Author Archives Laura Arnold

IBJ: Groups push Pence to work on state energy plan as court considers EPA rule

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   November 15, 2015  /   Posted in solar, Uncategorized, wind  /   No Comments

Groups push Pence to work on state energy plan as court considers EPA rule

November 14, 2015
 

Indiana has vowed to fight tooth and nail against President Obama’s proposed Clean Power Plan, the federal rule that seeks to limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.

But there is a growing sentiment here among key energy leaders—even from those who oppose the EPA plan—that while Indiana is fighting the rule in court, the state should develop its own compliance plan that focuses on realistic strategies to decrease carbon emissions and diversify its energy mix.

They say it beats being a slave to the federal rules—should they be upheld—that weren’t written with Indiana in mind. Twenty-four states have sued to stop the new rules.

“History has tended to say that a state plan is more applicable and tailored to Indiana,” said Mark Maassel, president of the Indiana Energy Association, which represents the state’s investor-owned utilities.

 

 

“We certainly are expressing to people we should litigate,” he said, “and that we need to develop a state plan on the chance that it is upheld.”

The holdup: Gov. Mike Pence. The Republican is charged with the final decision about whether the state prepares its own plan or simply takes a chance that the federal rules will be struck down.

But Pence hasn’t yet decided how to act.

focus-renewable-energy.gif

“The governor has not made a final decision about whether to submit a state plan in compliance with the Clean Power Plan,” said spokeswoman Kara Brooks. “As he weighs this decision, he is meeting with stakeholders to hear their reasons for and against submitting a plan.”

Meanwhile, Indiana groups say they are eager to get to work soon so Indiana has enough time to develop a meaningful plan that addresses environmental issues while taking into account what’s best for the state’s economy.

“If you don’t develop a state plan, you have a federal plan imposed upon you,” said Jodi Perras, the Indiana representative for the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign. “You’ll have more flexibility if you develop a state plan.”

Pence has directed state agencies, including the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, to work with the Governor’s Office to help him understand the state’s options, Brooks said.

Federal push

The EPA has directed states to submit compliance plans or request extensions by next year in its goal to reduce carbon dioxide emissions 32 percent by 2030.

President Obama and other proponents say the EPA plan will provide public health benefits, spur investment in clean energy, and create thousands of jobs. Opponents say the plan will be costly to implement, especially in states like Indiana where the majority of the state’s electricity generation comes from coal.

Coal-fired electric power plants in July provided around 80 percent of the state’s net energy generation, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, compared to about 35 percent nationally.

The Indiana Municipal Power Agency, a not-for-profit wholesaler power provider to about 60 Indiana cities, “does support a state plan—but only over having a federal plan forced upon us if the Clean Power Plan survives the legal challenges,” said spokeswoman Niki Dick.

Indiana Coal Council President Bruce Stevens said the state should request an extension from the EPA to investigate the economic impact on Indiana of reducing the use of coal. The state estimates the mining industry supports about 3,600 jobs here.

“I think it’s in the best interest of everyone to look at what all the various options are,” Stevens said. “At this point, no one knows what the federal plan would look like and no one knows what a state plan would look like.”

The Governor’s Office said it is still considering whether to ask for an extension. The state has until next September to make the request.

“It is too early to determine what our course of action will be,” Brooks said.

Until then, environmental groups say they will keep trying to convince the General Assembly to act pragmatically and put pressure on the governor to develop a state plan.

Pence said in a press release last month that fighting the EPA rule in lawsuits is “another step in fighting back against the Obama Administration’s war on coal.” He told reporters earlier this year the plan was Obama trying to “address a climate agenda through a regulatory state.”

But his likely opponent in the 2016 governor’s race, Democrat John Gregg, said Indiana needs to be proactive about the issue.

“Rather than banking on a successful outcome of a lawsuit and risk a federal takeover of this process, I would have taken an approach similar to what Gov. [Steve] Beshear did in Kentucky—a state that is heavily dependent on coal,” Gregg told IBJ in an email. “He didn’t sue out of the gate. He sat down with stakeholders and the EPA and worked up a state plan that provided a longer transition period for their industry that preserves jobs and still meets the environmental goals over time.”

Uphill battle

But in Indiana, energy groups are having a hard time convincing even Democrats to work on a state plan. Activists said they were surprised when U.S. Sen. Joe Donnelly came out against the Clean Power Plan. He said the feds “had an opportunity to encourage Indiana to continue to innovate and diversify our energy portfolio in a way that was good for our environment and economy, but the EPA missed the mark.”

Environmental groups in the state say Indiana has a “moral obligation” to address climate change and that, by embracing cleaner energy, the state could spark the growth of a new industry here.

focus-coal-employment-fever.gif

“Let’s start looking at the [EPA] plan as an opportunity, not as a liability, for the state to think hard about how we develop state-level policies that will accelerate the development of Indiana’s clean energy sector,” said Jesse Kharbanda, executive director of the Hoosier Environmental Council.

Perras said she understands the changes could have a serious impact on Indiana’s coal miners but that state leaders need to think long term about the coal industry. She said working on a state plan could start that discussion.

“It’s not a growth industry,” Perras said. “In other states, they’re having a dialogue around the fact that we owe coal miners a big debt for all they’ve done for our country. We want to make sure their families are taken care of and their kids can plan a future away from coal.”

The governors of Wyoming and North Dakota—both coal-dependent states—plan to challenge the EPA in court. But both men told Environment & Energy Publishing they were also developing “compliance plans for what they think they can achieve.”

“Eventually, we have to be able to put forward what we think is possible for the state of North Dakota, and we’re committed to carbon reduction as much as any other state,” Republican North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple told the publication last month. “This is something we want to do, but we have to determine what is possible, what is even reasonably feasible.”

Perras said she hopes Indiana takes the same approach.

“It shouldn’t be a Republican versus Democrat issue. It really shouldn’t,” she said. “We’re willing to work with both sides. You have to admit you have a problem first. We haven’t done that in Indiana.”•

Surprise: ​AEP chief says Clean Power Plan can be a ‘catalyst’ for transforming the industry

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   November 12, 2015  /   Posted in Indiana Michigan Power Company (I&M)  /   No Comments

Surprise: ​AEP chief says Clean Power Plan can be a 'catalyst' for transforming the industry

 
 

Ohio is among the dozens of states suing the U.S. EPA over its wide-ranging Clean Power Plan, but one of the state’s coal-centric electric utilities says it can help as it diversifies its electric generation mix.

President Barack Obama in August introduced the plan to reduce carbon emissions from the country’s power supply. Many states and utilities vowed to fight it, arguing high implementation costs and a power overreach.

Republican lawmakers tout the benefits of transitioning to more solar generation at the Conservative Clean Energy Summit.

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   November 06, 2015  /   Posted in Federal energy legislation, solar, Uncategorized  /   No Comments

 

Conservative leaders outline the benefits of clean energy, like solar, at the 2015 Conservative Clean Energy Summit, sponsored by the Christian Coalition and the Young Conservatives for Energy Reform

Includes clips from:

  • Sen. Rob Portman (R) Ohio
  • Sen. Dean Heller (R) Nevada
  • Sen. Richard Burr (R) North Carolina
  • Sen. Lindsay Graham (R) South Carolina

 

Pro-Solar Group NC Warn Gets On Duke Energy’s Bad Side for Third Party PPA

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   November 02, 2015  /   Posted in solar  /   No Comments

Pro-Solar Group Gets On Duke Energy’s Bad Side

Duke Energy wants to smack down NC WARN for setting up a small experimental solar project on the rooftop of Greensboro’s Faith Community Church to test a state law prohibiting third-party electricity sales in North Carolina. Photo by NC WARN

Posted by Brian Sewell | November 2, 2015 at 3:35 pm - See more at: http://appvoices.org/2015/11/02/pro-solar-group-gets-on-dukes-bad-side/#sthash.awUIWbm7.dpuf

Duke Energy wants to smack down NC WARN for setting up a small experimental solar project on the rooftop of Greensboro’s Faith Community Church and testing a state law prohibiting third-party electricity sales in North Carolina. Photo by NC WARN

Duke Energy wants to smack down a small nonprofit for testing a law prohibiting third-party electricity sales in North Carolina.

As the Greensboro News & Record and other outlets reported today, the nation’s largest utility is asking state regulators to fine Durham-based NC WARN “up to $1,000″ per day for setting up a small experimental solar project on the rooftop of Greensboro’s Faith Community Church.

In a statement this morning, NC WARN Executive Director Jim Warren said Duke’s tactics are meant to punish and silence one of its most persistent critics. Warren says the fine, which could total more than $120,000, is “vindictive and counterproductive.”

The North Carolina Utilities Commission is expected to decide whether the project is legal, and whether NC WARN should be fined, later this month.

Today’s news is just the latest development in a local fight with statewide implications that has been brewing since early summer. NC WARN first announced back in June that it had entered a partnership with Faith Community Church to install solar panels and sell the clean power to the congregation while also purposefully putting itself “on a collision course” with Duke.

The same day, the group filed a petition with the N.C. Utilities Commission asking it to rule that the partnership is lawful, even though third-party sales in North Carolina are not. That’s where the legal lines blur.

Duke’s immovable position is that NC WARN showed “blatant disregard for the law” by setting up the third-party agreement and that it is essentially acting as an unregulated utility. NC WARN argues that by paying the upfront costs of the solar panels and selling electricity to the church for a reduced rate that it is offering a public service.

It’s up to the commission to decide whether North Carolina’s law against third-party sales applies when the profit motive is not part of the equation. But even if commissioners do rule in Duke’s favor, it’s hard to see how the massive utility can win the PR battle. The company is certainly not helping its reputation as a monopoly willing to quash any clean energy efforts except its own.

The merits of increasing access to solar speak for themselves. Allowing third-party sales of electricity is one of the most successful methods for making renewable electricity more affordable. It increases consumer choice and competition among suppliers, and it has been a boon to the the nation’s clean energy economy.

Third-party sales of electricity are also completely legal in all but four states, including North Carolina, and solar financing arrangements are available to most electricity consumers in the country.

In fact, the N.C. General Assembly had a chance during the legislative session to pass a Republican-sponsored, bipartisan bill to legalize third-party sales that was supported by the solar industry and major employers including Wal-Mart, Lowes and Target. It did not.

In the case of NC WARN versus Duke Energy, the cliche comparisons to David and Goliath would be apt if they weren’t so inadequate. NC WARN is more like a fly that landed on Goliath’s nose — a nuisance, sure, but essentially harmless.

The array on Faith Community’s roof is around five kilowatts. It produces barely enough power to run the church’s central air conditioning for one hour each day, according to NC WARN. Can a company that made nearly $3 billion last year justify imposing a $120,000 fine for what probably amounts to a few hundred dollars of lost sales?

Also, NC WARN has repeatedly called the partnership a “test case” and promises to donate the solar system to the church if the commission decides the partnership isn’t legal — another reason Duke’s request for the fine seems spiteful.

It’s what the group is trying to accomplish that has Duke’s executive gritting their teeth and telling their lawyers to attack.

“It just makes sense,” Rev. Nelson Johnson, a co-pastor of Faith Community, said of solar energy to Greensboro News & Record. “It makes environmental sense. It makes financial sense. It makes common sense.”

So, I suppose it follows that, for all but a few, North Carolina’s law barring third-party sales does not.

Stay informed by subscribing to the Front Porch Blog.

Legal analysis aims to clear the air on third-party solar in Wisconsin, Minnesota

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   November 01, 2015  /   Posted in solar, Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Legal analysis aims to clear the air on third-party solar in Wisconsin, Minnesota

Wisconsin has become known nationally as a state hostile to distributed solar energy, with a Public Service Commission that has supported utility policies making rooftop solar installations difficult to finance and develop.

Minnesota, meanwhile, is generally known as a state where policies and officials are friendly to solar energy.

But in both states, a lack of clarity around the legality of third-party ownership, an important solar financing arrangement, has jeopardized or slowed the prospects for solar development, industry backers say.

Third-party ownership is a way that schools, government agencies and other non-profit organizations can finance solar installations and ensure that they can take advantage of tax credits.

In response to the situation, the Environmental Law & Policy Center has recently released legal memos making the case that in both states, statutes and case law clearly indicate such arrangements are fully legal (the ELPC is a member of RE-AMP, which publishes Midwest Energy News).

The Wisconsin memo, released in mid-October, is meant to help change the prospects for distributed solar in the state and jump-start a local solar industry that has been on hold because of what backers call hostile decisions and actions from utilities and regulators. In Minnesota, the memo released today is meant to bolster and protect a generally vibrant distributed solar outlook.

Wisconsin situation

The Wisconsin Public Service Commission’s rulings in three major rate cases last year put a serious chill on distributed solar installations by, among other things, increasing fixed charges on utility bills and adding new fees for solar installations.

The commission did not adopt one of the most extreme utility proposals – We Energies’ bid to essentially outlaw third-party ownership of solar installations.

However, that proposal continues to stall solar development in the state, since the commission did not clearly reject the concept and commission members have released informal letters indicating opposition to third-party ownership.

With the possibility seemingly looming that third-party ownership in Wisconsin could be prohibited in the future, solar developers have been largely unwilling to embark on projects in the state, industry leaders say.

Matt Neumann, president of Sunvest Solar in suburban Milwaukee, says his company does not do third-party ownership deals in its home state because of the uncertainty.

‘It’s a gray area, and when it’s a gray area you don’t get companies testing the waters.’

Amy Heart is senior manager of public policy for the national solar company Sunrun.

“It’s a gray area, and when it’s a gray area you don’t get companies testing the waters, you don’t get investment from companies when that’s one of their business models, you get people doing business in other states instead,” she said.

“We hear from companies that, ‘We’re not considering going to Wisconsin’ because of that uncertainty. And companies like Sunvest that are headquartered in Wisconsin are doing the majority of their business in surrounding states.”

A public utility?

Third-party ownership is essentially when one company owns and operates solar panels located on the roof or property of another entity, including a private individual, business, government agency or non-profit organization. The owner or tenant of the property often buys power from the company owning and operating the solar panels, through a PPA, or power purchase agreement.

Similar arrangements can also be made for small wind power projects or biogas installations, like those on many farms. In another form of third-party ownership, the property owner or tenant can lease the solar installation or other distributed generation from the entity that owns it, in which case there is no sale of power.

Third-party ownership arrangements often makes solar installations much more affordable, since the property owner or resident does not have to put all the capital up front. These arrangements are especially attractive for non-profit institutions like government agencies, schools and many hospitals, since they are tax-exempt and cannot on their own take advantage of tax breaks that are meant to make solar more affordable.

The main argument against third-party ownership with a power purchase agreement is that the company owning the solar panels is acting like a utility by generating and selling electricity, and that it should be regulated as a utility and only allowed to exist if it meets the requirements put on utilities. That argument was used unsuccessfully by Madison-based Alliant Energy in a recent Supreme Court case in Iowa.

In Wisconsin, state law prohibits public utilities from providing service to customers already receiving service from a utility. That means designating third-party installations as public utilities would essentially outlaw the arrangements, if the customer was also connected to the grid as most people with solar panels are.

“That confusion and uncertainty has really been hindering the development of the [solar] market in Wisconsin,” said ELPC attorney Brad Klein, co-author of the memos. “Customers and municipalities and others that might be interested in investing in solar have not been willing and able to go forward with this type of financing model because they don’t know if the commission is going to uphold it.”

The ELPC memos cite precedent and make legal arguments to assert that third-party ownership does not make the owner of solar panels a utility.

The main reasons are clear and simple, the ELPC memos say: third-party installations are not monopolies, they do not devote property to public use, they do not use public infrastructure or investments, they operate in a competitive environment and do not exert political influence on decision-makers.

Utility regulation as we know it was developed specifically to protect ratepayers from unfair treatment by privately-run utilities that are essentially granted monopoly power by the government. In other words, in situations where customers have little choice over what utility provides their services, and when utilities are in part supported by taxpayer funds.

By contrast, companies that offer third-party solar or other installations operate in a highly competitive environment. There is no pressure on consumers to enter into these agreements at all, and if they do, they have choices of which companies to partner with.

Ironically, if utilities are able to convince utility commissions in Wisconsin or elsewhere to effectively prohibit third-party ownership, these virtual monopolies will have succeeded in doing what regulation was meant to curb: taking away choices from consumers.

Encouraging precedent

The ELPC Minnesota memo notes that the state's Supreme Court has in the past decided whether something is a utility on a case-by-case basis depending on what it “actually does.”

For example, it ruled that a closed-circuit educational television network at the University of Minnesota did not pose the “usual monopolistic evils” that true telecommunications utilities could. It decided the closed circuit TV network did not qualify as a utility subject to regulation.

The ELPC Wisconsin memo cites various state Supreme Court decisions that would also seem to clearly affirm that third-party solar installations are not utilities – for instance, cases where a property owner built a steam plant to serve tenants in several buildings, where neighbors built their own small electric line and where a Ford plant built a hydroelectric dam to power its operations.

The memo cites a Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling in saying that: “Solar developers are much more like vendors of ‘merchandise . . . like soap, candles or hats’ than railroad barons or gas company monopolists.”

Third-party solar installations, the memos stress, are “behind-the-meter” arrangements resulting in on-site electricity generation, with the “sale” of the electricity being only incidental.

Possibilities for relief

The memos, which the ELPC produced as part of its participation in the U.S. Department of Energy’s SunShot Initiative promoting solar energy, have not been filed with any specific agencies or in any formal capacity.

But Klein said he hopes they will influence state lawmakers and judges, public service commissioners and utility officials in their future proposals and decisions. Klein noted that public service commissions could make proactive declaratory rulings that would affirm the legality of third-party ownership.

State legislatures could also pass legislation affirming the legality of third-party ownership. Neumann would like to see this happen.

“I do believe that third-party ownership is legal in Wisconsin, both leases and PPA’s which are the most common structures,” he said. “I would like to have the legislature pass legislation to make it clear, rather than having the utilities challenge the issue in front of the public service commission.

“Clean solar energy is supported by over 85 percent of Americans, our laws should support the desires of the constituents. A legislative bill for solar free-market financing would be the best way to do this.”

Lawsuits possible

If a third-party project is ever torpedoed by a utility or commission in the future and a lawsuit is filed challenging that move, the legal arguments laid out in the memos could inform attorneys’ arguments or judges’ decisions.

‘A key question when determining whether a public utility exists is whether there are any sales to the public.’

In Iowa, third-party ownership was essentially declared legal and valid thanks to a case that went to the state Supreme Court, wherein a utility had tried to prevent Eagle Point Solar from owning an installation on a municipal building. The state Supreme Court ruled in favor of allowing the installation, in a move seen as an important victory for solar installations.

Klein helped defend Eagle Point’s interest in the Iowa case, and said that Wisconsin case law is even more clear than Iowa law in affirming the legality of third-party ownership. That’s because previous court decisions in Wisconsin have, he said, been very clear in establishing that private contracts are not sales to the “public.”

“A key question when determining whether a public utility exists is whether there are any sales to the public,” Klein said. “The Wisconsin [court decisions in past] cases are very clear that sales to a very limited or restricted class of people like we have here is not a sale to the public. That’s a private contract involving a sale to that particular person – it’s not available to the public at large.”

Copyright 2013 IndianaDG