Author Archives Laura Arnold

Commission staff proposal would encroach on Arizonans’ freedom to choose how they use energy

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   November 10, 2014  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

ACEEE BLOG POST

Media Contact: Patrick Kiker
pkiker@aceee.org, (202) 507-4043

Commission staff proposal would encroach on Arizonans' freedom to choose how they use energy

By Annie Gilleo, State Policy Research Analyst

Voters made many decisions on Election Day. Governors were chosen and new laws were adopted. But one choice Arizona voters didn't get to make may raise utility costs for families and businesses in the state. On November 4th, while Arizona voters were focused on exit polls and election results, the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) staff quietly released a proposal for new energy efficiency rules that would eliminate the state's ambitious electricity and natural gas savings standards.

The proposed rules would be a major step backward for the state. In recent years, Arizona has staked a place as an energy efficiency leader in the Southwest. The state saved more energy than any other state in the region in 2013. In fact, the nearly 1.75% electricity savings Arizona achieved was fourth highest in the country. Arizona has reached these high levels of savings for utility customers as a direct result of its energy efficiency standards, which were established in 2010 by a unanimous and bipartisan ACC decision. Since then, Arizona has climbed from the 29th to the 15th most energy efficient state in the country, with electricity savings more than doubling. Doing away with these energy savings requirements would be costly to utility customers in the state.

According to the Southwest Energy Efficiency Project (SWEEP), the standards have saved Arizona consumers and businesses more than $540 million in just three years. These programs, through measures like lighting and equipment upgrades, help homeowners improve the efficiency of their homes and businesses cut waste. Without these strong standards to guide the utilities, investments in efficiency would likely drop significantly, leaving customers with higher energy bills and fewer resources available to help them become more efficient.

It's also important to note that utilities have been spending wisely on efficiency. The current rules require utilities to invest only in efficiency that is cost effective. That means that every dollar that goes into efficiency programs must save customers far more. In fact, energy efficiency programs are the least-cost option available to utilities to meet demand. So why roll back the efficiency rules now?

Even former commissioners can't quite see the logic. In a recent article in AZ Central, former ACC chairwoman Kris Mayes called the proposal "crazy." Mayes went on to say that "nothing in the record suggests the standard is not working." Others share Mayes' indignation. Efficiency advocates worked hard this week to make sure that Arizonans recognize the importance of the state's energy efficiency targets. Just two days after the ACC issued its proposal, a group of advocates filed comments pointing to analysis by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory that found that the efficiency standard would produce $9 billion in bill savings for Arizona customers by 2030.

Things are moving quickly in Arizona. Comments on the ACC staff proposal are due November 18th. For those interested in commenting on the issue, SWEEP has additional information, including directions for commenting, posted on their website.

Arizonans have a choice. They can move backwards, using more energy and paying higher bills, or they can move forward with incentives that encourage everyone in the state to use energy smarter. Utilities can continue to partner with their customers to help them take control of how and when they use energy or, pushed backwards by the proposal, they can take on the one-dimensional role of bill collectors. There's plenty of proof that Arizona's efficiency goals are working well for customers in the state. The ACC proposal is a step-no, a giant leap-in the wrong direction.

To read more posts, visit ACEEE's Blog: http://aceee.org/blog

About ACEEE: The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy acts as a catalyst to advance energy efficiency policies, programs, technologies, investments, and behaviors. For information about ACEEE and its programs, publications, and conferences, visit aceee.org.

Should Indiana have Virtual Net Metering? Why or why not?

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   November 10, 2014  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

http://theenergycollective.com/edfenergyex/2150506/5-reasons-virtual-net-metering-better-plain-ol-net-metering

5 Reasons Virtual Net Metering is Better than Plain Old Net Metering

Posted November 8, 2014

By Dick Munson

solar gardenSeveral states have embraced net metering in order to encourage the adoption of solar energy and other distributed generation. Sometimes referred to as “running a meter backwards,” net metering allows people to generate their own electricity, export any excess electricity to the grid, and get paid for providing this excess energy to the utility who may use it to power nearby homes or manage overall electricity demand.

Net metering leads to lower – or in some cases negative – electricity bills without having to invest in expensive batteries to store excess energy, which can be cost-prohibitive. By generating energy on-site where it’s consumed, net metering also reduces the strain on distribution systems and cuts the amount of electricity lost to long-distance transmission and distribution (estimated at seven percent in the U.S.). Net metering, moreover, tends to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by incentivizing people to adopt renewable energy and become more aware of energy-saving opportunities.

A few states like Illinois are now talking about “virtual” net metering. The term “virtual” may be confusing, but it essentially means customers can receive net metering credits for projects even if they are not on their property. An example would be a group of neighbors receiving such credits for a community solar project.

Virtual net metering offers many advantages, even over its more common cousin, including:

1. Optimized siting for solar and distributed energy projects

Rather than being limited to a single roof that might be tilted away from the sun or covered by trees, installers, investors, and customers can choose the most productive sites, making for a better investment with higher financial returns.

2. Additional financing options, plus options for renters

A “virtual” project also enables creative project financing, perhaps through crowd funding or third-party ownership. It also allows renters and other non-homeowners to invest in energy projects. For example, California’s Multifamily Affordable Solar Housing (MASH) Program has led to 20.5 megawatts of solar capacity interconnected across 323 projects that serve 6,371 affordable housing tenant units.

3. Economies of scale, which lower costs

Virtual net metering enables larger project developments, while also minimizing costs associated with house alterations and project maintenance. Larger projects allows for an economy of scale which lowers costs for everyone involved (i.e. the greater the quantity of a good produced, the lower the per-unit fixed cost because these costs are shared over a larger number of goods). The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) calculated that the installed cost of solar drops over 30 percent when moving from a 2 kilowatt system to a 10 kilowatt system. Economies of scale also may allow investors and developers to target construction on cheaper property areas, the value of which may vary widely within a utility service territory, further adding to a project’s financial incentive.

4. Expedited project development

Virtual net metering can streamline the interconnection application and review process for both utilities and customers. Compared to applications from multiple residents with rooftop solar, a community project would require a single filing, saving both time and money.

5. More profitable compensation rates

Virtual net metering, particularly for solar projects, allows more customers – not just those with solar panels on their roofs – to take advantage of a utility’s dynamic retail electricity rates that offer higher prices during peak periods in warm summer months, which coincide with maximum solar electricity production.

By adding “virtual” to a tried-and-true concept, we can expand the benefits of solar and other clean distributed-generation projects to more people. This expansion also offers “real” reductions in both costs and pollution.

Photo source: Flickr/Sterling College

Is US EPA proposed carbon rule vulnerable with new US Congress? What do you think?

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   November 10, 2014  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

REGULATION:

In the wake of elections, legal experts explore vulnerabilities in the EPA power plant rule

Nathanael Massey, E&E reporter

A Republican sweep of the Senate this week has put President Obama's climate agenda in the cross hairs, with EPA's proposed rule on power plant carbon emissions as an obvious early target.

While control of the Senate may not give Republicans the ability to quash the rule outright, it does indicate that that U.S. EPA and the president will face pushback every step of the way between now and the rule's completion, according to legal experts who spoke this week on the election's outcome and its implications for the Clean Power Plan.

The most direct line of attack is a legislative broadside, advanced through the House and Senate to the president's desk. Scott Segal, an energy lobbyist at Bracewell & Giuliani, said that he expects Republicans to challenge the rule through tailored legislation and also attempt to nullify it through the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to overrule federal regulations.

With Tuesday's victories under their belt, it's conceivable that Republicans could secure enough support from moderate Democrats and independents to override a filibuster from the Democratic minority, according to Nathan Richardson, an assistant professor at the South Carolina School of Law. But President Obama's veto power would still stand as a backstop, requiring a full two-thirds majority -- 66 votes -- to be overridden.

Shannon Maher Bañaga, a senior manager of governmental affairs for Public Service Enterprise Group Inc., told attendees at an Energy Bar Association conference this week that while she doesn't imagine that the Senate will ultimately come up with enough votes to override a veto, that doesn't mean Republicans won't look to the Congressional Review Act.

"It's certainly something that we've seen used before," she said. "I fully expect them to try to do it even before the rule is final."

Pressure points for Congress

A more pressing concern within the environmental community is that Republicans in Congress or conservative state legislators will ask for concessions on the plan, and that Obama or EPA, seeking compromise, will accept.

In Congress, the more practical approach might be for the GOP to threaten to withhold funding from EPA through the appropriations process unless the proposal is changed.

"You might have a rider, not that sets aside the Clean Power Plan entirely, but that makes narrowly made changes to that plan," Segal said. "Then the president would be confronted with a choice: Do I essentially shut down the EPA, or do I work with the Republicans in the House and the Senate to reform my proposal?"

Incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has already promised that Republicans will use their leverage over the government's purse strings to push back at Obama's agenda on multiple fronts.

States, meanwhile, are already weighing in on the rule, in many cases to ask for guarantees that its impacts won't damage their employment or economies. Responding to requests from state agencies, EPA extended the comment period on its rule through Dec. 1 and expects to receive more than a million comments by that time.

While state agencies work out plans to meet the Clean Power Plan's targets, a number of state governors have already made their outright opposition to the rule clear. Governors of 15 states sent a Sept. 9 letter to Obama expressing their objections. A coalition of opposed governors could constitute a major roadblock where state lawmakers must approve implementation plans.

Segal noted that the Clean Power Plan is "in the laps of the governors to implement," and 31 of those governors are Republicans, some of whom are "recalcitrants" who have already spent several years obstinately opposing the Democratic administration's health care overhaul.

Adding to the rule's obstacles, experts at an Energy Bar Association conference this week noted, some state legislatures meet as infrequently as every other year and will be in a time crunch to sign off on proposals.

"That's a timing issue, even though the rule included multiple years for states to put their plans together," said Phil Assmus, senior staff associate for the National Association of Clean Air Agencies.

Can the grid handle the rule?

While the final form of the Clean Power Plan remains unknown, critics have already identified several structural issues they say could fundamentally undermine the rule's viability. Now that Republicans head key Senate committees on energy and the environment, they will have wide leverage to bring these issues into the limelight, much as their counterparts in the Republican-controlled House did in hearings this summer (ClimateWire, Sept. 10).

One of those issues is grid reliability. In comments to EPA, a number of utilities and regional grid operators have expressed concern about the plan's forecasts for renewables, fuel switching and energy efficiency gains.

In a report out this week, the North American Electric Reliability Corp., a nonprofit regulatory authority charged by the federal government with oversight of reliability in U.S. power systems, found that it still lacked adequate analysis to know whether the plan's targets are achievable.

Those findings prompted a response from the office of Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who will take the reins as the new chairwoman of the Senate Energy Committee, that the report "validates the concerns" Murkowski holds about the impact of the rule (Greenwire, Nov. 5).

Another aspect of the plan that is likely to see significant airing in future hearings is the rule's "outside the fence line" approach, which allows states to look beyond power plant modifications to demand-side efficiency and the adoption of renewable energy when controlling greenhouse gas emissions.

While even supporters of the Clean Power Plan acknowledge the approach as novel, some legal experts see it as too broad an interpretation of EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act.

Freelance reporter Emily Holden contributed.


Consumer Groups: Smart Meters Not a Smart Move for Indiana Ratepayers;Hearing 11/12/14 in Bloomington

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   November 10, 2014  /   Posted in Office of Utility Consumer Counselor (OUCC)  /   No Comments
INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. - The state's largest electricity provider wants to modernize its infrastructure, but it's a plan that comes with a price for customers. The Indiana Regulatory Commission is taking comments on Duke Energy's $1.87 billion infrastructure improvement case, which includes the mandatory installation of smart meters for every customer in their service territory. Tyson Slocom, director of Public Citizen's Energy Program, says the costs of the devices outweigh any consumer benefits. "This is kind of like forcing everyone to buy an iPhone even if all you're going to do is make local phone calls with it," says Slocom. "It's very expensive equipment that's not going to be used efficiently by all households." Those in favor of smart meters say they can help consumers monitor their usage and streamline services, but Slocum says it's a premature installment of costly advanced technology. He adds, it should be offered to customers as a voluntary option. Duke Energy estimates the plan will increase rates an average of one percent every year from 2016 to 2022. If the request is approved, Duke Energy would have a tracker that allows it to raise rates when costs go up. Kerwin Olson, executive director with Citizens Action Coalition, says about 30 percent of Duke's bills are already comprised of trackers, and customers can't afford any more rate increases. "Ratepayers are struggling to get by on a day-to-day basis," he says. "Duke as a company is pretty healthy and financially strong and a lot of these projects Duke Energy needs to do to provide reliable electricity service and the customer shouldn't have to bear all the risks and all of the costs that come along with this." Olson adds, the average monthly electric bill of Duke Energy customers has increased by almost 10 percent in the last year, and nearly 56 percent in the last 10 years. State utility regulators are taking public comments on the case before and during a hearing this Wednesday in Bloomington.

DUKE ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN

Duke Energy has filed a new case with the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC), seeking approval of a long-term plan for electric transmission, distribution and storage system improvements, including incremental rate recovery of those costs as the projects proceed.  The utility refers to the program as its Transmission and Distribution Infrastructure Improvement Plan (T&D Plan). Duke Energy filed its request filed under a law (Senate Enrolled Act 560) passed by the Indiana General Assembly in 2013. An IURC public field hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, November 12, 2014 in Bloomington. Please see the OUCC's October 31 news release for details. The OUCC also issued a September 17, 2014 news release inviting written consumer comments

A brief summary of the 2013 law

Indiana Code 8-1-39 allows electric and natural gas utilities to submit 7-year infrastructure improvement plans for IURC approval. It requires the IURC to rule within 210 days once such a request is filed.

  • Once a 7-year plan receives IURC approval, the utility may request incremental rate increases every 6 months to pay for the projects. The rate adjustment is referred to as the Transmission, Distribution and Storage System Improvement Charge (TDSIC). The IURC has 90 days to rule on such a request.
  • TDSIC rate increases are limited to no more than 2 percent of total retail revenues each year.
  • The TDSIC rate mechanism (or tracker) allows the utility to recover 80 percent of the costs as they are incurred. The remaining costs are deferred until the utility's next base rate case, which must be filed before the end of the 7-year period.

Duke Energy's request Duke Energy its 7-year system improvement plan on August 29, 2014. The plan is pending as IURC Cause No. 44526.

All public filings in the case are available by visiting the IURC's Electronic Document System and entering docket number 44526. According to the utility's testimony and exhibits:

  • The 7-year plan includes nearly $1.87 billion in capital improvement projects.
  • Projects throughout Duke Energy's Indiana service territory include automated metering and communication devices, breaker and relay replacements, replacement of aging infrastructure (including transformers, substations, poles, and lines), vegetation management, and other proposals.
  • If approved by the IURC, construction would start in 2015 with the first rate increase of approximately 0.9 percent taking effect in 2016. The annual rate increase amounts from 2017 through 2022 would vary by year, ranging from 0.8 percent to 1.3 percent annually. The projected average annual percentage increase over the 7-year term is about 1 percent.

The OUCC and intervening parties are expected to file testimony on November 12, 2014. The IURC has until March 27, 2015 to issue an order.

Wisconsin State regulators approve 83% increase in Green Bay utility’s fixed charge

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   November 08, 2014  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

State regulators approve 83% increase in Green Bay utility's fixed charge

By Thomas Content of the Journal Sentinel
Nov. 6, 2014

In a 2-1 vote, state energy regulators authorized an 83% increase in the fixed charge for customers of Wisconsin Public Service Corp., siding with the Green Bay utility and against solar and consumer advocates.

The Public Service Commission voted to raise the customer fixed charge to $19 a month from $10.40. The utility had sought a 140% increase to $25 a month.

The case is the first of several expected to be voted on this month by the PSC, which has similar proposals pending from Milwaukee-based We Energies and Madison-based Madison Gas & Electric Co.

The increase approved for Wisconsin Public Service is in line with the 82% increase being requested by the Madison utility and slightly more than the 75% increase sought by We Energies. MG&E is proposing to increase its fixed charge to $19 a month, while We Energies wants its raised to $16.

The two commissioners appointed by Gov. Scott Walker, who won re-election Tuesday, agreed with utilities' arguments that a higher fixed charge is justified, and that it would eliminate a subsidy paid by customers that don't generate their own power to customers that do.

The fixed charge increase would be accompanied by a drop in the energy charge, so the overall 2015 increase approved Thursday would raise residential customers' rates by about 3%, or $25 million, Commissioner Ellen Nowak said. Rates for large factories in northeastern Wisconsin would go up by 3.6% on average, while small-business customers would see a decrease of 0.5%.

A typical utility residential customer uses 600 kilowatt-hours of electricity per month and would see a $3.40 monthly increase in electric bills come January, PSC spokesman Nathan Conrad said. Because of the change in the customer charge, customers who use less energy than the average would see a bigger-than-average increase, while customers who use more energy would see a smaller increase, he said.

The fixed-charge proposal was challenged by customer groups including the Environmental Law and Policy Center, Renew Wisconsin and the Citizens' Utility Board.

Also protesting the higher fixed charge were advocates for the elderly and the poor including AARP Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Community Action Program.

Wisconsin Public Service is a subsidiary of Integrys Energy Group Inc., a Chicago-based energy company that Milwaukee-based Wisconsin Energy Corp. is proposing to acquire.

In deciding the issue, Commission Chairman Phil Montgomery and Nowak said it is reasonable for utilities to collect a greater portion of their fixed costs, such as poles, wires and utility equipment, through the fixed charge.

They agreed that now is the time to make a change before it becomes a bigger issue as more customers start generating their own power.

"This is not an attack on wind and solar," Nowak said. "It's about fairness."

WPS had sought an increase of 140%, which would have increased the fixed charge to $25 a month for residential customers.

"Only the principle of gradualism gives me pause from suggesting we adopt the Pub Service proposal in its entirety," Montgomery said, using a common nickname for the utility.

Commissioner Eric Callisto, who was appointed by Gov. Jim Doyle, said the commission should have frozen fixed charges for all the utilities seeking increases this year, and ordered a statewide study of fixed charge and customer-sited generation.

"It is the key issue in this rate case season and one that has given the utilities in this state and this commission national attention," said Callisto of the fixed charge controversy.

The commission should only consider an increase in the fixed charge if it reduces the profit rate, or return on equity, that utilities earn below the 10.2% that the PSC approved Thursday, Callisto said.

"If the company's customer charge is increased, there is reduction in financial risk to the utility," he said. "That is not in dispute."

The PSC also approved a 4.3% decrease in local natural gas charges for WPS natural gas customers. The $15.4 million decrease also includes a rate restructuring that will increase the fixed charge on monthly bills. For natural gas customers, that will raise the fixed charge by 76%, from $10.25 to $18 a month.

The decision penalizes customers who don't use very much energy and means that WPS will have the highest fixed charge in the Midwest, said Kira Loehr, executive director of the Citizens' Utility Board, a utility watchdog group.

"Today's decision goes in the wrong direction," she said. "Instead of taking this opportunity to pause and consider innovative ways to handle changes in the electric industry, the decision takes the step that most helps utilities at the expense of customers. Increasing fixed charges hurts our most vulnerable low and fixed income households and frustrates residential and small business customers' ability to lower their bills by using less energy."

WPS spokesman Kerry Spees said the utility would wait until the commission formalizes Thursday's votes in a written decision to react to the decision.

Of the fixed charge increase, he said, "We thought our initial request was warranted, but this rate structure change is a big step in the right direction of getting our fixed costs better aligned with the fixed charge."

WPS says that more than half of the accounts that are low energy users are for seasonal customers such as cabins, cottages and summer homes in northern Wisconsin.

Twitter: twitter.com/plugged_in

Facebook: www.fb.me/JSBusiness

About Thomas Content

author thumbnailThomas Content covers energy, clean technology and sustainable business. A series he co-wrote on energy and climate change won top honors in 2008 from the National Press Foundation.

Copyright 2013 IndianaDG