Author Archives Laura Arnold

FirstEnergy wants Ohio to end deregulation, return to state-controlled rates; Good or bad idea?

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   July 29, 2015  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

FirstEnergy to face angry investors

Sammis is FirstEnergy's last Ohio coal-fired plant and its closing could force the company to build more long-distance transmission lines -- paid for by customers -- to bring power here from Pennsylvania and other states.
 
 

FirstEnergy wants Ohio to end deregulation, return to state-controlled rates

By John Funk, The Plain Dealer
Follow on Twitter
on July 28, 2015 at 5:11 PM, updated July 28, 2015 at 8:37 PM

AKRON -- FirstEnergy Corp. wants Ohio to re-regulate the electric utility industry, hoping to end an era the company itself fought for just seven years ago, in which electricity rates were set by wholesale markets without interference from the state.

"I would do it in a heartbeat," said Chuck Jones, CEO since January, in an interview with The Plain Dealer's editorial board.  "I think it makes sense.  I am trying to save a company."

Jones said FirstEnergy's future is at risk if it cannot convince the state's Public Utilities Commission to force ratepayers to cover the full cost of electricity from two of its huge coal and nuclear plants, even if other sources of electricity, such as natural gas, would be cheaper for consumers.

At the time of the last big battle over deregulation, in 2008, the company seemed likely to prosper because its coal-fired plants were among the cheapest sources of electricity in the state.

Since then, the development of horizontally drilled and hydraulic fractured gas wells has helped push down the price of a thousand cubic feet of natural gas, from more than $10 in the spring of 2008 to about $2.80 today. FirstEnergy's stock price tumbled from a high of more than $82 on June 1, 2008, to $32.80 at the end of trading on Tuesday.

Jones said the company is not currently working with any lawmakers to write a re-regulation bill, but added that the first step toward returning to regulation is for the Public Utilities Commission to approve the company's pending rate case.

That case includes a 15-year power purchase agreement to have FirstEnergy's local distribution companies Ohio Edison, the Illuminating Co. and Toledo Edison buy all of the power generated by the Davis-Besse nuclear plant and the coal-fired H.R. Sammis plant, at whatever it cost to generate.

Those generating costs are currently higher than the wholesale price of power on the grid, where gas-fired power plants are the low-cost producers.  The company admits the deal would cost customers money in the first three years but argues that over the 15-year lifetime of the contracts, it would save about $2 billion because natural gas won't remain at today's rock bottom prices.

Critics of the plan, including the Ohio Consumers Counsel and the Northeast Ohio Public Utilities Council, or NOPEC, argue the deal would cost customers an extra $3 billion.

However long-term prices play out, the plan would ensure that the company would not lose money by operating the plants. In filings before the PUCO, the company's experts have argued that without the special power purchase contract the company may be forced to close them.

Sammis is the company's last Ohio coal-fired plant, said Jones, and its closing would force the company to build more long-distance transmission lines -- paid for by customers -- to bring power here from Pennsylvania and other states.

Jones said he has talked to Gov. John Kasich about the company's current situation. "We talked very frankly about the the kind of tenuous position FirstEnergy is in and he asked me four times what can they do to help.

"I am trying to save a company."

"My answer four times was it's not your problem. It's my problem. The only thing I will ever ask you for is a fair chance to tell our story, a fair chance to have our case heard. And if we can't do it in a convincing manner, then shame on us.

"I am not asking the state for anything," he said.

But, apart from the rate-settting case, the company did ask for something from the state just a year ago.

It convinced legislators to remove the state mandate, in place since 2009, that forced power companies to help their customers use less power annually by buying energy efficiency technologies, and a parallel rule requiring power companies to sell an increasing percentage of "green power" annually.

Senate Bill 310, which Kasich signed into law in June 2014, froze those mandates for two years while lawmakers decided what to do next.

A special committee recently said it does not want to permanently freeze the mandates.

Jones said the energy efficiency programs FirstEnergy was forced to put in place were paid for by customers through higher rates, but benefited only those companies and consumers who could afford to buy new energy efficient products -- everything from new production line motors to new home appliances.

He said another way has to be developed to pay for energy efficiency programs, but did not offer any specific plan.

He said FirstEnergy is not opposed to renewable energy but believes that it must be "feathered in" slowly because wind and solar power production is not constant and therefore cannot be counted on.

And building solar arrays on buildings and homes is the least efficient way to add solar, he said.

"If you want solar energy the most efficient way to get solar energy is to have the utility build it for you," he said. "And build it in 200-300-400 megawatt solar farms."

A regulated power company could do that, Jones said, because it could add the costs to its rate base, just as the industry did for the first 85 years of its existence.

Grand Rapids (MI) to explore solar power for waste water facility

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   July 29, 2015  /   Posted in solar  /   No Comments

Grand Rapids to explore solar power for waste water facility

Lt. Gov. Ellspermann writes to EPA requesting quick action on renewable energy requirements

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   July 29, 2015  /   Posted in Biofuels  /   No Comments

TheStatehouseFile.com

Ellspermann writes to EPA requesting quick action on renewable energy requirements

Lt. Gov. Sue Ellspermann

Staff Report
TheStatehouseFile.com

INDIANAPOLIS — Lt. Gov. Sue Ellspermann is requesting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency take action on setting renewable energy volume requirements for 2014, 2015 and 2016.

In a letter to the EPA Administrator, Ellspermann noted the uncertainty in the volumes requirements significantly impacts Hoosier farmers and biofuels industries in Indiana. Gov. Mike Pence sent out a similar letter on Jan. 21, 2014.

“The proposed reductions in the renewable volume requirements and the delays by the EPA in setting them have created uncertainty for the Hoosiers involved in this industry, particularly with the 2014 and 2015 requirements that remain incomplete,” Ellspermann said in her letter. “Industry decisions on growth, investment, and employment are being dampened given this uncertainty. This must change for our nation to realize the objectives put in place by Congress when the renewable volume requirements were established.”

Congress originally authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to establish renewable energy production requirements in 2005. The policy is meant to enhance the nation’s energy supply with biofuels added to traditional petroleum fuels.

She also expressed concern about transparency and openness in the volume setting process and asked that the EPA provide ample opportunity for substantive contribution from stakeholders.

“Stakeholders must have an opportunity for substantive contribution to the process, particularly those stakeholders who bear the responsibility of meeting the requirements,” Ellspermann said.

Ellspermann’s letter follows a previous letter on the same topic sent by Gov. Mike Pence on January 21, 2014.

The full letter can be read here.

TheStatehouseFile.com is a news website powered by Franklin College journalism students.

Why we need to tell our side of the story on renewable energy and distributed generation

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   July 29, 2015  /   Posted in 2015 Indiana General Assembly, solar  /   No Comments

Steven Bushong is associate editor of Solar Power World.

Steven Bushong is associate editor of Solar Power World.
 
 

Lobby to keep solar business booming

In North Carolina, lawmakers want to reverse renewable energy mandates and kill solar tax credits. In Nevada, a 3% cap on net metering is frustrating residential installers. In Colorado, the major utility wants to place prohibitive fees on customers going solar. In California, the public utilities commission is considering changes to net metering. Nationally, the ITC is in severe danger.

Clearly, solar installers have plenty to do to improve the market and political landscape in which they do work, but how does a political novice begin to make a difference? First, he or she must understand the challenge.

Entrenched interests

For a century, U.S. consumers have received electricity by way of a low-competition utility market. If you’ve ever bought electricity for your house, your selection of power providers was probably limited to one or two utilities. Solar—which generates electricity on your own roof—disrupts the utility-centric model for getting power. Currently, more than 200,000 solar arrays are challenging a standard that once seemed permanent.

The problem is that utilities have a long-cultivated, entrenched relationship with their local legislators and regulators, two groups that wield tremendous power over the solar industry. Legislators write laws and taxes; regulators approve fees and promote competition within the generation industry, when they deem appropriate.

Many of the aforementioned utilities either oppose or don’t understand the rise of distributed solar (though some progressive utilities have embraced the technology). Feeling threatened, they are visiting halls of power and using their lobbying prowess to oppose legislation and policies that would be supportive of our industry.

Prudent contractors, which should be any contractor planning to stay open beyond 2017 (when the ITC for residential solar likely disappears), will take an interest in visiting these places of power and shaping the decisions made there, too. Laws and policies impact bottom lines, and your efforts can make a difference.

In Tennessee, for example, the comptroller’s office proposed an increase in the tax valuation of solar property from half a percent to 33%, the same valuation as wind turbines. A year later, solar advocates had succeeded in reducing the valuation to 12.5%.

“[The 33% valuation] was such a deal-killer,” said Mary Shaffer Gill, president of TenneSEIA. “Obviously, we’d love to have it at half a percent, but we felt satisfied with the result.”

Step one

The work will continue for advocacy groups across the country because threats to solar business surface all the time. More than a dozen states have issues in contention now, and contractors must bring a dose of their reality—that solar is good, and this is why—to the insular halls of legislators.
The most basic way to get involved is to sign up for alerts from regional or national solar advocacy groups, or become a member of one. SEIA hosts a directory of regional chapters on
its website, seia.org.

“These groups will let you know when your voice will matter most, and they will give you the tools you need to take action,” said Rosalind Jackson, director of external relations at Vote Solar. “It could be a couple clicks, but it will have an impact.”

Legislators

But maybe you want to be more involved and come face-to-face with your elected officials. All the experts interviewed agree on this fact: More than anything else, legislators are driven by job creation and economic growth in their districts. But they also want votes. Therefore, communication should come from someone who matters to them—in other words, someone who can vote for them—and the constituent should offer just the facts that matter. Legislators are busy people, and you may only have a few minutes to share your point and secure support.

“Good things don’t happen because of luck,” said Jason Rooks, a professional lobbyist who works with GASEIA. “I spend a lot of time making sure the right person is communicating the right thing to the right legislator.”

Advocating for Tennessee installers, Gill traveled to Washington, D.C., twice last year. She and her party stressed numbers.

“We talked jobs, talked dollars and shared an inventory of the solar assets in the state,” Gill said. “With those numbers, we can show the economic impact of the industry here, up and down the
value chain. Turning it into a business case is extremely important.”

Solar is a big business today. More than $71 billion in solar investment was deployed in the U.S. in 2014, and more than 174,000 Americans are employed in the solar industry, according to SEIA.

Regulators

Talking to regulators is a bit more nuanced than sharing information with legislators. Whereas a lot of what lobbyists do with legislators is educate, regulators already know the details. Still, their details come from a small group of interests that often have a strong connection to utilities. They are accustomed to a utility-centric electricity model.  They need to hear from contractors and others outside their comfort zone.

“Regulators are more well-versed in electricity than the typical legislator,” Jackson said. For regulators, she said, “it’s really making the case for rethinking the whole relationship between the customer and the utility and the value local solar power brings to a grid.”

For contractors interested in lobbying regulators, IREC has developed a guide specifically for regulators on assessing the costs and benefits of distributed solar (available at tinyurl.com/IREC-Solar). Bring this with you. But at the end of the day, Jackson said, local and regional issues come down to one stakeholder versus another.

“What solar really has going for it is public support and a vision that inspires people,” she said. “You want to report a fact-based case, but also remind regulators about what their consumers want.”

Polling consistently puts consumer support for all forms of solar power at over 80%, and support comes from across the political spectrum. The trick is getting policy makers to also see the tangible benefits of the technology.

IndianaDG Editor's Note: This is also why you need to subscribe to this blog. encourage others to subscribe and to join IndianaDG to financially support our lobbying efforts.

Join IndianaDG Today!

Iowa Consumer Advocate asks rural electric co-op to justify $85/month fee on customer DG

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   July 28, 2015  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Iowa Consumer Advocate Mark Schuling
 

Iowa consumer advocate investigating co-op’s fixed charge

A rural electric cooperative in Iowa has until Wednesday to provide the state's Office of Consumer Advocate (OCA) with documents justifying its proposal to impose an $85 monthly fee on electricity customers who generate some of their own power with solar panels or another technology.

The monthly fee, which would be three times what Pella charges customers who don't generate any of their own power, appears to be one of the highest such fees in the nation – as well as, possibly, a violation of Iowa law. Iowa code 476.21 declares it illegal to treat customers with distributed generation differently from customers without their own source of generation.

The cooperative did a cost-of-service study a few months ago, and concluded that self-generating customers were not paying their share of the fixed costs of maintaining transmission and distribution systems, and other infrastructure.

Although he said he intends to share the study with the OCA, Pella's chief executive officer, John Smith, said he plans to continue withholding it from anyone else. At least one customer – as well as Midwest Energy News – has asked to review the study, which Smith says is "not subject to distribution."

John Smith, Chief Executive Officer, PCEA since 1991
 

The OCA allows him to request that the study, and any other information he might share, be kept confidential.

The issue came to light on June 18, when the cooperative sent a letter to its approximately 3,000 customers, letting them know of the plans to hike the “facilities fee” for those with distributed generation. Only about a dozen of the co-op's customers have their own generation systems at present, although Smith said he anticipates that number will grow significantly.

The fee hike would take effect immediately for customers who install generation facilities after August 15, systems installed prior to that would have a five-year grace period.

The news caused one customer to change his mind for now about installing solar panels. Another customer, who's had panels since 2012 in two hog barns and one farmhouse, said it will be cheaper for him to remove them when the monthly fee spikes in five years.

Jennifer Easler, an attorney with OCA, said her office will consider “whether there's a cost justification” for Pella's intention to levy a higher monthly fee on distributed-generation customers. If her office concludes there's not a sufficient basis, it will turn the issue over to the Iowa Utilities Board for a hearing on the matter.

“Even though RECs and consumer-owned utilities are not rate-regulated,” she said, “Iowa law does prohibit any utility from discriminating against a renewable-energy user. We are just trying to make sure the proposal would not be resulting in discrimination.”

Copyright 2013 IndianaDG