Author Archives Laura Arnold

USGBC LEED bombshell: Building’s certified by USGBC’s LEED standards actually use more energy than uncertified buildings

Posted by Laura Arnold / November 28, 2014 / Posted in Uncategorized / No Comments

USGBC LEED bombshell
By Barbara Vergetis Lundin, March 3, 2014

[This is not a new report but we missed it the first time and thought we should share it with you now.]

It has been speculated about for years: Is LEED certification -- based on the U.S. Green Building Council's (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design standards -- anything more than a PR stamp of approval, even though USGBC contends that buildings with this "stamp" actually use less energy than their uncertified counterparts? Hard evidence now answers this question.

Research conducted by the Environmental Policy Alliance reveals that large privately-owned buildings in Washington, D.C. certified under the USGBC's LEED standards actually use more energy than uncertified buildings. In fact, despite having the highest number of buildings in the country certified under LEED, the research reveals that Washington, D.C. buildings are actually less energy efficient than the national average.

The research determined energy consumption by comparing the weather-normalized source energy use intensity (EUI -- a unit of measurement that represents the energy consumed by a building relative to its size), for both buildings certified by the USGBC as "green" and those that have not gone through the USGBC's expensive permitting process. The LEED-certified buildings' EUI was 205, compared to 199 for non-certified buildings. Ironically, the USGBC's headquarters, which has achieved the highest level of LEED certification, is off the charts in terms of energy consumption at 236.

How can this be?

"The reason LEED doesn't produce energy-efficient buildings is that buildings are currently certified based on their projected energy use -- not their actual energy use. To gain LEED certification, the USGBC requires buildings to submit their plans through a modeling software that projects how much energy the building will use. How the building actually performs once it's occupied doesn't matter," Anastasia Swearingen, research analyst for the Environmental Policy Alliance, told FierceEnergy. "Another reason why buildings certified under LEED aren't necessarily more energy efficient is that the program has an arbitrary point system to earn different levels of certification. USGBC rewards a building for only including the minimum number of parking spaces with as many points as creating a 'green power' renewable energy system."

These findings are similar to those resulting from an analysis of D.C. government buildings by The Washington Examiner earlier this year, which revealed that many of the District's LEED-certified buildings were the least energy efficient of all comparable buildings.

"This latest data release only confirms what we already knew: LEED certification is little more than a fancy plaque displayed by these 'green' buildings," said Swearingen. "Previous analyses of energy use by LEED-certified buildings have consistently shown that LEED ratings have no bearing on actual energy efficiency."

These findings are significant, as D.C. is one of several major localities to mandate the use of LEED in construction of public buildings and was the first city to require all buildings (public and private) to disclose energy usage.

"It's troubling that to achieve the laudable goal of promoting greater energy efficiency, the district relies on the use of a third-party rating system that doesn't require actual proof of energy efficiency to earn certification," said Swearingen. "Even more alarming is the fact that the city is collecting millions of dollars in permit fees to administer this inefficient program."

In fiscal year 2013, D.C. collected more than $1.6 million in green building fees, and the District has collected over $5.2 million in fees since 2010, according to the Environmental Policy Alliance.

See http://www.fierceenergy.com/story/usgbc-leed-bombshell/2014-03-03?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal

For more:
- visit this website http://www.leedexposed.com/what-is-leed/

2014 Freeing the Grid State Report Card Gives Indiana Net Metering “B”

Posted by Laura Arnold / November 26, 2014 / Posted in Uncategorized / No Comments

Freeing the Grid 2014

Freeing the Grid: States Remain Strong on Consumer Clean Energy Policies
By Rosalind Jackson November 13, 2014

Vote Solar and the Interstate Renewable Energy Council (IREC) today released the 2014 edition of Freeing the Grid, a policy guide that grades all 50 states on two key clean energy programs: net metering and interconnection procedures. Together these policies empower energy customers to use rooftop solar and other small-scale renewables to meet their own electricity needs.

Now in its eighth year of publication, the report shows that over the past year, states nationwide have generally upheld and in some cases strengthened these pillars of consumer clean energy investment. Considering the overwhelming number of attempts by traditional power interests to weaken net metering over the past year, this is a major win for consumer choice and energy innovation. It’s heartening to see regulators nationwide – in red states and blue – stand strong for solar progress by upholding these important policies.

With strong state renewable energy policy leading the way, entrepreneurs, businesses and customers are successfully transforming our nation’s energy landscape for the better. “Affordable clean energy is driving change and innovation in our nation’s electric sector, the likes of which have not been seen in more than a century. Freeing the Grid is intended to be the steady guide for state regulators and others who are working to navigate the changing utility landscape and unleash the benefits of local clean energy,” said Jane Weissman, President and CEO of IREC, our trusted partner on Freeing the Grid.

“These policies help put people, not polluters, in control of energy decision-making. They empower individuals to go solar and they help create new, good jobs. They also help cut carbon pollution and climate change, which disproportionately impact communities of color and low-income families. We hope to see even more states adopting strong net metering and interconnection policies that support the cleaner, healthier and more just energy economy that so many Americans want,” added Jeremy Hays, Executive Director of Green For All.

With that, 2014 report highlights include:

Net Metering Grades:
This policy ensures that renewable energy customers receive full credit on their utility bills for valuable clean power they put back on the grid. There were no declines in state grades over the past year, a significant outcome considering the many attacks on net metering across the country from utilities aiming to stifle solar adoption.

In total, more than two-thirds of U.S. states now qualify for good ‘A’ or ‘B’ grades in this important clean energy policy. Two states that already held high “A’ grades, Vermont and Massachusetts, raised their program caps to further expand consumer access to net metering’s bill-saving benefits. The news is timely as the Massachusetts‘ first Solar Task Force meeting is also convening today to chart a long-term path forward on net metering in the state, an outcome of that same legislation that bumped up the otherwise looming program cap. We hope to see the Bay State shine yet again as an outcome of this process.

“Massachusetts is leading the way on solar, in part, because policies like net metering provide everyone access to the benefits of this renewable energy technology,” said DeWitt Jones, President of Boston Community Capital’s solar affiliate, which develops and owns solar projects in low income communities. “Equitable access to solar maximizes the potential to use the technology to help build healthier and more resilient communities and address the energy affordability challenges created by rising and volatile energy prices.”

Interconnection Procedure Grades:
These are the rules and processes that an energy customer must follow to be able to ‘plug’ their renewable energy system into the electricity grid. This process should be straightforward, transparent and fair. Ohio notably improved its procedures, improving its grade to an ‘A.’ Half of U.S. states receive good ‘A’ or ‘B’ grades, and the remaining are in need of improvement.

Head of the Class:
A record number of five states achieved excellence in both net metering and interconnection policies this year: California, Massachusetts, Ohio, Oregon and Utah.

California, far and away our nation’s solar leader, is another market where we hope policymakers keep its successful clean energy programs shining for the long-term. The Commission is currently deciding the future of the state’s net metering program – and the utilities pushing hard to weaken it. Along with many allies, we urge the Commission to continue to ensure that consumers continue to receive full, fair credit for their valuable solar investment.

This year’s report delves into a number of related pressing issues in the current regulatory landscape. We discuss the problematic rise in utility proposals to add discriminatory fixed charges to residential net metered customers. We explore the proud American tradition of energy self-determination, which is reflected in the decades-old federal law, PURPA. And we cover the rise of shared renewables models as a way to further expand solar access within the community.

We are in period of unprecedented change and innovation in the U.S. energy market and associated regulatory landscape. In the eight years of Freeing the Grid’s production, there has never been a time when these policies have been the subject of as much public attention and debate as today. This report is designed to be an objective resource that helps policymakers, regulators and stakeholders cut through the noise, implement strong regulation, and build upon the exciting clean energy progress that so many states have achieved to date.

“Sound net metering and interconnection procedures are some of the primary state policies driving growth in the American clean energy story today. I hope to see Freeing the Grid used to spark productive policy discussion and sound regulatory decision-making that keeps the United States moving forward on clean energy,” added Carl Linvill, principal at the Regulatory Assistance Project (RAP), a global, non-profit team of experts that focuses on the long-term economic and environmental sustainability of the power and natural gas sectors.

We hope you’ll explore, use and share this resource to advance our nation’s clean energy economy – state by state.

The Alliance for Solar Choice (TASC) suing WI PSC to overturn rate case ruling involving net metering

Posted by Laura Arnold / November 26, 2014 / Posted in Uncategorized / No Comments

TASC suing WI PSC to overturn rate case ruling
November 26, 2014 | By Barbara Vergetis Lundin

The Alliance for Solar Choice (TASC) is calling on the Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC) to release all records of communications between Commissioner Ellen Nowak and Wisconsin Energy (WE) -- including the full audio transcript of a June 2014 panel at the Edison Electric Institute's (EEI) annual conference in Las Vegas -- and has announced plans to sue the PSC to overturn its We Energies rate case ruling this month.

Ellen Nowak. Credit: Wisconsin Public Service Commission

On June 10, 2014, Nowak appeared on an EEI panel with WE CEO Gale Klappa to describe how utilities should approach regulators in response to growing distributed generation. TASC contends that the communications violate Wisconsin's ex parte/impartiality statutes.

Bloomberg News quotes Nowak as saying on the panel, "The traditional rate design will no longer work with the growth in the DG environment. We need to make more of the fixed costs more in line with fixed charges, particularly so those customers who don't participate in DG are not paying for those who do."

On another EEI panel in March, Nowak said, "I know one of our utilities actually is here, so I hope he's listening again. Please come in, [I'm] looking for some innovative rate design ideas that assess the cost to the cost causer."

Wisconsin law requires Commissioners to be impartial. While appearing on a panel with the utility does not make Nowak impartial -- although it could raise questions -- giving advice to the utility does.

TASC is recommending that Nowak recuse herself because her comments indicate she prejudged the outcome of WE's rate case, along with two other rate cases that included proposals for increased fixed charges. Nowak was appointed to the Wisconsin Public Service Commission in July 2011 by Governor Scott Walker and reconfirmed for a new, six-year term beginning on March 1, 2013.

State statutes also strictly prohibit communication between commissioners and any parties with a "substantial interest" in a case. Commissioner Nowak's communication with Klappa during or outside of the panel appears to violate the Wisconsin ex parte rules, according to TASC.

Original article: http://www.fierceenergy.com/story/tasc-suing-wi-psc-overturn-rate-case-ruling/2014-11-26?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal

For more:
- read this article below

Wisconsin Utility Sought Solar Fees After Regulator Advised CEO

By Christopher Martin Nov 24, 2014 5:24 PM ET

A solar industry group appealing a decision to impose the most expensive solar fees in the U.S. said a Wisconsin regulator violated rules barring communication about pending cases.

Ellen Nowak, a regulator for the Wisconsin Public Service Commission, and Wisconsin Energy Corp. (WEC) Chief Executive Officer Gale Klappa participated in a panel together at a utility industry conference in June. Her discussions with Klappa at the conference should have disqualified her from voting on a pending rate case, said Bryan Miller, a co-chairman of the Alliance for Solar Choice.

“Nowak should recuse herself before their rate decision becomes final,” Miller said. “She’s behind the most expensive anti-solar ruling in the U.S. and we’re appealing it on both the substance and the process.”

Wisconsin Energy, based in Milwaukee, received preliminary permission this month to impose new fees on customers with rooftop solar panels, saying the utility needs to recover its costs to maintain the electricity grid. Solar advocates say such fees, which also have been proposed in other states, will threaten wider use of renewable energy.

Through a spokesman, Nowak said she didn’t discuss the rate case at the conference with Klappa. The fees will be about $30 to $40 a month per customer, depending on the size of the system.

Fixed Fees

Nowak told the audience June 10 at an Edison Electric Institute conference that utilities should revise their rate structures, introducing fixed fees so customers who produce their own power with rooftop solar systems continue to pay enough to cover the costs of maintaining the grid.

Joel Rogers, a professor of administrative law at the University of Wisconsin Law School in Madison, reviewed a transcript of her comments and said they could be seen as improperly offering advice.

“Appearing on a panel together goes right up to the edge of impropriety, but giving advice goes beyond that,” Rogers said today in an interview. “She should have recused herself.”

Wisconsin Energy had initiated the process for raising its rates in April. Less than three weeks after the Edison Electric Institute event, the company submitted a detailed proposal that included a fixed fee for customers with solar power, sometimes called distributed generation or D.G.

That proposal was approved Nov. 14 by the commission 2-1, with Nowak voting in favor. She was appointed by Governor Scott Walker.

“The traditional rate design will no longer work with the growth in the D.G. environment,” Nowak said on the panel. “We need to make more of the fixed costs more in line with fixed charges, particularly so those customers who don’t participate in DG are not paying for those who do.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Christopher Martin in New York at cmartin11@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Reed Landberg at landberg@bloomberg.net Will Wade

Original article: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-24/wisconsin-utility-sought-solar-fees-after-regulator-advised-ceo.html#disqus_thread

NIRPC Rolls Out Program to Reduce Solar Energy “Soft Costs” in NW Indiana

Posted by Laura Arnold / November 26, 2014 / Posted in Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) / No Comments

Program to help residents use solar energy nears reality

November 11, 2014 9:00 pm • Lauri Harvey Keagle lauri.keagle@nwi.com, (219) 852-4311

PORTAGE | A program that would make it more affordable to use solar energy in Northwest Indiana is scheduled to roll out in the spring after more than a year of planning.

The Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission in November 2013 received a $90,000 Solar Ready II grant from the U.S. Department of Energy aimed at making solar power a cost-effective option in the region.

NIRPC was one of nine municipal planning organizations in the nation to receive the funding.

Kathy Luther, environmental director for NIRPC, is leading the project. Luther said the cost of solar installations has decreased substantially, but still run about $30,000 for an average home.

The program aims to reduce what Luther calls "soft costs" such as permitting, customer acquisition, marketing, financing and inspections.

"We're not moving the needle on it administratively with soft costs," Luther said. "We're trying to change that."

Studies show streamlining the permitting process can reduce costs by 12 percent and cut the time needed to issue permits by nearly half, she said.

Luther is working to draft a solar-ready zoning code that can be adapted and adopted by local municipalities.

Gary, Hobart, Beverly Shores and Munster have all expressed interest in the program, Luther said.

Luther's goal is to get 10 local governments to adopt best management-practices policies to coincide with NIPSCO's open enrollment for the utility's net-metering program in March.

NIPSCO's net-metering program allows customers to link solar energy operations to the public utility company's grid. Users can then tap into NIPSCO's electricity when solar power is low, and sell energy back to NIPSCO when solar power is generated in excess of their needs.

Not your father's solar panels

Luther said she is working to dispel the myth that the technology is still in its infancy and is not aesthetically pleasing.

"It's been around 30 years," she said. A California-based study found homes with solar panels sold 20 percent faster and had 17 percent greater values than those without them, she said.

"They can make solar panels almost invisible in classic, historic downtowns," Luther said, saying some resemble shingles.

The project can also help the local economy, she said.

"We have Fronius USA right across the street from us, the leader in the U.S. in solar panels," she said. "They want to see installations in our region so they can do studies and research."

The Fronius USA facility in Portage builds inverters.

Group purchasing can help drive down the costs, which is a key goal of the program. Luther hopes to present to local chambers of commerce to see if banks might become partners to assist with financing.

The first step, Luther said, is to select an installer. NIRPC plans to issue a request for proposals for an installer soon and to have one selected by January, she said.

Marketing and workshops, enrollment, site assessments, decisions and installations would follow selection of the installer.

Luther said many wrongly believe Northwest Indiana does not get enough sun to effectively generate solar energy.

"Yeah, we're not Arizona, but we're not Alaska either, so we should be able to do something," Luther said.

Original article: http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/program-to-help-residents-use-solar-energy-nears-reality/article_11055ed7-7d40-5ff6-9ac6-1997aba7573a.html

Ohio PUC approves FirstEnergy’s request to suspend energy efficiency programs

Posted by Laura Arnold / November 24, 2014 / Posted in Uncategorized / No Comments

PUCO approves FirstEnergy's request to suspend popular energy efficiency programs

By John Funk, The Plain Dealer
on November 21, 2014 at 8:00 AM, updated November 21, 2014 at 1:33 PM

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- State regulators on Thursday approved FirstEnergy's request to scuttle most of its consumer energy efficiency programs at the end of the year, ending popular rebates and discounts on Energy Star appliances and lighting and rewards for turning in old appliances.

FirstEnergy is the only Ohio electric company that has asked to end its efficiency programs per a new law enacted last spring.

In a complicated 23-page order that reflected the pitched battle over numerous and almost picayune points that the company and its opponents have fought about in the last 60 days, the Public Utilities Commission came down mostly on the side of the company -- partly because under the new law it had few choices.

In doing so, the commission dismissed many of the objections of the Ohio Hospital Association, the Ohio Manufacturers' Association Energy Group, the Ohio Consumers' Counsel, and a consortium of environmental groups including the Sierra Club, Ohio Environmental Council, the Natural Resources and Defense Council and the Environmental Law and Policy Center.

Most of these opponents will probably appeal, an exercise that seldom changes an outcome before the commission.

The bottom line:

>The majority of FirstEnergy's consumer efficiency programs are going away for at least two years.

But consumers will still pay for these programs through delivery rate increases already in place that the commission refused to reduce, dismissing the arguments of FirstEnergy opponents that fewer efficiency programs should mean a smaller budget to run them.

The commission noted that "regardless of the budget, collection is based on a forecast of the costs to be incurred over a six-month [rate] rider period, not on the budget, and are always subject to true-up to actual costs." In other words, over-collections could be trued up later.

>Lower income home energy audit and efficiency upgrade programs will stay, and a program for commercial and some industrial customers will continue.

> Consumers and other customers will have to keep funding bonuses that FirstEnergy would collect if efficiency projects started this year or earlier come on-line in 2015 and help reduce overall demand more than the 4.5 percent reduction (compared to 2009 levels) already achieved this year.

Known as "shared savings," these bonuses have been awarded to utilities that exceed what since 2009 have been mandated annual benchmark reductions that each Ohio electric utility has had to meet.

The commission earlier capped FirstEnergy's shared savings at $10 million a year. But because the state has frozen these annual benchmarks for two years, leaving the 2014 benchmark of a 4.5 percent reduction in place through 2016, the Ohio Consumers' Council argued the "shared savings" bonus cap should also be reduced.

FirstEnergy countered, and the commission on Thursday agreed, that since the freeze extends the 4.5 percent benchmark through 2015 and 2016, the company would be entitled to collect more "shared savings" if it exceeds 4.5 percent. And consumers would pay a little more to create those bonuses.

> Consumers will also continue to pay under Thursday's ruling for "lost distribution revenues" that the company won earlier. These are fees that the company successfully argued it should receive for cooperating with state mandates that it help its customers buy less electricity by upgrading lighting, appliances and equipment. The current lost distribution fees are slated to expire in 2016.

> FirstEnergy's large industrial customers will be able to opt out of the efficiency programs on Jan. 1, 2015, something they fought furiously to win during the long debates last spring over Senate Bill 310, the new law the froze efficiency rules for two years and which allows utilities to scrap efficiency programs.

> The commission will also allow FirstEnergy to get credit for energy efficiency gains -- and demand reductions -- achieved by some of its customers who are not participating in the official programs. The commission approved this new provision, though the company provided few details about how this program might work, and must return to the commission with details.

The Akron-based company asked the PUCO on Sept. 24 for permission to suspend the bulk of its efficiency programs at least through 2016, citing the new state rules that took effect just 12 days earlier and arguing that it can meet the currently frozen state standards without the programs.

Those changes in state efficiency standards were contained in Senate Bill 310, which FirstEnergy had lobbied lawmakers hard last spring to approve. The company argued that the programs would raise electric rates. Killing the programs would lower rates, it said.

But in presentations to investors, the company's executives had also said the state rules were interfering with normal market growth, meaning power sales.

Several major industrial customers joined with FirstEnergy to upend the state rules. They argued the programs were costing them too much and that they would have installed more efficient equipment without the state's rules in order to stay competitive. Smaller companies argued just the opposite, that they would not have been able to make upgrades -- and stay competitive -- without the assistance.

FirstEnergy's move to get rid of the bulk of its energy efficiency programs comes at a time when the company is also trying to convince the commission to approve a new three-year rate plan that would commit its Ohio distribution companies to buy power for 15 years from two of its large, old power plants rather than rely completely on currently less-expensive power sold on wholesale markets.

Under this instantly controversial proposal also pending before the PUCO, the Illuminating Co., Ohio Edison, and Toledo Edison would have to buy all of the output, at whatever the cost, from the Davis-Besse nuclear power plant near Toledo and the coal-fired W.H. Sammis power plant on the Ohio River about 13 miles north of Steubenville.

The purchase agreement would work this way: After buying the power, the three distribution companies would re-sell it into wholesale markets -- absorbing any losses or, FirstEnergy argues, profiting in future years when wholesale power prices rise. The company has argued that during the 15-year agreement, the deal would save customers up to $2 billion. Opponents have questioned that.

In other words, opponents have countered, FirstEnergy would have the benefits of old-fashioned regulated prices for these two uncompetitive power plants while its entire fleet of power plants would remain unregulated by the state.

In sworn testimony, company executives have told the Commission that without the deal, the company could be forced to close Sammis and Davis-Besse because they cannot compete against modern, gas-fired power plants. They said they expect wholesale market prices eventually to increase significantly, in which case, the Ohio companies buying Davis-Besse and Sammis power would be getting a deal.

Together, Davis-Besse and Sammis have cost the company billions of dollars in safety and pollution control upgrades -- money spent that now would have to be shouldered by rate payers to cover the cost of the more expensive electricity they generate, opponents have countered.

A company spokesman, in an email Thursday, noted that the power purchase agreements would be subject to a "prudence reviews" and that the company would annually submit costs to the PUCO for review.

See http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2014/11/puco_approves_firstenergys_req.html