Author Archives Laura Arnold

Midwest Energy News: For struggling rural communities, wind farms a welcome boon

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   December 02, 2014  /   Posted in wind  /   No Comments

For struggling rural communities, wind farms a welcome boon

(Photo by Joel Rivlin via Creative Commons)

Whether a wind farm is opposed or embraced by neighbors depends a lot on where it is built.

And a new study finds that for rural Midwestern communities that often are confronted with dwindling populations and revenues, wind farms are seen primarily as a welcome economic development — even if developers’ promises don’t completely pan out.

“In other places, you see a lot of opposition to wind energy, and projects are being blocked,” said Jeffrey Jacquet, an assistant professor of sociology at South Dakota State University, and one of the researchers. A study done a couple years ago found that proposed wind farms encountered resistance in about 45 percent of cases, according to Jacquet. In a community on the outskirts of the Twin Cities, he said, people “are vigorously trying to block a wind farm from being constructed.”

It’s more of an exurban community, he said, and people as a result may have “different notions of what land should be used for.”

In an attempt to gauge residents’ views of wind turbines, Jacquet and another researcher from South Dakota State University earlier this year conducted a survey and interviews among residents in a pair of adjoining and sparsely-populated South Dakota counties with two different wind-farm stories.

In Hyde County, one wind-energy developer put up 27 turbines in 2003. In Hand County, British Petroleum planned to build what was rumored to be the largest wind farm in the world, with 1,000 turbines. After erecting 10 turbines in 2009, however, BP pulled out and focused its resources on natural-gas extraction, according to Josh Fergen, a sociology graduate student at the university and one of the researchers.

Fergen wondered if the dashed plan for a huge wind farm would sour the residents of Hand County on the wind industry, as compared to the residents of Hyde County, where a 27-turbine farm was successfully operating.

In both counties, according to Jacquet, people started out with “very positive expectations” about how the wind farms would impact the local economies. As it turned out, their expectations were not met in either case.

“The reality was that jobs weren’t as great as they expected, and tax revenue wasn’t what they expected,” Jacquet said. “However, they still had positive impressions at the end of the day.” The residents of the county where BP said it would build 1,000 turbines had higher expectations that people in the neighboring county. But in the end, he said, they were just as satisfied.

“They see any development as good development,” Jacquet said. “In a lot of rural communities there isn’t a lot of development and people are worried about economic decline and population loss. So maybe it didn’t turn out to be the over-1,000 turbines they projected, but at least they built something and the land was being used for something.”

“We’re looking at counties that are experiencing some population loss,” Fergen added. “This wind energy development provides an avenue for the county and the school district to receive some benefits. Even if it’s not what they expected, it still helps.”

It can pay off for them in another way, in terms of hometown pride, said Fergen, who grew up in South Dakota.

“It helps to put them on the map,” he said. “There’s economic development and then, “Oh, we’ve got a wind farm here.”

The 238 respondents, about evenly divided between the two counties, expressed overwhelming support for wind energy in the abstract. About 92 percent indicated they favor wind-energy development across the nation. Only slightly fewer – 91 percent of respondents – expressed support for wind energy in their locality.

In a seeming paradox, those not supportive of wind energy tended to be those who most strongly identified with environmental values.

“At first blush you’d think it would be the opposite,” Jacquet said. The opposition among those identifying as environmentalists confirms research he did earlier in Pennsylvania. Although wind turbines avoid most of the issues associated with fossil fuel use, Jacquet said some people are more concerned about “disruption to wildlife and the natural landscape.”

The research team found that aesthetics enter in in another way. They asked residents if they found the turbines beautiful when in motion, or beautiful when not in motion.

“The ones in motion were found to be much more beautiful,” Jacquet said. “The narrative emerging is, ‘Do you view the landscape as a place of economic productivity? Is that what the landscape is for,or is the landscape more for retaining natural ecosystems and that sort of thing? A lot of people in the Great Plains see the land as a place for producing things. When the turbines are in motion and producing electricity, things are getting done.”

“There is a spectrum of opinion that seems to break down along environmental attitudes and what you think land should be used for. But in general, people seem to be in favor of it.”

INDIANA SENATE UTILITIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS; Is your State Senator on this list?

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   December 01, 2014  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

INDIANA SENATE UTILITIES COMMITTEE
Sen. Jim Merritt (R-Indianapolis) SD 31, CHAIR
Sen. James Buck (R-Kokomo), SD 21, RANKING MEMBER (RM)
Sen. Mike Delph (R-Carmel) SD 29
Sen. Randall Head (R-Logansport) SD 18
Sen. Erin Houchin (R-Salem) SD 47
Sen. Jean Leising (R-Oldenburg) SD 42
Sen. James Tomes (D-Wadesville) SD 49

Sen. Jean Breaux (D-Indianapolis), SD 34, RANKING MINORITY MEMBER (RMM)
Sen. John Broden (D-South Bend), SD 10
Sen. Lonnie Randolph (D-East Chicago), SD 2

AEE : AZ Regulators Ponder Utility-Owned Rooftop Solar While Competitors Object to Monopoly Advantages

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   December 01, 2014  /   Posted in solar  /   No Comments

Note: several links in this article reference documents housed in DocketDash, an application in AEE's new energy policy software, PowerSuite. To enhance your reading experience, click here and sign up for a free 14-day trial of PowerSuite.
http://powersuite.aee.net/welcome

STATE: Arizona Regulators Ponder Utility-Owned Rooftop Solar While Competitors Object to Monopoly Advantages

POSTED BY COLEY GIROUARD AND FRANK SWIGONSKI
NOV 20, 2014 3:21:00 PM

Three months ago, the two largest investor-owned electric utilities in Arizona submitted proposals to the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) that would allow them to own residential solar systems and, effectively, become players in Arizona’s competitive distributed solar market. The proposals sparked a controversy over whether monopoly utilities should be allowed to own rooftop solar. Now the ACC Staff has recommended that the Commission accept one of the proposals. If the ACC accepts the staff recommendation, it could open the door for more utility-owned distributed generation (DG) in Arizona.

As monopolies, utilities have certain advantages that give them a leg up in the marketplace against third-party solar companies. They already have proprietary system knowledge that allows them to install DG strategically, making more attractive offers to customers in areas where installations would save them the cost of other system improvements. In addition, they have strong brand recognition and an existing relationship with their customers which allows for significant marketing cost savings. Moreover, the utility is granted by the Corporation Commission the opportunity to obtain a certain rate of return by charging all its customers to recover the cost of its investments.

Private solar companies, like AEE members SolarCity and Sungevity, do not enjoy these advantages. Yet they’ve been operating in the Arizona market for years by offering financing packages such as solar leases and power purchase agreements. The average SolarCity or Sungevity customer saves about $20 a month by having solar on their roofs rather than buying all their electricity from the utility. Their fear is that utilities could undercut these prices - subsidized by all utility customers - and shut the solar companies out of the market.

In July, Arizona Public Service (APS), the largest regulated utility in the state, submitted its 2014 RES Implementation Plan, in which APS asked the ACC to approve AZ Sun DG - a program that would install 20MW of solar on 3,000 homes - as part of its renewable energy compliance plan. The solar systems would be owned by APS, which would pay customers $30 per month, significantly more than the average independent solar company could offer in savings, for use of their rooftop. Unlike a private company, the utility would pay for the program through charges to its other customers. ACC staff recommended that the Commission reject APS’s proposal, but left the door to utility ownership of DG open.

As evidence that Arizona’s competitive solar market is booming without utility ownership, the staff report noted that the AZ Sun DG program wasn’t necessary for APS to achieve its Commission-mandated solar energy targets. The solar market is growing fast enough without it. According to the Staff report, APS customers, through third parties such as Solar City and Sungevity, have installed 18.1 MW of residential solar in the first three quarters of 2014, and staff believes it is reasonable to assume comparable amounts of DG capacity will be added in 2015. Staff said it did not make sense to rate-base the costs of DG when customers were financing them on their own. In fact, according to GreenTech Media, 66% of those projects installed received no state incentives or rebates. In contrast, ACC staff estimated that AZ Sun DG would cost ratepayers up to $66 million in 2016 dollars.

While the current growth rate and cost trends in the solar industry will be enough for APS to meet its renewable energy goals, Commission staff did not believe the same was true for Arizona’s second largest utility, Tucson Electric Power (TEP). TEP asked the Commission to consider a similar proposal for a much smaller, 3.5 MW distributed solar program. The program would put utility-owned solar panel systems on approximately 600 homes at a cost of $10 million. For an initial processing fee of $250, participating customers would be able to fix their electricity bill for the 25 year useful life of the installation as long as usage did not increase by more than 15% during that time period. ACC Staff recommended that the Commission approve TEP’s proposal.

Arizona’s official ratepayer advocate, the Residential Utility Consumer Office (RUCO), submitted comments to the ACC supporting the program. “TEP’s unique program design can deliver solar energy at rates 30% below the non-participant cost of a comparable [third-party installed] system. For a utility with a 10 cent/kWh retail rate, this is impressive.”

But independent solar companies cried foul. In comments opposing TEP’s proposal, the Alliance for Solar Choice (TASC) noted that the proposal “is an inappropriate activity for a state-sponsored, regulated monopoly.” The utility plan “shifts investment risk from the competitive market to ratepayers; and it increases costs to TEP ratepayers without providing benefits beyond those that are already provided by a competitive solar industry.” TASC also noted that if the utility “wants to compete on a level playing field then they need to do so through an unregulated subsidiary.”

The Arizona Corporation Commission is expected to rule on the utility distributed solar proposals soon. This dispute is far from over - in Arizona, or elsewhere.

John Farrell, ILSR: Why Aren’t Rural Electric Cooperatives Champions of Local Clean Power?

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   November 29, 2014  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Why Aren’t Rural Electric Cooperatives Champions of Local Clean Power?

John Farrell
November 28, 2014

When it comes to ownership, there are few better structures for keeping a community’s wealth local than a cooperative. So why is it that America’s rural electric cooperatives are tethered to dirty, old coal-fired power plants instead of local-wealth generating renewable power?

There are a lot of answers to this question, but it might start with this: electric cooperatives aren’t quite like other cooperatives.

The Seven Slipping Cooperative Principles

Cooperatives around the world adhere to the “Seven Cooperative Principles,” but electric cooperatives (at least in the United States) fail on several of these principles.

1. Voluntary and open membership. Nope. If you want electric service in cooperative territory, you sign with the cooperative. While it’s no different than rules for other types of utilities in the 30 states that grant utilities a monopoly service territory, it violates the principles of cooperatives.
2. Democratic control (one member, one vote). Not always. Some electric cooperatives award one vote per meter, and some customers (e.g. farmers, industry) have more than one meter. Furthermore, many cooperatives filter potential board candidates with “nominating committees.” And look, here’s a board election with no opposition!There’s also a big gap between cooperative member support for (paying more for) renewable energy and cooperative behavior. This 2013 survey in Minnesota, for example, shows little separation between urban and rural areas (where cooperatives are dominant) in support for renewable energy, yet cooperatives opposed every bill favoring clean energy in the 2013 legislative session.
3. Members control the capital of the cooperative.
4. Cooperatives maintain their autonomy and independence even if they enter into agreements with other entities. Questionable. Many cooperatives sign 40- or even 50-year purchase contracts with power suppliers to supply 95% of their entire sales, mostly from coal-fired power plants. Standard and Poor’s explains this in an evaluation of a Seminole Electric in Florida, a generation & transmission cooperative that sells to rural cooperatives. In their words, one of the utility’s credit strengths is, “A captive retail market and the ability to set rates through take-and-pay, all-requirements wholesale power agreements with nine of 10 members through 2045.”
5. Cooperatives provide educational opportunities to their members and the public on the benefits of cooperatives. Questionable. If you read rural electric cooperative newsletters, you’ll hear a lot about climate change but you’ll often find the phrase in quotes
6. Cooperatives work best when cooperating with other cooperatives. Questionable, refer to #4. Some of these power suppliers are “co-ops of co-ops,” but these long-term contracts have tethered the economic fortunes of cooperative members to the vagaries of the coal market (see below). More than any other type of utility (public or investor-owned), rural electric cooperatives are reliant on coal for their electricity fuel. The average U.S. utility is 38% coal-fired power.

rural electric cooperatives reliant on coal - public citizencoal prices 2000-11.001
7. Cooperatives work for sustainable development of their community. Not enough. Most cooperatives rely heavily on imported power purchased on long-term contracts with the goal of cheap power, but that ironically leave them at the mercy of unfettered price increases. They also have missed an enormous economic development opportunity from renewable energy. For example:Renewable energy provides significant economic impacts ($1 million per megawatt of wind, $250,000 per megawatt for solar) with multipliers for local (i.e. cooperative) ownership (up to 3.5 times more local economic impact, and twice as many jobs). Wind and solar provide more jobs per megawatt of power capacity, as well.RE-fossil-jobs-per-MWFinally, rural electric cooperatives have organized a 1 million comment campaign against EPA regulations of carbon pollution from power plants. Hardly a commitment to “sustainable development.”

How Can Cooperatives Change?

Restoring their 7 principles could do a lot. Improving their structure so that the cooperative directors reflect member opinion on renewable energy would restore the principle of democratic control. Avoiding ridiculously long power purchase contracts would provide local cooperatives with real autonomy and control of their energy costs and options. Broadening their focus on economic development beyond cheap power to include renewable energy would make “sustainable development” much more realistic.

Can it happen? It already has, in Iowa and on Kaua’i, and there are more tools that ever at their disposal. But as with electrification, no one will do it unless they do it themselves.

This piece originally appeared on ilsr.org. For timely updates, follow John Farrell on Twitter or get the Democratic Energy weekly update.

Tampa Bay Times Business Columnist Trigaux: If you’re not mad at Duke Energy, you’re not paying attention

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   November 29, 2014  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Trigaux: If you're not mad at Duke Energy, you're not paying attention

Robert TrigauxRobert Trigaux, Times Business Columnist
Friday, November 28, 2014 11:02am

If Duke Energy keeps up its remarkably self serving agenda, the company should update its corporate slogan. Here's a suggestion.

Duke Energy: Me First, Customers Last.

In 2014, Duke's delivered little but calamity, especially in Florida, where customers serve as company punching bags. But even in its home state of North Carolina, Duke fumbled. Now it's busy downplaying a horrible environmental spill of its own making. A toxic sludge of 39,000 tons of arsenic-laced coal ash and 27,000 gallons of contaminated water now coats nearly 70 miles of the once scenic Dan River.

In Florida, Duke's relentless series of self-serving decisions imposed on its 1.7 million rate-paying customers surely belongs in the Guinness Book of Business Bullying.

Let's go no deeper in this column without a Bronx cheer for the rubber-stamping Florida Public Service Commission. The PSC's willingness to serve as Duke's lackey, doormat and minion — three roles at one price! — has not only devastated Floridians who must buy their high-priced electricity from this monopoly utility. In addition, PSC policy decisions made at the behest of Duke and other big power companies in this state routinely undermined the struggling alternative energy industry and state energy conservation efforts.

"It's hard to believe that in this age of technological innovation, Florida's utilities are acting like it's the 1950s," David Guest, managing attorney for the Florida office of Earthjustice, a national nonprofit law firm, wrote this month in a commentary appearing in multiple newspapers across the state.

Guest is on the right track but wrong on the timing. It's not the 1950s. It's the 1250s, and Floridians are little more than serfs.

Credit Susan Glickman of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy and the organizer of last month's "Pitchfork Protest" held outside Duke Energy Florida's headquarters in St. Petersburg for what deserves to be the rallying cry of 2014.

"If you're not mad, you're not paying attention."

For those who napped as power companies picked their wallet this year — and will do so again in the coming years — rise and shine:

• Several days ago, the PSC voted — in keeping with its subservient ways — to endorse proposals by Duke and other Florida utilities to gut this state's energy-efficiency goals by more than 90 percent. The PSC's own staff issued a 100-plus-page analysis supporting utility arguments that energy-efficiency programs are too costly because it's cheaper for power companies to produce a kilowatt of electricity than to save one. That nonsense, lip-synched on Tuesday by a majority of the commissioners, might work if we were all back in first grade. It's funny how regulators in most other states can grasp so basic a concept as encouraging efficient energy use.

And while Duke and other big utilities in Florida try to discourage increasingly cost-competitive alternative energy, more businesses are not listening. Large area organizations like Great Bay Distributors and Lockheed Martin in Pinellas County, Tampa International Airport and two VA medical centers already are pursuing major solar panel projects in anticipation of renewables becoming more mainstream.

• Duke Energy Florida claims an energy expertise, being part of the biggest power company in the country. Yet the utility charges startlingly higher electricity rates than either neighboring Tampa Electric or Florida Power & Light. So much for being competitive. And on customer service, Duke in Florida has sat at the bottom of the barrel for several years running, say JD Power surveys.

High rates. Poor service. Perfect storm.

• Reports of sloppy billing by Duke Energy are on the rise, with customers complaining of unexplained spikes in monthly electricity bills, getting charged expensive bills that turned out to belong to a neighbor's meter, and extra charges on a monthly bill for lighting that happened to belong to a neighbor. Gulfport customer Ralph Bassett complained when his bill soared one month. Duke told him it was because he ran his air conditioner more during a hot spell. He does not have air conditioning. The matter remains unresolved.

• Nor are businesses unscathed. Some are charged higher rates than they should be from Duke. That's because Duke does not automatically allot the best-price rate to such customers — a practice other utilities typically do without asking. That creates extra revenues for Duke by charging more and leaves the business suffering unless — somehow — it learns it could have been operating at a lower electricity rate. Duke's response? A business has to request, in effect, a best rate. Says Duke: "Automatically switching customers to what appears to be the lowest rate without their input and consent assumes that we know everything about how and when they use energy and any future plans they may have for their businesses." This gives new meaning to the phrase "Don't ask, don't tell."

• Earlier Duke screw-ups might seem like old news, like the breaking and premature closing of the Crystal River nuclear plant in Citrus County. Or the long-proposed Levy County nuclear power plant that charged ratepayers vast sums in advance to help cover a wildly escalating project that Duke ultimately shelved. Together these fruitless projects left customers saddled with billions in costs that they will have to pay via higher rates for years to come.

• The final insult? The loss of those nuclear plants that will now never produce any power must be made up for with —you guessed it — a new natural gas plant. Duke will build one in Citrus County for $1.5 billion, charging customers for its cost.

Experts say the bulk of that extra electricity from a new plant could have been avoided by the energy efficiency programs that Duke and its power pals are so eager to end.

"It borders on criminal behavior for utility regulators to approve a big new gas plant while Duke is proposing to kill conservation programs," Glickman told the Tampa Bay Times last month.

If you enjoyed the 2014 roundup on Duke Energy, brace yourself for 2015.

If you're not mad, you're not paying attention.

Contact Robert Trigaux at rtrigaux@tampabay.com or (727) 893-8405. Follow @venturetampabay.

Trigaux: If you're not mad at Duke Energy, you're not paying attention 11/28/14 [Last modified: Friday, November 28, 2014 12:53pm]

Copyright 2013 IndianaDG