This year Renewable Energy Advocates including IndianaDG are encouraging everyone to participate in
We are also seeking sponsors for this event. Please complete this form no later than Feb. 1st!
IndianaDG is working with other groups to organize teams to talk to state legislators.
Reply Briefs and Exceptions were filed on Friday, January 15, 2021, by all parties in Vectren Excess Distributed Generation (EDG) Tariff case (Cause No. 45378) to replace net metering before the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC).
45378--JP Responsive Brief--1-15-2021FINAL 10 pages
45378--JP Selective Comments and Exceptions to Vectren PO--1-15-2021FINAL 37 pages
Solarize Indiana (SI) Reply Brief Filed 12/23/2020 in Appeal of IURC Order Approving Vectren PURPA 30-Day Filings Nos. 50331 & 50332
Solarize Indiana, Inc. (“Solarize Indiana”) submits this reply to address arguments in the appellee briefs filed by Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company, d/b/a Vectren Energy Delivery of Indiana, Inc. (“Vectren”) and Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (“Commission”). The appellees have failed to demonstrate that federal statutory and regulatory requirements under the Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act (“PURPA”), as amended, do not count as “applicable law” with respect to the two Vectren 30-day filings at issue, or that the Commission could approve those rate submissions as noncontroversial, without a hearing, despite Solarize Indiana’s objections.
ARGUMENT
A. The Commission Erred by Finding PURPA Objections
Insufficient to Make the Vectren Filings Controversial
B. The Objections Based on PURPA Were Specific
C. Solarize Indiana Properly Raised Valid Objections
1. Vectren unlawfully imposed a 1MW threshold
2. Vectren failed to provide a long-term option
for predetermined pricing
3. Vectren’s avoided cost computation was deficient
in several respects
4. Vectren’s proposals are discriminatory
D. Solarize Indiana Is Properly Appealing a Final Order
E. Efforts to Shift the Controversy Elsewhere Cannot Justify
the Refusal to Address the PURPA Violations
CONCLUSION
The Commission erred by granting summary approval, without a hearing, on the ground that the Vectren 30-day filings were noncontroversial, notwithstanding Solarize Indiana’s express, written objections alleging PURPA violations. The Order should be
reversed and the matter remanded with instructions to deny summary approval on the grounds that the filings are controversial.
Download and read the brief HERE>
Reply Brief of Appellant Solarize Indiana Inc.-12-23-2020 Accepted
INDIANA OFFICE OF UTILITY CONSUMER COUNSELOR’S AND THE JOINT PARTIES’ BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED ORDER
The Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor (“OUCC”), Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc., Environmental Law & Policy Center, Indiana Distributed Energy Alliance, Solar United Neighbors, Solarize Indiana, and Vote Solar, by counsel, submit this brief in support of its proposed order recommending that the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (“Commission”) deny the proposal by Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company d/b/a Vectren Energy Delivery of Indiana, Inc. (“Vectren”) for an Excess Distributed Generation (“EDG”) Tariff, as the proposal does not comply with the statutory requirements of Ind. Code ch. 8-1-40 et seq. Click links below to read both the Proposed Order and Legal Brief.
45378--Proposed Order of Joint Parties--12-18-2020FINAL
45378--Submission of Proposed Order and Brief of Joint Parties--12-18-20FINAL
SUBMISSION OF AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT
OF FINDINGS RELATING TO DETERMINATION OF
“EXCESS DISTRIBUTED GENERATION” IN PROPOSED ORDER
Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company d/b/a Vectren Energy Delivery of Indiana, Inc., a CenterPoint Energy Company (“Vectren South” or “Petitioner”), by counsel, respectfully submits for the Commission’s consideration and use the form of proposed Order attached hereto. The principal issue in this proceeding is whether Vectren South’s proposal to instantaneously net the two components of “excess distributed generation” set forth in Ind. Code § 8-1-40-5 is consistent with that statute and in the public interest.
The next filing is January 15, 2021, when all parties will file their Reply Briefs and Exceptions with the IURC.
Here are the responses filed on December 8, 2020, by Vectren and the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) to the appeal filed by Solarize Indiana (SI) in the Indiana Court of Appeals on September 22, 2020.
Please see http://www.indianadg.net/solarize-indiana-appeal-of-vectren-30-day-filings/
ARGUMENT
I. Standard of Review
II. The Commission correctly determined that Solarize’s
Objection, which alleged no particular violation of state or
federal law, did not comply with 170 I.A.C. 1-6-7, and raising
new arguments in the Reply was not permissible under the 30-
Day Filing Rule
A. Solarize’s Objection did not allege a specific PURPA
violation or other violation of “applicable law”
B. Solarize’s Reply, even if permissible under the 30-Day
Filing Rule, inappropriately raised new arguments,
which the Commission ultimately considered anyway
III. Solarize failed to exhaust available administrative remedies
IV. Neither the Annual Rate CSP Update nor the Net Generation
Contract violates PURPA and Solarize’s broad concerns are
better addressed in other proceedings
A. The Commission’s General Counsel correctly determined
Vectren’s Annual Rate CSP Update complied with 170
I.A.C. 4-4.1-1 et seq.
B. The Commission’s General Counsel correctly found
Solarize’s claims that the Net Generation Contract
violated PURPA were “without foundation”
Vectren’s Appellee’s Brief
Simply put, there is no reason for the same issues to be considered in multiple proceedings. If Solarize does not believe its arguments regarding these same PURPA issues will be appropriately or thoroughly considered in Vectren’s Rate EDG proceeding, it can initiate a complaint or investigation proceeding under Ind. Code §
8-1-2-34.5 or Ind. Code § 8-1-2-54. Given Solarize’s failure to exhaust available administrative remedies before the Commission, the multiple other regulatory avenues available to Solarize to seek Commission review and consideration of the very technical PURPA issues raised in its Reply, this Court should affirm the Commission’s lawful Order approving Vectren’s 30-day filings.
CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, the Commission’s Order should be affirmed.
43Y9448 - Vectren Brief of Appellee Download and read the brief.
ARGUMENT
I. Indiana’s implementation of PURPA has already been established
A. The standard of review requires the Court to defer to the Commission’s expertise and reasonable interpretation of its own rules
B. Rule 4.1 is the implementation of PURPA in Indiana
C. Solarize is seeking to force litigation regarding policy matters that have already been decided by the Indiana General Assembly
II. The Commission appropriately decided to reject the objections and approve Vectren’s filings
A. The objections did not comply with the 30-Day Filing Rule
B. Solarize’s PURPA arguments are factually and legally mistaken
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should affirm the Commission’s order.
43Y9288 - IURC Brief of Appellee (Solarize) FINAL Download and read the brief.
IndianaDG will update further actions.