WSJ: Tariffs Boost Solar-Panel Makers in U.S.; What will be the long-term impact on installed solar PV prices?

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

Tariffs Boost Solar-Panel Makers in U.S.

Duties on Chinese Products Amid Subsidy Accusations Prompt Expansion

By  CASSANDRA SWEET  CONNECT
July 25, 2014 7:02 p.m. ET

Employees working on a solar-panel production line at Shenzhou New Energy Co. in Lianyungang, China. The U.S. has accused Chinese manufacturers of selling at unfairly low prices. Getty Images

New tariffs on Chinese solar panels, including widely anticipated duties imposed by Washington on Friday, are spurring companies to manufacture more solar-power equipment in the U.S.

Two U.S. companies— SolarCity Corp. SCTY +0.57% and Suniva Inc.—have recently announced plans to build solar-panel factories in America, and at least one Chinese manufacturer says it is considering joining them.

Panels from China have been far cheaper than those produced in other countries, driving down overall prices in the U.S. by about two-thirds since 2010. Chinese panels are now going for about 68 to 73 cents a watt, compared with an average of 83 cents for panels made in Europe, Japan and the U.S., according to a study by GTM Research in Boston (the average household solar-power system is about 5,000 watts).

Chinese companies supplied about a third of the panels installed in the U.S. in 2013, GTM says. U.S. developers installed about 4,800 megawatts of solar panels in 2013 and are expected to install about 6,600 megawatts this year, according to GTM.

The Commerce Department on Friday slapped provisional duties of between 26% and 42% on equipment made by several Chinese solar-panel makers, over accusations that the companies dumped their products into the U.S. at unfairly low prices. The department assigned tariffs of 165% to Chinese firms that it said didn't respond to its inquiries.

Last month, the Commerce Department levied temporary tariffs ranging from 19% to 35% on the same group of Chinese solar-panel companies, which it accused of receiving unfair government subsidies. Both sets of tariffs won't become permanent until they receive final approval from the Commerce Department, which is expected to rule by December, and then the U.S. International Trade Commission, which is expected to rule on the tariffs by January.

The duties are part of a two-year battle sparked by complaints from the U.S. division of SolarWorld AG SWVK.XE -7.84% , a German panel maker with a factory in Oregon.

"We want a level playing field," said Mukesh Dulani, president of SolarWorld's U.S. subsidiary.

The duties would affect most Chinese solar-panel makers. China-based Trina Solar Ltd.TSL +0.71% and Yingli Green Energy Holding Co. YGE +0.57% Ltd. deny their operations are heavily underwritten by the Chinese government and say they haven't dumped products in the U.S.

"It's unfair," said Zhiguo Zhu, senior vice president of Trina. "The government didn't give us huge subsidies."

The company has been considering opening a factory outside China, possibly in the U.S., Mr. Zhu said, adding that the duties "speed up our plans to manufacture outside China."

Suniva Inc., which is based in Norcross, Ga., employs about 250 people at its panel factory there and also outsources some manufacturing to China. The tariffs have helped make its American products more price-competitive, said Matt Card, vice president of global sales. The company started construction this week on a new factory in Saginaw Township, Mich., which will employ about 350 people.

SolarCity, of San Mateo, Calif., plans to build a factory in New York State within the next two years to build panels developed by Silevo Inc., which SolarCity bought in June for $200 million in stock, debt and cash.

"The tariffs were not a major factor in our decision, but they do make domestic manufacturing even more attractive," SolarCity spokesman Jonathan Bass said.

Even if the Chinese companies pass on the added costs of the tariffs, the duties aren't likely to dent demand from homeowners, analysts said. Companies that install residential systems compete with each other to offer the lowest-priced electricity, not the lowest-priced panels.

"I don't really see a huge impact on customers in the residential sector," said Shyam Meta, an analyst at GTM. "It's more in the utility-scale sector where the economics become more challenging."

Some companies that install commercial systems, often called solar farms, have relied on cheap Chinese panels.

Strata Solar, a small solar-farm developer in Chapel Hill, N.C., used to buy low-price Chinese panels, but those prices have increased by 15% to 20% because of the new duties, said John Morrison, a senior vice president at the company.

"This is the wrong way to go," he said. The company has switched to buying thin-film panels made by Arizona-based First Solar Inc. FSLR +1.18% and by Chinese manufacturers. Chinese thin-film panels aren't subject to the tariffs, as they use a different technology than the more mainstream silicon panels that are at the center of the trade case.

Write to Cassandra Sweet at cassandra.sweet@wsj.com

IURC Nominating Committee to Interview Candidates to Replace Atterholt on 7/30/14 at State House

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   July 25, 2014  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Nominating group narrows list to eight candidates for IURC top spot

Staff report
TheStatehouseFile.com

INDIANAPOLIS – A nominating committee has announced the names of eight people who will be interviewed as candidates for the position of commissioner at the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission.

The candidates to be interviewed are:

  • James L. Adams
  • Marline R. Breece
  • Karen E. Caswelch
  • Carole Sparks Drake
  • Eric M. Hand
  • Robert L. Hartley
  • James F. Huston
  • David R. Johnston

The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission Nominating Committee is evaluating candidates to fill one current vacancy at the agency. Gov. Mike Pence created that opening when he made Commissioner James Atterholt his chief of staff.

Eventually, the nominating committee will present Pence with a list of three qualified candidates from which he will select one to fill the remainder of Atterholt’s term, which expires in 2017.

The group will interview the eight candidates on July 30 at the Statehouse.

 

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

Again, IndianaDG plans to attend these interviews and will be tweeting continuous. Please follow us at www.twitter.com/IndianaDG.

Beyond Coal Campaign of Sierra Club, CAC want IPL Harding Street 427 MW coal plant shut down by 2020

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   July 25, 2014  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments
Sierra Club wants Indianapolis coal plant closed | 2014-07-23 | Indianapolis Business Journal | IBJ.com

The Sierra Club is pressing Indianapolis' local utility to retire an aging coal-fired power plant that's slated to continue burning coal for at least two more decades and has long been the capital city's biggest industrial polluter.

The environmental group and its supporters say the 427-megawatt unit at Indianapolis Power & Light's Harding Street complex threatens the public health with toxic emissions that cause respiratory woes in children, the elderly and others.

A resolution supported by the Sierra Club, the consumer watchdog group Citizens Action Coalition, neighborhood organizations and other groups was endorsed Tuesday by a City-County Council panel calling for IPL to retire the unit and replace it with a clean, renewable energy source. That measure heads next to the full council for an Aug. 18 vote.

Jodi Perras, the Indiana representative for Sierra Club' Beyond Coal Campaign, told the council's community affairs committee that Indianapolis is now the last major Midwestern city with a coal-fired plant in its city limits that isn't being phased out. She said Indianapolis gained that status last month after Omaha, Neb., officials voted to retire that city's coal-fired plant by 2016.

"We should not be the last major Midwestern city with a coal-fired power plant in our community," Perras told the panel Tuesday. "It is the No. 1 source of dangerous sulfur dioxide pollution and the No. 1 source of direct soot pollution in our community."

In 2012, the Harding Street unit released more than 1.6 million pounds of toxic pollution and accounted for about 88 percent of all of Marion County's toxic industrial emissions, according to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data.

Earlier this year, the American Lung Association ranked the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie metropolitan area as having the nation's 16th worst air for short-term particle pollution, also known as soot, which is a powerful lung irritant that's the main ingredient in smog.

The Sierra Club wants IPL to commit to mothballing the coal-fired unit by 2020 as part of a 20-year energy plan the utility must submit by Nov. 1 to the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission.

IPL, which serves about 470,000 customers in Indianapolis and surrounding counties, currently plans to continue burning coal at the coal-fired power plant until at least 2034, said IPL spokeswoman Brandi Davis-Handy.

But, she said, IPL continues to work on a cost-analysis of its draft energy plan "to make sure we're making the right decision" about the utility's future power-generation methods.

Davis-Handy said that if the full council votes next month in favor of the resolution calling for it to retire that unit, that vote would just be "one of many factors" the utility will consider in finalizing its energy plan.

"We are taking the feedback that we're getting from different groups and our customers very seriously," she said Wednesday. "But at the end of the day we're challenged with making sure we can continue making power in a cleaner and more efficient way, and also making sure our customers are able to pay their bills."

IPL won the IURC's approval in May to convert two 106-megawatt units at its Indianapolis complex from coal to natural gas as part of nearly $670 million in improvements at two power plants to meet tougher federal environmental regulations.

Regulators last year approved IPL's plan to upgrade the 427-megawatt unit with pollution controls by 2017 that will cut its mercury emissions by more than 80 percent. The Sierra Club also fought against those upgrades, saying IPL should simply close the plant.

http://www.ibj.com/article?articleId=48716&utm_source=ibj-daily&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=2014-07-24

A copy of the Resolution may be found at:

http://www.indy.gov/eGov/Council/Proposals/Documents/2014/PROP14-241.pdf

 

 

US EPA Administrator McCarty urges states to adopt carbon-cutting investment strategy

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   July 16, 2014  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

POLICY:

EPA's McCarthy pushes states to adopt carbon-cutting 'investment strategy'

Edward Klump, E&E reporter
DALLAS -- Gina McCarthy, the administrator of U.S. EPA, appeared at a meeting of state regulators to provide what she called a "signal.""Our energy world is changing, and really the key opportunity here is to embrace a direction that's good and available and reliable and responsible and affordable for each state," McCarthy said, "and to figure out how you can achieve these carbon pollution reductions in a way that's moving in that same direction."

Her comments yesterday before the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, or NARUC, were brief -- less than 30 minutes, including questions. But in what at times came across as barnstorming in the oil industry's backyard, McCarthy described the thinking behind EPA's plan to slash carbon emissions at power plants. Then President Obama's top environmental regulator pressed for action by the states, as regulators consider the approach they'll take to meet federal emissions targets.

"We really wanted this to be an opportunity to look at a short- and long-term investment strategy, not a pollution control strategy," McCarthy said. Carbon pollution, she said, "can be reduced in the electricity sector in ways that are very far from pollution control technologies."

EPA's Clean Power Plan released last month aims to cut carbon emissions at power plants 30 percent by 2030 compared with 2005 levels. Targets vary by state. And the proposal has been a major theme at NARUC's summer meetings, as the cost of implementation and electric reliability dominated those discussions.

In her talk, McCarthy said the agency is open for state-by-state discussions about how to best implement the administration's signature plan for addressing climate change, a patchwork of emissions-reduction targets and enforcement mechanisms the White House wants on the books before leaving office. Some of the usual options for slashing power plant emissions are on the table, McCarthy noted, including using highly efficient coal plants and expanding the use of renewable energy and gas.

"There is nothing that we have heard so far that would indicate that flexibility should not continue and isn't the best approach moving forward," she said.

Presidential priority

On Sunday, a chief economist for grid operator PJM Interconnection LLC suggested that too much flexibility could work against the proposal, in part because states could find themselves working at cross-purposes depending on how they develop their plans (EnergyWire, July 14).

When asked about that yesterday in a briefing with reporters, McCarthy said PJM probably would like for entities it deals with to work together in some way.

Obama considers carbon to be an "incredibly important rulemaking process," she added, and the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Clean Air Act seems to be a "very good one" for the agency's carbon plan. A 120-day comment period is underway, and McCarthy called for parties to get their comments in early -- especially if they think EPA "missed the boat" in terms of data or framing of issues.

"The earlier you say that, the more we can figure out whether that boat is in the right direction or whether it's sinking and what we need to do to shore it up," she said.

The administrator drew a number of questions from commissioners, including from New Jersey's Jeanne Fox, who asked about possible regional approaches. "There is a tremendous opportunity for states to work together, and in some ways it would be tremendously beneficial, especially when you're dealing with renewable energy," McCarthy said.

Another attendee asked about potential enforcement of the plan. McCarthy said it is "a real and federally enforceable program." The more states step up, the more will be understood about how to work in a partnership, she said.

"I don't think it's a surprise to anybody that this is the Clean Air Act and we can enforce the requirements and we fully intend to," McCarthy said.

Robert Kenney, who chairs the Missouri Public Service Commission, asked about alternative modeling and what happens if the cost isn't found to be reasonable.

McCarthy said the goal was to be reasonable and appropriate but said it's important for states to look at the underlying analysis behind the numbers. Electric reliability and affordability in the power sector won't be compromised, she said.

"If states really look at this as investment opportunities, they're going to find themselves surging past that 2030 endpoint," she said.

'Let's just keep working together'

Earlier yesterday, Lynn Good, CEO of Duke Energy Corp., pressed the issue of electric reliability as it ties into future regulations -- an issue of both substance and politics. Good, who runs one of the largest coal plant fleets in the country and has been under fire for her handling of coal ash disposal in North Carolina, pressed executives to consider the costs.

"We need to keep our eye, as we transform, on reliability, we need to keep our eye on costs, and we need to constantly challenge ourselves," Good said.

Cheryl LaFleur, acting chairwoman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, urged the industry to consider more investment in natural gas pipelines, electric transmission and technology. Gas is expected to be the source of more electricity, as aging coal plants are retired by utilities like Duke.

"I think what it will require is a tremendous amount of coordination between the federal government and the states, between different federal agencies, between different sectors," she said.

Donna Nelson, the chairwoman of the Public Utility Commission of Texas, said she was concerned that EPA was unintentionally punishing states that were early movers, noting the state's wind energy growth. McCarthy told reporters that states that have shown leadership are getting credit. EPA's relationship with Texas is "healthy," she said, despite tension over approaches to clean-air regulations.

In an interview, Nelson said McCarthy showed good faith by visiting the Dallas meeting. But Nelson said she remained concerned about Texas' ability to meet the carbon standard. She said a workshop is planned for August to discuss the issue, which she said could have implications for how generation is dispatched in Texas' competitive market.

Nelson said it would be great to file comments early but said that might be difficult, "just given the breadth and depth of the rule and the length of it and the due diligence we have to do." She said she's not sure if comments would be filed or if the proposal would be challenged.

While some issues have been raised about an approaching 2020 time frame when the carbon plan would begin to phase in, McCarthy told NARUC attendees that states can find paths forward.

"Let's just keep working together," she said. "I think planning is crucial. I am here because the energy world is vital in this discussion. You can help provide an opportunity to bridge what I've always seen as a gap at [the] state and local level between environment and energy regulators in their lack of understanding of what one another does."

Twitter: @edward_klump | Email: eklump@eenews.net

IURC IRP Contemporary Issues Technical Conference is 10/23/14; Request for topics and speakers by 8/8/14

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   July 14, 2014  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

2014 INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLANNING (IRP) 

The IRP Contemporary Issues Technical Conference is scheduled for Thursday, October 23, 2014, 9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m., in Conference Room B, Indiana Government Center South.  Note that this is a different room from where the technical conference was held last fall.  Please provide suggested topics to be included on the agenda and possible speakers by Friday, August 8, 2014 – see info below.

As you are aware, the IRP rulemaking is currently on hold due to the rulemaking moratorium.  We have appreciated the efforts of Indiana utilities to comply with the draft Proposed Rule, even though it is not yet in effect.  To that end, Duke, I&M, IMPA, and WVPA filed IRPs in 2013 with Duke and I&M holding advisory stakeholder meetings that spring and summer.  Under the draft Proposed Rule IRPs are to be filed in 2014 by Hoosier Energy, IPL, NIPSCO, SIGECO/Vectren.  As a result, the three investor-owned utilities have been holding advisory stakeholder meetings in preparation for their filings this fall.

In keeping with the spirit of compliance with the draft Proposed Rule, and pursuant to Section 2.2 of that rule, the IURC and its staff will be hosting the second annual technical conference to help identify contemporary issues and encourage the identification and adoption of best practices.  The agenda of the technical conference will be set by the commission staff with input from interested parties and utilities.  We look forward to receiving your suggestions of specific contemporary issues for the agenda and possible speakers.

To refresh your memory, here is the list of speakers and a general description of their topic from last year’s Contemporary Issues meeting:

1.       Eric Hughes – Ventyx

Mr. Hughes will discuss production cost modeling and the different methods for dispatching the resources including examples of how each method works.  He will also briefly discuss resource optimization methodologies before discussing DSM modeling and problems with traditional DSM modeling as done by DSM planners/consultants and the resulting output data relative to the needs of a production costing/resource planning model.

 

2.       Ronald Whitfield, Ph.D. – Argonne National Laboratory

Dr. Whitfield discussed the treatment of risk and uncertainty in integrated resource planning.

3.       Jeremy Fisher, Ph.D. – Synapse Energy Economics

Dr. Fisher discussed a stakeholder’s perspective on effective IRP collaboration and execution of best practices, as well as mechanisms to anticipate and address stakeholder concerns.

4.       Ethan Rogers, CEM - American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)

Mr. Rogers discussed the inclusion of energy efficiency, the lowest cost energy resource, in resource planning which is an emerging practice that has the ability to reduce the amount of capital investment needed to guarantee sufficient capacity to meet future system requirements. Mr. Rogers also discussed existing practices in different parts of the country and how they might be of value in Indiana.

 

The presentations for the 2013 Contemporary Issues meeting can be found on the Electricity Division portion of the Commission’s website at:http://www.in.gov/iurc/2773.htm

 

A good place for potential agenda ideas might be the Electricity Division Director Final Report on the four 2013 IRPs prepared pursuant to the draft IRP rule.  The report can also be found on the Commission website at: http://www.in.gov/iurc/2630.htm

 

To jump start the discussion of potential agenda items, staff puts forward the following for your consideration:

 

1.       Given the reliability, resiliency, and economic ramifications, can energy efficiency, demand response, and various other types of customer-owned resources be evaluated in a manner that is comparable to conventional generating resources?  How can changes due to energy efficiency be distinguished from increased appliance / end-use standards, building codes, and reduced waste?  How can persistence of energy efficiency be better assessed?

2.       Given the potential ramifications of environmental regulations, the forecast for relatively low gas prices, the age of the existing generating fleet, what are the best practices for evaluating / incorporating reliability, resilience, and economic risks in Integrated Resource Planning for  both the short and longer-term?  To what extent (or weight) should high value but low probability events such as repetitions of Super Storm Sandy, the Polar Vortex, a protracted heat wave & drought over a broad region be considered in risk analysis?

3.       A discussion of the next generation of state-of-the-art tools and processes used in load forecasting (including forecasting DSM / DR and customer-owned resources) and other aspects of long-term resource planning to better address the implications of potentially significant changes in the Nation’s resource mix. What load forecasting method(s) are likely to foster a more in-depth understanding of the important drivers of a load forecast? What information is needed to support new forecasting and planning processes and tools?  With the increasing deployment of smart grid and advanced metering infrastructure, should this spur development of better tools and processes?  Are there opportunities for Indiana utilities to work together to construct and maintain a more comprehensive load and resource database and to do so at a lower cost with greater robustness / reliability / confidence?

 

The next IRP Contemporary Issues technical conference is scheduled for Thursday, October 23, 2014, 9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m., in Conference Room B, Indiana Government Center South.  Note that this is a different room from where the technical conference was held last fall.

 

Please provide suggested topics to be included on the agenda and possible speakers by Friday, August 8, 2014.  If you think one or more of the topics listed above has merit, please recommend a speaker.  The suggestions can be sent by regular mail or e-mail to:

 

Bradley Borum

Director of Electricity

Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission

101 West Washington Street, Suite 1500 E.

Indianapolis, IN 46204-3407

 

e-mail: bborum@urc.in.gov

 

Thank you for your interest and continued participation!

 

 

Beth Krogel Roads

General Counsel

Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission

101 W. Washington St., Suite 1500 East

Indianapolis, IN 46204

Direct line: (317) 232-2092

Fax #: (317) 232-6758

Email: bkroads@urc.in.gov

Copyright 2013 IndianaDG