricity. Fertilizer, created as a byproduct, would be applied back to the land.

“It didn’t turn out exactly as envisioned in the beginning,” said John Heimlich, a White County commissioner who was involved with the BioTown concept from its inception.

Rose Energy Discovery Inc.’s plan to build the anaerobic digester fizzled out when it became clear that investors couldn’t fund the project. Next in line to try to develop a digester in Reynolds was Energy Systems Group, a subsidiary of Vectren Corp., which vowed to have its digester running by the end of 2008. That failed, too.

The Journal & Courier was unable to reach Rose Energy or ESG for comment.

At the height of the BioTown excitement, South Dakota-based VeraSun Energy Corp. announced that it would build an ethanol plant just outside Reynolds. Construction started in 2007 but stalled as the U.S. economy slowed, along with demand for ethanol.

The original BioTown plan didn’t call for an ethanol plant, but when VeraSun went bankrupt in 2008, many associated that failure with BioTown.

“The letdown was god-awful,” Buschman recalled.

Momentum slows

Some residents criticize NIPSCO, the investor-owned utility that provides electricity and natural gas to much of northern Indiana, for blocking — not helping — the BioTown project’s chances to succeed. That argument goes something like this: NIPSCO wasn’t pleased with the example Reynolds might set if it indeed went “off the grid.”

NIPSCO disputes that line of reasoning.

“We clearly had an interest at the time based on the discussions we had with everyone involved in the project,” spokesman Nick Meyer said. “But really, we don’t view that project as a failure. We see it as something that has just evolved from its original concept.”

NIPSCO now offers net metering and feed-in tariff programs to residential and business customers — both are growing in popularity — for those who want to sell clean energy generated by alternative sources.

The state’s role in the project — to make deals, search for leads and facilitate conversations — eventually petered out. Along with it went the momentum. Residents said they felt the state lost interest after the deals with Rose Energy and ESG went sour.

Misty Livengood, a spokeswoman for the state’s agriculture department, told the Journal & Courier in an email that there was “no hard cut date” when it came to the state’s involvement in the project.

Daniels, the former governor and current president of Purdue University, is not shy about what happened. The project just fizzled out.

“I’m glad we tried it,” Daniels says. “Some parts of it worked fine, and others didn’t pan out, which is pretty much the story, of course, of a lot of alternative energy to date. We don’t know where it’s going. There’ve been all kinds of failed experiments.”

A national case study

For a while, Reynolds’ BioTown USA concept became a case study for renewable energy’s potential. Government and private researchers followed its development as they tried making sense of the changing energy landscape.

In 2007, Brookings Institute fellow David Sandalow spent time in Reynolds and cited the BioTown project in his 2007 book, “Freedom from Oil: How the Next President Can End the United States’ Oil Addiction.” He’s now the U.S. acting undersecretary of energy, helping oversee the Energy Department’s renewable energy programs.

“Could Reynolds really disconnect from the grid?” Sandalow wrote. “Today, almost two years after the first conversations, Reynolds is on the way to getting all its energy from renewable sources. But it still has a long way to go.”

Degrees of success

The idea that a town, city or community can run solely on renewable energy is not unique. A few communities have attempted it, with varying degrees of success. Feldheim, a small town in Germany near Berlin, installed its own energy grid powered by wind, biogas and other local sources.

Rock Port, Mo., claimed in 2008 to be the first place in the U.S. to produce more renewable energy for its power grid than the town consumes. A town in Australia hopes to join the small list of energy-independent towns.

Despite the failure of the BioTown experiment, renewable energy still is a priority for the state, said Tristan Vance, director of Indiana’s Office of Energy Development.

“There are a number of types of waste or byproducts within the state that can be used to fuel bioenergy,” Vance said. “This includes animal waste or wastewater treatment plants, things that aren’t going away, so we know we will continue to have sources to fuel bioenergy.”

BioTown Ag, a private company owned by Reynolds-area farmer Brian Furrer, is proof of that. Furrer has quietly pursued his own version of BioTown by building an anaerobic digester outside the town. The digester turns manure, orange peels and bright green watermelons into electricity that he sells to NIPSCO, thereby indirectly supplying much of the town’s energy needs.

The BioTown project’s eventual shift into a private, nearby firm’s hands makes it only more powerful as an example for other communities, Connie Neininger says.

“Some of the original investors had to change their path, but I think (BioTown Ag’s undertaking) really has greater opportunity to be replicated,” the former White County economic developer said.

'We need the jobs'

Following the letdown after the BioTown experiment, activity and optimism are picking up again in Reynolds.

One reason is the announcement by Magnetation LLC of Minnesota that it plans to build an iron ore pellet plant in the spot where the VeraSun ethanol plant was to go.

That news, first revealed in November, has re-energized the town.

The company plans to have the plant up and running in late 2014 or early 2015. It will turn iron ore concentrate, mined in Minnesota and shipped by rail, into iron pellets for use in automotive steel production.

It’s a far cry from harvesting bioenergy, but jobs are jobs, Daniels says: “Sure, there’s an irony ... (but) it’s not as though they’re incompatible. We need the jobs, wherever they come from.”

Heimlich, the county commissioner, says it’s almost better than if the VeraSun deal had worked out.

“This is really twice the size of the VeraSun project,” Heimlich said. “Let’s face it, the VeraSun project, while it stalled out in mid-construction, the footprint that was left was what attracted Magnetation, a huge project, to the town of Reynolds.”

Still, distrust in big plans remains in Reynolds.

“There was always a lot of talk, and our hopes were high,” said Ron Benakovich, manager of the Ezra Auto car dealership . “For the most part, it was just because of the excitement.”

Residents are cautiously optimistic about the jolt of activity surrounding Magnetation’s announcement and how it could translate into local prosperity.

Jim Van Voorst, who has lived in the area for six years, is happy to hear about the company’s plans to revitalize the abandoned VeraSun property.

“That property is just sitting there,” Van Voorst said. “It’s disappointing. I guess you could call it being nosy, but I just want to see the community grow. VeraSun had good intentions.

“It’s a lot like BioTown. You never know.”

SB 510 scheduled for hearing on 2/07/13; IndianaDG urges support for SB 510

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   February 05, 2013  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Senate Utilities Committee Hearing Notice

Thursday, February 7, 2013

Agenda for : Utilities February 7, 8:30 AM, Room 233, State House, Indianapolis

Chairman : Merritt

Members : Kruse R.M., Bray, Crider, Leising, Tomes, Yoder, Breaux R.M.M., Randolph, Broden

Hearing : Watch on-line at http://www.in.gov/legislative/2441.htm

SB 0365 Utility facility relocation (Sen. Crider)

SB 0510 Substitute natural gas contracts (Sen. Eckerty) IndianaDG supports.

Digest of SB 510: Substitute natural gas contracts. Defines "guarantee of savings" with respect to retail end use customers of substitute natural gas (SNG). Amends the definition of "purchase contract". Defines "savings shortfall". Requires the Indiana finance authority (IFA) to submit a final purchase contract, including amendments, and any other agreements with a producer of SNG to the utility regulatory commission (IURC). Requires the IFA to determine on a three year cycle if retail end use customers are provided a guarantee of savings or a savings shortfall under a purchase contract. Requires the IFA to electronically submit its findings to the IURC. Requires the IURC to verify and approve the findings and, if there is a savings shortfall, order a producer of SNG to provide a refund.

Summary of Legislation: The bill defines "guarantee of savings" with respect to retail end use customers of substitute natural gas (SNG). It amends the definition of "purchase contract". It defines "savings shortfall”. The bill requires the Indiana Finance Authority (IFA) to submit a final purchase contract, including amendments, and any other agreements with a producer of SNG to the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC). It requires the IFA to determine on a three year cycle if retail end use customers are provided a guarantee of savings or a savings shortfall under a purchase contract. It requires the IFA to electronically submit its findings to the IURC. It requires the IURC to verify and approve the findings and, if there is a savings shortfall, order a producer of SNG to provide a refund.

BACKGROUND: The Indiana Finance Authority (IFA) entered into a purchase contract with the SNG producer in November 2011 under the authority of IC 4-4-11.6. Among other provisions, this contract includes a guarantee of savings clause pursuant to IC 4-4-11.6-7(3). The guarantee of savings clause requires the SNG producer to make a determination of any savings shortfall not later than 30 years after commercial production begins and, upon determining that a shortfall has occurred, make a payment of the shortfall amount to retail end-use customers.

The bill retroactively amends IC 4-4-11.6, effective March 24, 2009, and requires the final purchase contract submitted by the IFA to the IURC to include any amendments, addenda, or other modifications made or added to the contract at any time and any other agreements entered into between the IFA and the SNG producer. The amendments also specify that the purchase contract grant regulated energy utilities the right to enforce the contract as third-party beneficiaries. With respect to the guarantee of savings under the purchase contract, the amendments require the IFA to make a determination every three years whether a guarantee of savings or a savings shortfall has occurred. The amendments specify that a savings shortfall arises when the purchase price for SNG under the purchase contract is greater than the three-year average market price of natural gas during the particular three-year determination period. If a savings shortfall arises, the amendments require the SNG producer to make a payment to retail end-use customers in the amount of the savings shortfall.

The validity of the contract entered into in November 2011 is the subject of pending litigation. This bill may require additional contract negotiations, administrative review, and legal costs. This fiscal impact is contingent on the decisions made in response to the changes in this bill.

Indiana Senate Utilities Committee Members:

Senator Jim Merritt (R-Indianapolis), Chair, s31@in.gov or (317) 232-9533

Senator Dennis Kruse (R-Auburn), R.M., s14@in.gov or (317) 233-0930

Senator Rod Bray (R-Martinsville), s37@in.gov or (317) 232-9466

Senator Mike Crider (R-Greenfield),  s28@in.gov  or (317) 232-9463

Senator Jean Leising (R-Oldenburg), s42@in.gov or (317) 234-9054

Senator Jim Tomes (R-Blairsville), s49@in.gov or (317) 232-9414

Senator Carlin Yoder (R-Goshen), s12@on.gov or (317) 232-9984

Senator Jean Breaux (D-Indianapolis), R.M.M., s34@in.gov or (317) 232-9534

Senator Lonnie Randolph (D-East Chicago), s2@in.gov or (317) 232-9532

Senator John Broden (D-South Bend). s10@in.gov or (317) 232-9423

 

Copyright 2013 IndianaDG