IndianaDG

Tampa Bay Times Business Columnist Trigaux: If you’re not mad at Duke Energy, you’re not paying attention

Posted by Laura Arnold / November 29, 2014 / Posted in Uncategorized / No Comments

Trigaux: If you're not mad at Duke Energy, you're not paying attention

Robert TrigauxRobert Trigaux, Times Business Columnist
Friday, November 28, 2014 11:02am

If Duke Energy keeps up its remarkably self serving agenda, the company should update its corporate slogan. Here's a suggestion.

Duke Energy: Me First, Customers Last.

In 2014, Duke's delivered little but calamity, especially in Florida, where customers serve as company punching bags. But even in its home state of North Carolina, Duke fumbled. Now it's busy downplaying a horrible environmental spill of its own making. A toxic sludge of 39,000 tons of arsenic-laced coal ash and 27,000 gallons of contaminated water now coats nearly 70 miles of the once scenic Dan River.

In Florida, Duke's relentless series of self-serving decisions imposed on its 1.7 million rate-paying customers surely belongs in the Guinness Book of Business Bullying.

Let's go no deeper in this column without a Bronx cheer for the rubber-stamping Florida Public Service Commission. The PSC's willingness to serve as Duke's lackey, doormat and minion — three roles at one price! — has not only devastated Floridians who must buy their high-priced electricity from this monopoly utility. In addition, PSC policy decisions made at the behest of Duke and other big power companies in this state routinely undermined the struggling alternative energy industry and state energy conservation efforts.

"It's hard to believe that in this age of technological innovation, Florida's utilities are acting like it's the 1950s," David Guest, managing attorney for the Florida office of Earthjustice, a national nonprofit law firm, wrote this month in a commentary appearing in multiple newspapers across the state.

Guest is on the right track but wrong on the timing. It's not the 1950s. It's the 1250s, and Floridians are little more than serfs.

Credit Susan Glickman of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy and the organizer of last month's "Pitchfork Protest" held outside Duke Energy Florida's headquarters in St. Petersburg for what deserves to be the rallying cry of 2014.

"If you're not mad, you're not paying attention."

For those who napped as power companies picked their wallet this year — and will do so again in the coming years — rise and shine:

• Several days ago, the PSC voted — in keeping with its subservient ways — to endorse proposals by Duke and other Florida utilities to gut this state's energy-efficiency goals by more than 90 percent. The PSC's own staff issued a 100-plus-page analysis supporting utility arguments that energy-efficiency programs are too costly because it's cheaper for power companies to produce a kilowatt of electricity than to save one. That nonsense, lip-synched on Tuesday by a majority of the commissioners, might work if we were all back in first grade. It's funny how regulators in most other states can grasp so basic a concept as encouraging efficient energy use.

And while Duke and other big utilities in Florida try to discourage increasingly cost-competitive alternative energy, more businesses are not listening. Large area organizations like Great Bay Distributors and Lockheed Martin in Pinellas County, Tampa International Airport and two VA medical centers already are pursuing major solar panel projects in anticipation of renewables becoming more mainstream.

• Duke Energy Florida claims an energy expertise, being part of the biggest power company in the country. Yet the utility charges startlingly higher electricity rates than either neighboring Tampa Electric or Florida Power & Light. So much for being competitive. And on customer service, Duke in Florida has sat at the bottom of the barrel for several years running, say JD Power surveys.

High rates. Poor service. Perfect storm.

• Reports of sloppy billing by Duke Energy are on the rise, with customers complaining of unexplained spikes in monthly electricity bills, getting charged expensive bills that turned out to belong to a neighbor's meter, and extra charges on a monthly bill for lighting that happened to belong to a neighbor. Gulfport customer Ralph Bassett complained when his bill soared one month. Duke told him it was because he ran his air conditioner more during a hot spell. He does not have air conditioning. The matter remains unresolved.

• Nor are businesses unscathed. Some are charged higher rates than they should be from Duke. That's because Duke does not automatically allot the best-price rate to such customers — a practice other utilities typically do without asking. That creates extra revenues for Duke by charging more and leaves the business suffering unless — somehow — it learns it could have been operating at a lower electricity rate. Duke's response? A business has to request, in effect, a best rate. Says Duke: "Automatically switching customers to what appears to be the lowest rate without their input and consent assumes that we know everything about how and when they use energy and any future plans they may have for their businesses." This gives new meaning to the phrase "Don't ask, don't tell."

• Earlier Duke screw-ups might seem like old news, like the breaking and premature closing of the Crystal River nuclear plant in Citrus County. Or the long-proposed Levy County nuclear power plant that charged ratepayers vast sums in advance to help cover a wildly escalating project that Duke ultimately shelved. Together these fruitless projects left customers saddled with billions in costs that they will have to pay via higher rates for years to come.

• The final insult? The loss of those nuclear plants that will now never produce any power must be made up for with —you guessed it — a new natural gas plant. Duke will build one in Citrus County for $1.5 billion, charging customers for its cost.

Experts say the bulk of that extra electricity from a new plant could have been avoided by the energy efficiency programs that Duke and its power pals are so eager to end.

"It borders on criminal behavior for utility regulators to approve a big new gas plant while Duke is proposing to kill conservation programs," Glickman told the Tampa Bay Times last month.

If you enjoyed the 2014 roundup on Duke Energy, brace yourself for 2015.

If you're not mad, you're not paying attention.

Contact Robert Trigaux at rtrigaux@tampabay.com or (727) 893-8405. Follow @venturetampabay.

Trigaux: If you're not mad at Duke Energy, you're not paying attention 11/28/14 [Last modified: Friday, November 28, 2014 12:53pm]

USGBC LEED bombshell: Building’s certified by USGBC’s LEED standards actually use more energy than uncertified buildings

Posted by Laura Arnold / November 28, 2014 / Posted in Uncategorized / No Comments

USGBC LEED bombshell
By Barbara Vergetis Lundin, March 3, 2014

[This is not a new report but we missed it the first time and thought we should share it with you now.]

It has been speculated about for years: Is LEED certification -- based on the U.S. Green Building Council's (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design standards -- anything more than a PR stamp of approval, even though USGBC contends that buildings with this "stamp" actually use less energy than their uncertified counterparts? Hard evidence now answers this question.

Research conducted by the Environmental Policy Alliance reveals that large privately-owned buildings in Washington, D.C. certified under the USGBC's LEED standards actually use more energy than uncertified buildings. In fact, despite having the highest number of buildings in the country certified under LEED, the research reveals that Washington, D.C. buildings are actually less energy efficient than the national average.

The research determined energy consumption by comparing the weather-normalized source energy use intensity (EUI -- a unit of measurement that represents the energy consumed by a building relative to its size), for both buildings certified by the USGBC as "green" and those that have not gone through the USGBC's expensive permitting process. The LEED-certified buildings' EUI was 205, compared to 199 for non-certified buildings. Ironically, the USGBC's headquarters, which has achieved the highest level of LEED certification, is off the charts in terms of energy consumption at 236.

How can this be?

"The reason LEED doesn't produce energy-efficient buildings is that buildings are currently certified based on their projected energy use -- not their actual energy use. To gain LEED certification, the USGBC requires buildings to submit their plans through a modeling software that projects how much energy the building will use. How the building actually performs once it's occupied doesn't matter," Anastasia Swearingen, research analyst for the Environmental Policy Alliance, told FierceEnergy. "Another reason why buildings certified under LEED aren't necessarily more energy efficient is that the program has an arbitrary point system to earn different levels of certification. USGBC rewards a building for only including the minimum number of parking spaces with as many points as creating a 'green power' renewable energy system."

These findings are similar to those resulting from an analysis of D.C. government buildings by The Washington Examiner earlier this year, which revealed that many of the District's LEED-certified buildings were the least energy efficient of all comparable buildings.

"This latest data release only confirms what we already knew: LEED certification is little more than a fancy plaque displayed by these 'green' buildings," said Swearingen. "Previous analyses of energy use by LEED-certified buildings have consistently shown that LEED ratings have no bearing on actual energy efficiency."

These findings are significant, as D.C. is one of several major localities to mandate the use of LEED in construction of public buildings and was the first city to require all buildings (public and private) to disclose energy usage.

"It's troubling that to achieve the laudable goal of promoting greater energy efficiency, the district relies on the use of a third-party rating system that doesn't require actual proof of energy efficiency to earn certification," said Swearingen. "Even more alarming is the fact that the city is collecting millions of dollars in permit fees to administer this inefficient program."

In fiscal year 2013, D.C. collected more than $1.6 million in green building fees, and the District has collected over $5.2 million in fees since 2010, according to the Environmental Policy Alliance.

See http://www.fierceenergy.com/story/usgbc-leed-bombshell/2014-03-03?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal

For more:
- visit this website http://www.leedexposed.com/what-is-leed/

2014 Freeing the Grid State Report Card Gives Indiana Net Metering “B”

Posted by Laura Arnold / November 26, 2014 / Posted in Uncategorized / No Comments

Freeing the Grid 2014

Freeing the Grid: States Remain Strong on Consumer Clean Energy Policies
By Rosalind Jackson November 13, 2014

Vote Solar and the Interstate Renewable Energy Council (IREC) today released the 2014 edition of Freeing the Grid, a policy guide that grades all 50 states on two key clean energy programs: net metering and interconnection procedures. Together these policies empower energy customers to use rooftop solar and other small-scale renewables to meet their own electricity needs.

Now in its eighth year of publication, the report shows that over the past year, states nationwide have generally upheld and in some cases strengthened these pillars of consumer clean energy investment. Considering the overwhelming number of attempts by traditional power interests to weaken net metering over the past year, this is a major win for consumer choice and energy innovation. It’s heartening to see regulators nationwide – in red states and blue – stand strong for solar progress by upholding these important policies.

With strong state renewable energy policy leading the way, entrepreneurs, businesses and customers are successfully transforming our nation’s energy landscape for the better. “Affordable clean energy is driving change and innovation in our nation’s electric sector, the likes of which have not been seen in more than a century. Freeing the Grid is intended to be the steady guide for state regulators and others who are working to navigate the changing utility landscape and unleash the benefits of local clean energy,” said Jane Weissman, President and CEO of IREC, our trusted partner on Freeing the Grid.

“These policies help put people, not polluters, in control of energy decision-making. They empower individuals to go solar and they help create new, good jobs. They also help cut carbon pollution and climate change, which disproportionately impact communities of color and low-income families. We hope to see even more states adopting strong net metering and interconnection policies that support the cleaner, healthier and more just energy economy that so many Americans want,” added Jeremy Hays, Executive Director of Green For All.

With that, 2014 report highlights include:

Net Metering Grades:
This policy ensures that renewable energy customers receive full credit on their utility bills for valuable clean power they put back on the grid. There were no declines in state grades over the past year, a significant outcome considering the many attacks on net metering across the country from utilities aiming to stifle solar adoption.

In total, more than two-thirds of U.S. states now qualify for good ‘A’ or ‘B’ grades in this important clean energy policy. Two states that already held high “A’ grades, Vermont and Massachusetts, raised their program caps to further expand consumer access to net metering’s bill-saving benefits. The news is timely as the Massachusetts‘ first Solar Task Force meeting is also convening today to chart a long-term path forward on net metering in the state, an outcome of that same legislation that bumped up the otherwise looming program cap. We hope to see the Bay State shine yet again as an outcome of this process.

“Massachusetts is leading the way on solar, in part, because policies like net metering provide everyone access to the benefits of this renewable energy technology,” said DeWitt Jones, President of Boston Community Capital’s solar affiliate, which develops and owns solar projects in low income communities. “Equitable access to solar maximizes the potential to use the technology to help build healthier and more resilient communities and address the energy affordability challenges created by rising and volatile energy prices.”

Interconnection Procedure Grades:
These are the rules and processes that an energy customer must follow to be able to ‘plug’ their renewable energy system into the electricity grid. This process should be straightforward, transparent and fair. Ohio notably improved its procedures, improving its grade to an ‘A.’ Half of U.S. states receive good ‘A’ or ‘B’ grades, and the remaining are in need of improvement.

Head of the Class:
A record number of five states achieved excellence in both net metering and interconnection policies this year: California, Massachusetts, Ohio, Oregon and Utah.

California, far and away our nation’s solar leader, is another market where we hope policymakers keep its successful clean energy programs shining for the long-term. The Commission is currently deciding the future of the state’s net metering program – and the utilities pushing hard to weaken it. Along with many allies, we urge the Commission to continue to ensure that consumers continue to receive full, fair credit for their valuable solar investment.

This year’s report delves into a number of related pressing issues in the current regulatory landscape. We discuss the problematic rise in utility proposals to add discriminatory fixed charges to residential net metered customers. We explore the proud American tradition of energy self-determination, which is reflected in the decades-old federal law, PURPA. And we cover the rise of shared renewables models as a way to further expand solar access within the community.

We are in period of unprecedented change and innovation in the U.S. energy market and associated regulatory landscape. In the eight years of Freeing the Grid’s production, there has never been a time when these policies have been the subject of as much public attention and debate as today. This report is designed to be an objective resource that helps policymakers, regulators and stakeholders cut through the noise, implement strong regulation, and build upon the exciting clean energy progress that so many states have achieved to date.

“Sound net metering and interconnection procedures are some of the primary state policies driving growth in the American clean energy story today. I hope to see Freeing the Grid used to spark productive policy discussion and sound regulatory decision-making that keeps the United States moving forward on clean energy,” added Carl Linvill, principal at the Regulatory Assistance Project (RAP), a global, non-profit team of experts that focuses on the long-term economic and environmental sustainability of the power and natural gas sectors.

We hope you’ll explore, use and share this resource to advance our nation’s clean energy economy – state by state.

The Alliance for Solar Choice (TASC) suing WI PSC to overturn rate case ruling involving net metering

Posted by Laura Arnold / November 26, 2014 / Posted in Uncategorized / No Comments

TASC suing WI PSC to overturn rate case ruling
November 26, 2014 | By Barbara Vergetis Lundin

The Alliance for Solar Choice (TASC) is calling on the Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC) to release all records of communications between Commissioner Ellen Nowak and Wisconsin Energy (WE) -- including the full audio transcript of a June 2014 panel at the Edison Electric Institute's (EEI) annual conference in Las Vegas -- and has announced plans to sue the PSC to overturn its We Energies rate case ruling this month.

Ellen Nowak. Credit: Wisconsin Public Service Commission

On June 10, 2014, Nowak appeared on an EEI panel with WE CEO Gale Klappa to describe how utilities should approach regulators in response to growing distributed generation. TASC contends that the communications violate Wisconsin's ex parte/impartiality statutes.

Bloomberg News quotes Nowak as saying on the panel, "The traditional rate design will no longer work with the growth in the DG environment. We need to make more of the fixed costs more in line with fixed charges, particularly so those customers who don't participate in DG are not paying for those who do."

On another EEI panel in March, Nowak said, "I know one of our utilities actually is here, so I hope he's listening again. Please come in, [I'm] looking for some innovative rate design ideas that assess the cost to the cost causer."

Wisconsin law requires Commissioners to be impartial. While appearing on a panel with the utility does not make Nowak impartial -- although it could raise questions -- giving advice to the utility does.

TASC is recommending that Nowak recuse herself because her comments indicate she prejudged the outcome of WE's rate case, along with two other rate cases that included proposals for increased fixed charges. Nowak was appointed to the Wisconsin Public Service Commission in July 2011 by Governor Scott Walker and reconfirmed for a new, six-year term beginning on March 1, 2013.

State statutes also strictly prohibit communication between commissioners and any parties with a "substantial interest" in a case. Commissioner Nowak's communication with Klappa during or outside of the panel appears to violate the Wisconsin ex parte rules, according to TASC.

Original article: http://www.fierceenergy.com/story/tasc-suing-wi-psc-overturn-rate-case-ruling/2014-11-26?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal

For more:
- read this article below

Wisconsin Utility Sought Solar Fees After Regulator Advised CEO

By Christopher Martin Nov 24, 2014 5:24 PM ET

A solar industry group appealing a decision to impose the most expensive solar fees in the U.S. said a Wisconsin regulator violated rules barring communication about pending cases.

Ellen Nowak, a regulator for the Wisconsin Public Service Commission, and Wisconsin Energy Corp. (WEC) Chief Executive Officer Gale Klappa participated in a panel together at a utility industry conference in June. Her discussions with Klappa at the conference should have disqualified her from voting on a pending rate case, said Bryan Miller, a co-chairman of the Alliance for Solar Choice.

“Nowak should recuse herself before their rate decision becomes final,” Miller said. “She’s behind the most expensive anti-solar ruling in the U.S. and we’re appealing it on both the substance and the process.”

Wisconsin Energy, based in Milwaukee, received preliminary permission this month to impose new fees on customers with rooftop solar panels, saying the utility needs to recover its costs to maintain the electricity grid. Solar advocates say such fees, which also have been proposed in other states, will threaten wider use of renewable energy.

Through a spokesman, Nowak said she didn’t discuss the rate case at the conference with Klappa. The fees will be about $30 to $40 a month per customer, depending on the size of the system.

Fixed Fees

Nowak told the audience June 10 at an Edison Electric Institute conference that utilities should revise their rate structures, introducing fixed fees so customers who produce their own power with rooftop solar systems continue to pay enough to cover the costs of maintaining the grid.

Joel Rogers, a professor of administrative law at the University of Wisconsin Law School in Madison, reviewed a transcript of her comments and said they could be seen as improperly offering advice.

“Appearing on a panel together goes right up to the edge of impropriety, but giving advice goes beyond that,” Rogers said today in an interview. “She should have recused herself.”

Wisconsin Energy had initiated the process for raising its rates in April. Less than three weeks after the Edison Electric Institute event, the company submitted a detailed proposal that included a fixed fee for customers with solar power, sometimes called distributed generation or D.G.

That proposal was approved Nov. 14 by the commission 2-1, with Nowak voting in favor. She was appointed by Governor Scott Walker.

“The traditional rate design will no longer work with the growth in the D.G. environment,” Nowak said on the panel. “We need to make more of the fixed costs more in line with fixed charges, particularly so those customers who don’t participate in DG are not paying for those who do.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Christopher Martin in New York at cmartin11@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Reed Landberg at landberg@bloomberg.net Will Wade

Original article: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-24/wisconsin-utility-sought-solar-fees-after-regulator-advised-ceo.html#disqus_thread

NIRPC Rolls Out Program to Reduce Solar Energy “Soft Costs” in NW Indiana

Posted by Laura Arnold / November 26, 2014 / Posted in Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) / No Comments

Program to help residents use solar energy nears reality

November 11, 2014 9:00 pm • Lauri Harvey Keagle lauri.keagle@nwi.com, (219) 852-4311

PORTAGE | A program that would make it more affordable to use solar energy in Northwest Indiana is scheduled to roll out in the spring after more than a year of planning.

The Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission in November 2013 received a $90,000 Solar Ready II grant from the U.S. Department of Energy aimed at making solar power a cost-effective option in the region.

NIRPC was one of nine municipal planning organizations in the nation to receive the funding.

Kathy Luther, environmental director for NIRPC, is leading the project. Luther said the cost of solar installations has decreased substantially, but still run about $30,000 for an average home.

The program aims to reduce what Luther calls "soft costs" such as permitting, customer acquisition, marketing, financing and inspections.

"We're not moving the needle on it administratively with soft costs," Luther said. "We're trying to change that."

Studies show streamlining the permitting process can reduce costs by 12 percent and cut the time needed to issue permits by nearly half, she said.

Luther is working to draft a solar-ready zoning code that can be adapted and adopted by local municipalities.

Gary, Hobart, Beverly Shores and Munster have all expressed interest in the program, Luther said.

Luther's goal is to get 10 local governments to adopt best management-practices policies to coincide with NIPSCO's open enrollment for the utility's net-metering program in March.

NIPSCO's net-metering program allows customers to link solar energy operations to the public utility company's grid. Users can then tap into NIPSCO's electricity when solar power is low, and sell energy back to NIPSCO when solar power is generated in excess of their needs.

Not your father's solar panels

Luther said she is working to dispel the myth that the technology is still in its infancy and is not aesthetically pleasing.

"It's been around 30 years," she said. A California-based study found homes with solar panels sold 20 percent faster and had 17 percent greater values than those without them, she said.

"They can make solar panels almost invisible in classic, historic downtowns," Luther said, saying some resemble shingles.

The project can also help the local economy, she said.

"We have Fronius USA right across the street from us, the leader in the U.S. in solar panels," she said. "They want to see installations in our region so they can do studies and research."

The Fronius USA facility in Portage builds inverters.

Group purchasing can help drive down the costs, which is a key goal of the program. Luther hopes to present to local chambers of commerce to see if banks might become partners to assist with financing.

The first step, Luther said, is to select an installer. NIRPC plans to issue a request for proposals for an installer soon and to have one selected by January, she said.

Marketing and workshops, enrollment, site assessments, decisions and installations would follow selection of the installer.

Luther said many wrongly believe Northwest Indiana does not get enough sun to effectively generate solar energy.

"Yeah, we're not Arizona, but we're not Alaska either, so we should be able to do something," Luther said.

Original article: http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/program-to-help-residents-use-solar-energy-nears-reality/article_11055ed7-7d40-5ff6-9ac6-1997aba7573a.html