Author Archives Laura Arnold

Kasich: ‘All the above’ energy approach including unfreezing renewables in Ohio

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   October 20, 2015  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Kasich: ‘All the above’ energy approach

Presidential contender’s proposal includes renewables, conservation measures

BY JIM PROVANCE
BLADE COLUMBUS BUREAU CHIEF
Published: Tuesday, 10/20/2015

Read more at http://www.toledoblade.com/Energy/2015/10/20/Kasich-All-the-above-energy-approach.html#zqWrm4uEd5rpSHVz.99

COLUMBUS — Presidential contender John Kasich last week proposed an “all of the above” approach to energy production that includes renewables and conservation measures along with stepped-up fossil fuel production.

Kasich

John Kasich
ASSOCIATED PRESS

But Gov. John Kasich’s first test may come next year with his position that a proposed, indefinite halt to Ohio’s mandate that utilities get more power from renewable sources like wind, solar and new technology is “unacceptable.”

“We’ll make sure we produce more energy from oil and gas; from nuclear; from coal that we dig, clean, and burn; alternatives and renewables, and anything else that we can find, and we’ll do it responsibly,” Mr. Kasich said in New Hampshire as he spelled out his plan for the first 100 days of a President Kasich administration.

“We need it all, and it should come from right here,” he said.

He proposed working with Canada and Mexico to ensure that North America can meet its own energy needs, and part of that plan would be approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline, a position that puts him at direct odds with Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton.

The pipeline would run through the central United States from Canada to Mexico.

“Energy freedom is a matter of national security,” Mr. Kasich said. “We don’t want wars when it’s all about energy when we can do what we need to do in America to be energy independent.”

He called for opening more federal lands to oil and natural gas exploration; research into cleaner coal, smart grid, battery, and other technologies; and letting states regulate hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” operations at home.

He said he would end the ban on exporting domestic oil and gas and would end President Obama’s proposed, stricter regulations on carbon emissions from coal and other fossil fuel power plants.

Last year, the Republican-controlled General Assembly enacted a two-year timeout in state law that required utilities to find at least 25 percent of their power from renewable or advanced technology sources by the year 2025.

That two-year freeze is set to expire at the end of 2016, at which point the annual benchmarks that utilities must achieve would resume if the legislature doesn’t act.

A special legislative panel, however, recently recommended keeping the freeze in place indefinitely.

Mr. Kasich said the indefinite freeze would be “unacceptable,” but he hasn’t indicated what he expects to see instead.

“Energy efficiency and renewable energy absolutely should be part of America’s energy mix,” said Heather Taylor-Miesle, of the nonprofit Ohio Environmental Council Action fund. “But Gov. Kasich is dead wrong that there should be no limit on climate-changing carbon emissions. Kasich needs to take another look at the Clean Power Plan.”

Mike Hartley, executive director of the new Ohio Conservative Energy Forum, called Mr. Kasich’s proposal “a true conservative approach.”

“OHCEF believes we need [state renewable and efficiency] standards as part of an all-of-the-above energy policy here in Ohio that will remove current market barriers, drive innovation, focus on economic growth, and lead us toward increased energy independence and market predictability,” he said.

Contact Jim Provance at: jprovance@theblade.com or 614-221-0496.

Read more at http://www.toledoblade.com/Energy/2015/10/20/Kasich-All-the-above-energy-approach.html#zqWrm4uEd5rpSHVz.99

MISO SSR Unit’s Recovery of Fixed Costs Upheld; Hoosier Energy and WVPA Had Sought Rehearing

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   October 20, 2015  /   Posted in Hoosier Energy (HE)  /   No Comments

MISO SSR Unit’s Recovery of Fixed Costs Upheld

By Amanda Durish Cook

FERC last week issued two orders reaffirming earlier rulings on MISO’s disputed system support resource agreement with Illinois Power’s Edwards Unit 1 generator in Peoria, Ill.

The SSR agreement took effect in January 2013 to keep the Edwards unit operating to address thermal and voltage problems until transmission upgrades can be completed in December 2016. Dynegy’s Illinois Power unit acquired the plant from Ameren in December 2013.

In the first order, the commission affirmed its July 2014 finding that a generator should be allowed to recover its fixed costs through a full cost-of-service rate when it is forced to continue operating for reliability reasons (EL13-76-001, et al.).

MISO industrial customers and the PJM Market Monitor challenged the 2014 order, arguing that uneconomic generators targeted for retirement are not recovering their fixed costs from the market and should not receive a “windfall” because they are needed for reliability. (See PJM IMM Questions MISO Cost Recovery Ruling.)

The commission saw it differently. “Although a retiring generator may view undepreciated costs as being sunk and may write-off any loss at the time of retirement, the fact remains that MISO has the ability to unilaterally delay this decision,” FERC said. “During this delay, an SSR unit owner is providing utility service, and … when a generator is required to provide utility service, it should be permitted to recover costs beyond going-forward costs.”

Last week’s order also affirmed the commission’s earlier ruling that the Federal Power Act prevents the commission from providing retroactive cost-of-service recovery. The order left the commission’s previous rulings regarding Edwards’ 2013 and 2014 costs unchanged.

In the second order, FERC denied requests for rehearing of the commission’s March 31 order that renewed Edwards’ SSR agreement for one year through 2015 (ER15-943-002, et al.).

Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative, Illinois Municipal Electric Agency, Prairie Power, Southern Illinois Power Cooperative and Wabash Valley Power Association sought rehearing on the basis that MISO needed to conduct a new reliability analysis to re-evaluate the need for Edwards as an SSR unit. The companies contended MISO’s 2013 analysis may be out-of-date. FERC agreed with MISO that there were “no significant changes” that would necessitate a new analysis.

Unplugged politics; Solar energy battles in Arkansas

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   October 19, 2015  /   Posted in Feed-in Tariffs (FiT), solar, Uncategorized  /   No Comments

 Frank Kelly, Chairman

 Arkansas Renewable Energy Association logo

Unplugged politics
Solar energy

Arkansas Democrat-Gazette | Sunday, October 18, 2015

by Mike Masterson
Seems to me solar energy’s day is finally
dawning everywhere. Well, sorta.

The nonprofit group known as the Arkansas
Renewable Energy Association has been
working in the state Legislature since 2000
to advance policy to stimulate renewable energy development across our state.
Their initial efforts paid off in 2001 when the Legislature passed a law on net
metering to credit solar-energy system users for electricity they add to a utility
grid. However, very few net-metering systems were commissioned until 2009
when Gov. Mike Beebe appropriated $2 million from American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act funds to develop the state’s Renewable Technology Rebate
Program.
Frank Kelly of Little Rock, a financial planner and chairman of the energy
association, is arguably the person in Arkansas most familiar with the political
gamesmanship that has played out for some 15 years over the issue.
Kelly was the first Arkansan to sign net-metering agreements with Entergy in 2002
for his solar residence and signed the state’s first meter-aggregation agreement in
2014 for an Arkansas business. He believes evidence shows the regulated utility
monopoly in Arkansas since 2009 has repeatedly thwarted additional progress to
assist Arkansans with developing their own renewable energy resources.
For instance, failed attempts to allow privately owned renewable-energy systems
were introduced during the 2009, 2011, 2013 and 2015 legislative sessions. Kelly
says not one bill was allowed out of committee.
He says it’s especially regrettable that his association’s first attempt at passing a
distributed-generation bill in 2009 was supported by the governor, the Public

Service Commission, the UA System and others, but failed to make it out of
committee. Isn’t politics supposedly performed on behalf of the public (as
opposed to politically contributing special interests) an inspiring thing to behold?
Kelly explains that the policy initiative proposed in each distributed-energy bill is
simple. It would allow customers to sign a long-term power purchase agreement
with their local electric utility and take their own funds to invest in electric
generation. But nothing doing.
“There have been concerted efforts from the local electric cooperatives, investorowned
utilities, municipal utilities, industrial users and outside private-interest
groups to spread misinformation and fear in the minds of our state legislators,”
Kelly contends.
He says he can show a nationwide effort in almost every state to penalize netmetering
customers and deter further renewable energy development. “The
electric utility monopoly is losing sales of electricity when individual net-metering
customers begin to generate their own electricity. Since the kilowatt per hour is
first consumed on-site with unconsumed energy going back to the utility for
credit, the utilities consequently see negative revenue impacts.”
Kelly says that instead of embracing and supporting the creation of new energygeneration
partners, “they’ve instead decided to place additional barriers to slow
and deter increasing the adoption rate of renewable energy within each state.”
He also says a distributed-generation policy simply allows renewable energy to
compete on the same playing field as traditional fossil fuel generation. Private
solar development also can be financed the same way we finance every other
electric generation source—over the long term.
Those who generate renewable energy individually need long-term power
purchase contracts with their utility company, Kelly told me, continuing: “I mean a
contract that promises to purchase generation for an agreed-upon price for a
term of 20 years or more. Armed with such a contract, accurate installation costs
and 30-year equipment warranties, a renewable-energy developer can obtain
appropriate financing.”
An added incentive could lie in boosting return by including a renewable-energy
premium payment from the utility company in addition to the contract
reimbursement rate, specific to the actual form of renewable energy technology.
Using solar-photovoltaic generation as an example (since it occurs during the day
when most needed), Kelly says a private producer also could enjoy the highest

added premium. Solar generated by individuals lowers peak demand, thus
reducing the amount of expensive peak-power purchases a utility must make.
Today’s solar, as a viable energy source, is experiencing remarkable acceptance
overall by local electric utilities in Arkansas. The announced solar projects dwarf
the total existing installation capacity 15 times over, Kelly says, adding: “While this
is good on the surface, it’s apparent the regulated electric utility monopoly has
decided that solar energy is indeed great as long as they own it outright.”
Meanwhile, Kelly maintains, public relations campaigns continually shine the
industry’s desires on state lawmakers. “The reality being glossed over in the
process is the truth that they aren’t inclined to share any sand in the sandbox with
those who might generate their own renewable energy.”
I’d encourage every Arkansas lawmaker to revisit this matter with the best interest
of all Arkansans at heart by searching out the deeper truths that underlie Kelly’s
association’s efforts toward fairness for private energy producers.


Mike Masterson’s column appears regularly in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.
Email him at mikemasterson10@hotmail.com.


 

Download the article HERE> Uplugged politics_Arkansas_Frank Kelly

For more information contact:

Frank Kelly, Chairman
Arkansas Renewable Energy Association
27 Overlook Drive
Little Rock, AR  72207
501.225.8398
mailto:frank@arkansas.solar
http://arkansas.solar/

Ohio Politicians on “Energy Mandates Study Committee” Took $830,000 From Dirty Energy Companies

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   October 19, 2015  /   Posted in solar, Uncategorized, wind  /   No Comments

Ohio Politicians on "Energy Mandates Study Committee" Took $830,000 From Dirty Energy Companies

Connor Gibson Headshot
Posted: Updated:

A wolf pack of in-state utilities and out-of-state petrochemical billionaires has attacked Ohio's clean energy law, threatening to kill clean jobs and wreak further damage on the environment.

This attack is led by Ohio state Senator Bill Seitz (R), who five years earlier voted for the law, but after accepting dirty energy money compared the law to Stalinism.   The latest step to stall and dismantle clean energy incentives is the so-called "Energy Mandates Study Committee," or "EMSC." The EMSC was established after previous failed attempts by Sen. Seitz and other Ohio Senators to repeal or weaken the clean energy law.

The EMSC's recent decision to indefinitely stall laws promoting clean, efficient energy and the jobs they produce, is a power grab by coal utilities paying dropping campaign contributions in exchange to the gutting pollution-free clean energy jobs in Ohio.

A review of Ohio campaign finance data reveals some of the money behind these politicians' attack on successful clean energy incentives:

Quid Pro Coal: Dirty Energy funding to Ohio politicians on the "Energy Mandates Study Committee"

Data courtesy The National Institute on Money in State Politics - FollowTheMoney.org

Ohio Politician

ALEC?

Utility Industry

Coal Mining

Oil & Gas

TOTAL

Rep. Ron Anstutz X $83,100 $35,200 $90,686 $208,986
Sen. Bill Seitz X $79,125 $25,350 $20,425 $124,900
Sen. Cliff Hite X $50,085 $2,990 $64,855 $117,950
Rep. Kristina Roegner X $62,950 $2,150 $28,400 $93,500
Sen. Troy Balderson X $43,400 $2,450 $30,200 $76,050
Sen. Bob Peterson $31,650 $3,600 $14,850 $50,100
Rep. Christina Hagan X $24,280 $2,050 $21,900 $48,230
Rep. Louis W. Blessing, III X $37,578 $1,200 $3,350 $42,128
Rep. Jack Cera $11,000 $1,350 $9,200 $21,550
Rep. Mike Stinziano $16,150 $0 $2,700 $18,850
Sen. Sandra Williams $14,700 $500 $250 $15,450
Sen. Capri Cafaro $12,200 $1,000 $0 $13,200

GRAND TOTAL

$466,218

$77,840

$286,816

$830,874

ALEC, Clean Energy, and Rigged Markets

The EMSC is stacked with politicians linked to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the corporate bill-mill whose state legislator members help dirty energy lobbyists forge laws rolling back clean energy incentives. Some of ALEC's top "private sector members" include Koch Industries, ExxonMobil, Peabody, and Duke Energy.

At recent ALEC meetings, many of these companies sent their lobbyists to rub elbows with state politicians and create template laws in meetings closed to the public. ALEC facilitated the creation of several model bills intended to trip up the booming clean energy industry.

Legislators violate ALEC's core mission of promoting "free markets," giving their fossil fuel sponsors a pass and attacking incentives for their clean competitors at the expense of human health, clean air, clean water and a stable climate. ALEC's cookie-cutter attacks on clean energy have taken various shapes in Ohio, North Carolina, Kansas and a dozen other states.

Quid Pro Coal - What Lobbying Looks Like

Public emails recently published by Energy & Policy Institute show Sen. Seitz recruited help from utility lobbyists as he crafted SB 58.

The utilities gave the bulk of $466,218 to 12 politicians on Sen. Seitz's committee, documented above. This includes companies directly coordinating with Sen. Seitz, according to his emails.

Ohio utility companies -- FirstEnergy, American Electric Power, Duke Energy, NiSource, AES subsidiary Dayton Power & Light, and the Ohio Rural Electric Cooperatives (OREC) -- were directly solicited for input on Seitz's clean energy freeze bill, SB 58, a placeholder bill that preceded Sen. Seitz's study committee. See thistimeline, courtesy of Energy & Policy Institute.

Ohio Rural Electric Cooperatives is part of a massive consortium of smaller-scale electric co-ops called the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA). NRECA is the top contribution to national politicians among all dirty energy interests, even outspending Koch Industries PAC. NRECA's Ohio affiliate gave Sen. Seitz $4,250 in 2012. The next year, OREC lobbyists helped write Sen. Seitz's bill, SB 58, telling a Seitz staffer, "As we discussed,nbsp;attached is suggested language for inclusion in SB 58 with slight modifications."

No such opportunities were provided to clean energy advocates in communication with Sen. Seitz, including several small businesses, the Sierra Club and affiliates of unions like the Steelworkers and AFL-CIO.

Seitz repeatedly dismissed an Ohio State University study, commissioned by Ohio Advanced Energy Economy (OAEE), a group of Ohio businesses advocating for clean energy in Ohio. OAEE President Ted Ford warned Senator Seitz in a letter:

"[W]e can report that the results [of SB 58] are worse for ratepayers than we initially thought. The Ohio State University Study (version 2.0) finds that the bill is a massive giveaway to Ohio utilities, and would cost consumers almost $4 billion between now and 2025. The study also finds the standards have already saved Ohioans 1.4% on their electric bills."

A handwritten note on the letter, apparently written by Senator Seitz, says "more complete fabrications from people with zero credibility." The letter and handwritten commentary were circulated by a Seitz staffer to lobbyists at Duke Energy, American Electric Power, First Energy and others.

Seitz shot back a letter to OAEE and the Ohio Sierra Club, loaded with questions attacking the credibility and relevance of their data, also sourced from the Ohio State University Study.

It turns out, Sen. Seitz prefers his data from out-of-state universities, financed by none other than Kansas billionaire Charles Koch.

Koch University, Inc. - Utah State University

Ohio's coal-burning utilities aren't the only interests helping Seitz behind the scenes. The ALEC senator's study committee relied on data using dishonest measurements from professors at Utah State University (USU) in a department that has taken over$1.6 million from Charles Koch since 2005. USU is among the Charles Koch Foundation's top-funded universities.

It begs the question: Why would Ohio politicians look to Utah professors, financed by a Kansas billionaire, for the data on Ohio's clean energy and efficiency efforts?

The Koch-funded Institute for Political Economy at USU has produced a series of reports that give politicians the bad data needed to attack clean energy. The Koch professors are USU, like the Suffolk professors before them, appear to be intentionally misleading. Foundations affiliated with Koch Industries have backed these Utah professors in identical attacks on renewable energy standards, in Kansas and North Carolina.

Disproved data aside, USU professor Randy Simmons hid his financial conflicts of interest in a national op-ed for Newsweek.

These aren't the only Koch-funded professors stepping up to the plate to bat against wind. Before Utah, it was the Koch-funded Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University. And recently, Kansas University Professor Art Hall was caught taking payments from Koch to study the Kansas renewable energy standard, not long before he told the Kansas legislature to erode the incentives. Hall's previous job: Koch Industries' chief economist.

Koch Industries' executives are pushing "fake it till you make it" into the unknown.

Why the Freeze Makes Zero Sense

It's not the affiliations that matter so much as the false data and backwards hype involved.

The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), the U.S. wind energy trade association, has revealed basic flaws in all three of these Koch-funded professors' reports out of Utah State University. AWEA's Michael Goggin:

Instead of only going back to EIA’s 2013 renewable cost estimates like they did in their Kansas report, in their Ohio report they go back to 2008 cost data to develop their estimate of how the cost of wind energy compares against alternatives.

No explanation is provided for why they did not use EIA’s more recent 2015 and 2014 data, which show that wind energy imposes no net cost relative to conventional sources of energy even after removing the impact of federal incentives. Of course, the authors could have also used recent data from real-world market prices and found that wind energy provides significant net benefits for consumers, as we did above. Instead, using obsolete data allows them to miss how the cost of wind energy has fallen by more than half over the last five years, as documented by both government and private investor data.

Jobs, lower energy bills, less wasted energy...frozen by Senator Seitz

Samantha Williams at Natural Resources Defense Council surveys the data that Senator Seitz refuses to accept:

As of 2013, Ohio was home to over 400 advanced energy companies that employed over 25,000 Ohioans and was leading the country in the number of facilities manufacturing components for wind technology and second in the number of solar equipment providers. A report by the Pew Charitable trusts shows Ohio attracted $1.3 billion in private clean energy investment from 2009 to 2013. Similarly, Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2) reported that, just prior to the passage of the SB 310 clean energy freeze, Ohio's clean tech economy had grown to support 89,000 jobs.

Unfortunately, much of that hard-earned momentum was a casualty of the freeze as well as HB 483, which basically tripled setbacks for wind turbines and made future commercial-scale development unviable.The renewable sector is particularly lagging, in the E2 report showing a scant 1.5 percent job growth in Ohio far lower than the national wind and solar rate.

Pancake Politics: They Liked this Law in 2008

Sen. Seitz voted along with a large majority of Ohio lawmakers in 2008 to pass the clean energy law. Five years later, Seitz was comparing the clean energy law to "Joseph Stalin's five-year Plan."

Ohio is in the midst of a fossil-fueled flip-flop.

Muncie, IN: Five solar energy projects under way

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   October 13, 2015  /   Posted in Indiana Michigan Power Company (I&M)  /   No Comments

635798289320666671-MNI-1007-solarpower-34

Workers with Indianapolis based company Rectify Solar LLC install solar panels on top of the Youth Opportunity Center on Kilgore Avenue Wednesday Oct. 7, 2015.
(Photo: Jordan Kartholl/The Star Press, Jordan Kartholl/The Star Press)
 

Five solar energy projects under way

Copyright 2013 IndianaDG