Wisconsin State regulators approve 83% increase in Green Bay utility’s fixed charge

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   November 08, 2014  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

State regulators approve 83% increase in Green Bay utility's fixed charge

By Thomas Content of the Journal Sentinel
Nov. 6, 2014

In a 2-1 vote, state energy regulators authorized an 83% increase in the fixed charge for customers of Wisconsin Public Service Corp., siding with the Green Bay utility and against solar and consumer advocates.

The Public Service Commission voted to raise the customer fixed charge to $19 a month from $10.40. The utility had sought a 140% increase to $25 a month.

The case is the first of several expected to be voted on this month by the PSC, which has similar proposals pending from Milwaukee-based We Energies and Madison-based Madison Gas & Electric Co.

The increase approved for Wisconsin Public Service is in line with the 82% increase being requested by the Madison utility and slightly more than the 75% increase sought by We Energies. MG&E is proposing to increase its fixed charge to $19 a month, while We Energies wants its raised to $16.

The two commissioners appointed by Gov. Scott Walker, who won re-election Tuesday, agreed with utilities' arguments that a higher fixed charge is justified, and that it would eliminate a subsidy paid by customers that don't generate their own power to customers that do.

The fixed charge increase would be accompanied by a drop in the energy charge, so the overall 2015 increase approved Thursday would raise residential customers' rates by about 3%, or $25 million, Commissioner Ellen Nowak said. Rates for large factories in northeastern Wisconsin would go up by 3.6% on average, while small-business customers would see a decrease of 0.5%.

A typical utility residential customer uses 600 kilowatt-hours of electricity per month and would see a $3.40 monthly increase in electric bills come January, PSC spokesman Nathan Conrad said. Because of the change in the customer charge, customers who use less energy than the average would see a bigger-than-average increase, while customers who use more energy would see a smaller increase, he said.

The fixed-charge proposal was challenged by customer groups including the Environmental Law and Policy Center, Renew Wisconsin and the Citizens' Utility Board.

Also protesting the higher fixed charge were advocates for the elderly and the poor including AARP Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Community Action Program.

Wisconsin Public Service is a subsidiary of Integrys Energy Group Inc., a Chicago-based energy company that Milwaukee-based Wisconsin Energy Corp. is proposing to acquire.

In deciding the issue, Commission Chairman Phil Montgomery and Nowak said it is reasonable for utilities to collect a greater portion of their fixed costs, such as poles, wires and utility equipment, through the fixed charge.

They agreed that now is the time to make a change before it becomes a bigger issue as more customers start generating their own power.

"This is not an attack on wind and solar," Nowak said. "It's about fairness."

WPS had sought an increase of 140%, which would have increased the fixed charge to $25 a month for residential customers.

"Only the principle of gradualism gives me pause from suggesting we adopt the Pub Service proposal in its entirety," Montgomery said, using a common nickname for the utility.

Commissioner Eric Callisto, who was appointed by Gov. Jim Doyle, said the commission should have frozen fixed charges for all the utilities seeking increases this year, and ordered a statewide study of fixed charge and customer-sited generation.

"It is the key issue in this rate case season and one that has given the utilities in this state and this commission national attention," said Callisto of the fixed charge controversy.

The commission should only consider an increase in the fixed charge if it reduces the profit rate, or return on equity, that utilities earn below the 10.2% that the PSC approved Thursday, Callisto said.

"If the company's customer charge is increased, there is reduction in financial risk to the utility," he said. "That is not in dispute."

The PSC also approved a 4.3% decrease in local natural gas charges for WPS natural gas customers. The $15.4 million decrease also includes a rate restructuring that will increase the fixed charge on monthly bills. For natural gas customers, that will raise the fixed charge by 76%, from $10.25 to $18 a month.

The decision penalizes customers who don't use very much energy and means that WPS will have the highest fixed charge in the Midwest, said Kira Loehr, executive director of the Citizens' Utility Board, a utility watchdog group.

"Today's decision goes in the wrong direction," she said. "Instead of taking this opportunity to pause and consider innovative ways to handle changes in the electric industry, the decision takes the step that most helps utilities at the expense of customers. Increasing fixed charges hurts our most vulnerable low and fixed income households and frustrates residential and small business customers' ability to lower their bills by using less energy."

WPS spokesman Kerry Spees said the utility would wait until the commission formalizes Thursday's votes in a written decision to react to the decision.

Of the fixed charge increase, he said, "We thought our initial request was warranted, but this rate structure change is a big step in the right direction of getting our fixed costs better aligned with the fixed charge."

WPS says that more than half of the accounts that are low energy users are for seasonal customers such as cabins, cottages and summer homes in northern Wisconsin.

Twitter: twitter.com/plugged_in

Facebook: www.fb.me/JSBusiness

About Thomas Content

author thumbnailThomas Content covers energy, clean technology and sustainable business. A series he co-wrote on energy and climate change won top honors in 2008 from the National Press Foundation.

Terre Haute cashing in on sewage

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   November 04, 2014  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Terre Haute cashing in on sewage

Posted: Monday, November 3, 2014 10:05 am

By Arthur Foulkes / Tribune-Star

In an effort to shore up the city’s strained finances, Mayor Duke Bennett has entered the city into a number of agreements that generate new revenue by converting sewage into diesel fuel.

For months, Terre Haute elected officials have been asking the mayor where he was going to find several million dollars for the city’s cash-strapped budget. Bennett, promising about $3 million in new revenue this year and another $3 million in 2015, had said he could not reveal specifics about where the money would come from, citing ongoing negotiations with private companies.

Negotiations are still underway, but city officials have this year signed several contracts with private companies that make up the broad outline of the mayor’s plan. The contracts are public records, opening the agreements to public scrutiny; they can be requested through the city legal department in City Hall.

Mayor Bennett, speaking with the Tribune-Star last week, confirmed that four contracts approved by the Board of Public Works and Safety in May and July make up the framework for the expected multi-million dollar influx of revenue.

“I was trying to find ways to generate new revenue,” Bennett said, seated in his City Hall office. “We’ve been working on this for a couple of years now.” If all goes as hoped, this could make Terre Haute a model for other cities to follow, he said.

Briefly, the four contracts state the City of Terre Haute will provide “sludge” from its wastewater treatment plant to a company known as Powerdyne Terre Haute Holdings, which will convert the sludge into diesel fuel. Powerdyne will then sell 12 million gallons of that fuel to Terre Haute for $2.46 per gallon, and the city will then sell that fuel to Sodrel Fuels, an Indianapolis-based company, for $2.50 per gallon.

Terre Haute is essentially a “middle man” in this, Chou-il Lee, city attorney, told the Board of Public Works and Safety in July, when the board approved the contracts.

“This is just a pass-through contract,” Bennett said when discussing the arrangement. The city is “not going into the fuel business,” he said.

The “pass-through” arrangement amounts to $480,000 in income for the city per year, but officials indicate much more income is likely. The city can provide more sludge than the contracted minimum, said Mark Thompson, director of the city’s Waste Water Utility. That will produce more income because the city will be paid for that extra sludge, he said. Also, the city expects to be paid by other cities to take their sludge, he said.

Utility Dive: The fight over solar moves from net metering to rate design

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   November 03, 2014  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

The fight over solar moves from net metering to rate design

Utilities say net metering isn’t fair; solar advocates say proposed rate changes aren’t either.

By  | November 3, 2014
Fights over electricity rates are brewing all across the country.

Utilities say new rate proposals will protect customers who haven’t moved to solar and energy efficiency. But those who have moved say the proposals only protect utilities.

“There are two categories of rate restructuring and rate design changes bubbling up,” explained Environmental Law & Policy Center Sr. Attorney Brad Klein. “The first is to move cost recovery from the variable per-kilowatt-hour charge and increase the monthly fixed charge. The other is to impose a monthly dollars-per-kilowatt charge on owners of distributed generation.”

Many proposals are in states with little distributed generation. “That reflects a lesson some utilities took from recent high profile battles in places like Arizona,” Klein said. “Once a lot of customers have solar, it becomes a really pitched battle to change the rate design.”

The "utility death spiral"

A nationwide trend

Klein said the trend emerged after the Edison Electric Institute’s Disruptive Challenges paper recommended “a monthly customer service charge…to recover fixed costs.”

He listed 23 state fights, including:

  • Madison Gas and Electric (MG&E) proposed $69 per month fixed charge with a variable rate reduction from $0.10 per kilowatt-hour to $0.04 per kilowatt-hour
  • Wisconsin Energies proposed fixed monthly charge to all customers and a per-kilowatt DG customer charge
  • a $10 per month fixed charge before California’s commission
  • a proposed fixed charge increase for Connecticut Light & Powerresidential customers of up to 59%
  • a proposed Hawaiian Electric Companies $55 per month fixed charge increase with a $16 per month charge for PV owners
  • a proposed 50% residential/small commercial customers monthly charge proposed by Missouri’s Empire District Electric
  • an Idaho Power-proposed $5 to $20 per month fixed charge increase just rejected by Idaho’s commission
  • Illinois-ComEd’s just-announced non-specific residential customer fixed charge
  • Baltimore Gas & Electric’s proposed fixed charge increases for residential and general service customers
  • the recently approved NV Energy residential fixed charge increase of 50%
  • residential customer fixed charge increases filed in August for four subsidiaries of FirstEnergy, including Pennsylvania Power
  • Rocky Mountain Power’s proposed monthly minimum bill and monthly charge increases for residential customers and fixed charge for PV owners recently rejected by Utah’s commission
  • Pacific Power’s nearly doubled fixed charge for residential customers just proposed to Washington’s commission

“This trend is exactly what utility regulation was created to prevent—the exercise of monopoly pricing power,” said Regulatory Assistance Project Sr. Advisor Jim Lazar. “What makes it compelling for utilities now is competition from the sun.”

The threat to energy efficiency and clean energy

Based on his calculation, using conservative assumptions and data from the 3,300 U.S. utilities, Lazar considers fixed rate charges “the biggest threat to energy efficiency and clean energy the U.S. faces.”

The extreme MG&E proposal, Lazar said, “will cause about a 14% increase in consumption and wipe out an entire decade of energy efficiency.”

Credit: Bradley Klein (used with permission)

Utilities use economic and fairness rationales for the higher fixed charges, Klein said. They say it is more economically efficient to recover fixed costs, anything that doesn’t vary by usage, through a fixed charge because it sends clearer price signals, which allows customers to make better choices.

The fairness argument comes from the cost shift assumption, Klein said. Utilities argue that when customers offset energy consumption through energy efficiency or distributed generation, they don’t pay enough to cover fixed service costs and force utilities to collect from other customers.

The first rationale reduces utility investor risk by shifting cost burdens to customers, Klein said, and especially to customers with lower electricity usage and lower incomes.

Infrastructure investments that change over time are not really fixed, he added. “In the long term, everything is a variable cost. If the customer base uses a lot less energy, over the long term, the utility needs to build fewer power plants and can build fewer transmission and distribution lines.”

The cost shift concept may seem to justify the fairness rationale, Klein said. But it is often not supported by data. “In Wisconsin, even with the most conservative assumptions, the cost shift is something like one-third of one penny per customer per month.”

In rejecting the Rocky Mountain Power proposal, Klein explained, “the Utah Public Service Commission said there just wasn’t enough data to rule on the cost shift question.”

Credit: Jim Lazar (used with permission)

“In the real world, purchasing gasoline does not include separate charges for the oil well, the pipeline, the refinery, and the trucking,” Lazar said. “And nobody pays a fixed monthly charge to the gas station. The billions of dollars in oil infrastructure fixed costs are recovered one gallon at a time. That is how it works with competition.”

The purpose of regulation is to enforce on monopolies the pricing discipline of competitive businesses, Lazar explained. “People should be able to connect to the grid for no more than the cost of connecting to the grid and they shouldpay for the use of the grid in proportion to how much they use the grid.”

A solution or a backlash

“We need to engage in a fundamental conversation about the future of the electric utility,” Klein said. “We don’t disagree that policies and regulations and utility rate structures may need to change. But that needs to be done in a thoughtful and comprehensive way and not by acting quickly and without data.”

Distributed generation and energy efficiency advocates do not yet have a proposal, Klein said. That needs to emerge on a state by state, commission by commission basis. In the MG&E case, Public Service Commission of Wisconsin Staff witness Corey Singletary testified that “there does not appear to be an urgent need” for the new rate structure and recommended “a more measured approach, guided by deliberate and thoughtful policy decisions on the part of the Commission…”

Former Texas PUC Commissioner and Austin Energy exec Karl Rabago called the Wisconsin Energies DG fixed charge proposal an “astounding failure of basic ratemaking.”

Credit: Bradley Klein (used with permission)

In places like California and New England, where the per kilowatt-hour electricity price is already high, Lazar said, modest fixed cost initiatives may succeed. But in places like the Midwest, the Pacific Northwest, and the South, where variable charges are still low, they could produce a backlash.

“In Hawaii, 1,000 customers have left the grid in the last two years because it is cost effective for any customer to have solar and batteries and disconnect from the utility,” Lazar said. “Only those without roofs or good enough credit to lease become victims of monopoly pricing.”

The MG&E proposal also produced a backlash, Klein said. “The utility narrative was about fairness. That’s how it started,” he explained. But it was quickly apparent the proposal would most affect low income and low volume electricity consumers.

“The cure was worse than the disease. Soon, AARP was robo-calling all its members to oppose the proposals. The NAACP was officially opposed. The City of Milwaukee, the City of Madison, and a number of other municipalities passed unanimous resolutions.” MG&E finally withdrew much of its proposal.

“These proposals are being advanced without the analysis needed for long term solutions,” Klein said. “They are defensive or reactionary and meant to shield utilities from energy efficiency and distributed generation losses. But this technology isn’t going to go away. Over the long term, cost effective solar and storage will push customers away from the utility. People that can are going to disconnect.”

 

Ohio utilities feel burned by solar-energy users; Will Indiana be next?

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   November 03, 2014  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Ohio utilities feel burned by solar-energy users

By Dan GearinoThe Columbus Dispatch  •  Sunday November 2, 2014 9:40 AM

PHOTO COURTESY OF JACK HEDGE
Jack Hedge stands on the roof of his Worthington house among his solar panels.

 

People like Jack Hedge scare utility executives. He has rooftop solar panels that generate more electricity than his house needs.

“My electric bill was zero most of the year,” the 66-year-old Worthington man said.

Utilities, such as Columbus-based American Electric Power, say their current rate structure doesn’t allow them to cover costs related to renewable-energy owners. The result, the companies say, is that the costs get passed on to other consumers.

The debate over how utilities treat rooftop solar is at the heart of a case heading to the Ohio Supreme Court.

“Are the solar customers using the grid? Unambiguously, the answer is yes,” said Jim Lazar, an electricity consultant in Washington state who advises regulators across the country. “One approach is to say, ‘You’re using the grid; you need to pay for the grid.’  ”

As he sees it, the key question is whether renewable energy is an infant industry that needs special treatment and provides a public good.

“At what point does it cease to be an infant industry?” he asked. “When is it time for the kids to pay the rent or move out of the house?”

He thinks the answer will vary depending on the political climate of each state.

Utilities in most states are not yet feeling a pinch because of electricity generated by home-based systems. Fewer than 1 percent of U.S. households have renewable energy installed. But as solar-panel prices continue to drop and the systems become more popular, utility companies fear that electricity sales will take a sudden dive, depriving them of the money needed to maintain the grid for everyone else.

Within the industry, this scenario is often called the “death spiral,” a kind of doomsday for the regulated-utility business model.

To fight this, utility companies and industry groups are proposing additional surcharges for solar owners. They are also ramping up a campaign to frame the issue in terms of income inequality, arguing that wealthy solar owners receive subsidies that are unavailable to the many people who struggle to pay their electricity bills.

Meanwhile, “green” power advocates say utilities are standing in the way of progress toward an economy that relies less on large power plants.

“The fact of the matter is that the utilities have not done the kind of analysis that needs to be done to calculate the benefits of solar,” said Rob Kelter, senior attorney for the Environmental Law & Policy Center.

He lists two main benefits: Solar power is the most productive on the hottest days of the year, which helps to hold down the wholesale electricity price for all consumers. And, solar power reduces demand for fossil-fuel-burning power plants, which reduces health problems related to air pollution.

The Ohio debate has simmered for the past two years as regulators worked on rules governing renewable-energy installations that are connected to the grid. The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio ruled in January that it would maintain policies saying that utilities are required to issue credits for any surplus power that comes from the systems and that utilities cannot have any special charges for these customers.

The case is being appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, with some of the state’s major utilities — led by AEP and FirstEnergy — saying the rules amount to an unfair subsidy for some customers. The court accepted this case last month and likely will hear oral arguments early next year.

“It was unreasonable for the commission to impose a new regulatory mandate without providing for an explicit mechanism for recovery of costs associated with the mandate,” Steven Nourse, AEP’s lead attorney, said in a filing.

The Edison Electric Institute, a trade group for large electricity utilities, has helped lead a national push for additional charges on owners of solar systems. The group made its case last year in a warning that “grid costs are shifted to those customers without rooftop solar ... through higher utility bills.”

AEP’s top executive, Nick Akins, discussed the topic last year when interviewed at a forum held by the Columbus Metropolitan Club.

“If you don’t pay at least for the grid portion of (electricity service), then all the other customers are subsidizing that, and usually it’s the poor and the middle class,” he said.

Industry groups have won some allies among advocates for minority and low-income consumers. Last month, the National Policy Alliance, a coalition of black elected officials, approved a resolution saying it opposes policies to allow benefits to rooftop solar owners “while penalizing customers with basic energy needs who cannot afford rooftop solar.”

So far, Arizona is one of the only states with a surcharge for rooftop solar customers, charging about $5 per month for a typical system.

Utilities are trying to get this in other states, with several pending cases before regulators.

Hedge, the Worthington man, is an architect who has long been fascinated with the science of energy efficiency. He designed and built his house in 1980 to use as little energy as possible. In a typical month, he uses about 300 kilowatt-hours, which is about one-third of a typical household.

Five years ago, he installed solar panels on his roof, with a combined capacity of 3.35 kilowatts. In most months, the electricity from the solar array is slightly more than his house needs.

He is an evangelist for solar power. He thinks the world is a better place when electricity systems are less centralized and release fewer pollutants. And, he thinks the utility companies are placing short-term financial interests ahead of the public good.

“They’re fighting against us making it green because they want to make money,” he said.

He doesn’t blame the companies for this, but he hopes that the Ohio court rejects the arguments.

dgearino@dispatch.com

@DanGearino

Copyright 2013 IndianaDG