Author Archives Laura Arnold

How Indianapolis (of All Places) Became a Solar Powerhouse; HINT: It’s the voluntary feed-in tariff or VFIT.

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   July 12, 2014  /   Posted in Feed-in Tariffs (FiT), IPL Rate REP, solar  /   No Comments

How Indianapolis (of All Places) Became a Solar Powerhouse

By PETE DANKO on July 10, 2014 at 12:00 PM

IMS-aerial

Photo Credit: SunWize Technologies

There’s an unlikely name among the usual suspects that populate a recently released list [PDF] of leading U.S. solar cities. There’s Los Angeles, San Diego, Phoenix, San Jose, Honolulu, San Antonio and then … Indianapolis?

Yep. And the city just got even more solar, with the official opening last week of a 9 megawatt array on a patch of land adjacent to the Indianapolis Motor Speedway. The speedway said it’s the “largest solar farm at any sporting facility in the world.”

A lot of factors can drive solar adoption. A state portfolio standard requiring utilities to source renewables is one of the most common. High electricity prices can help, too, by making relatively expensive renewables more attractive. And while Germany has proven that it’s not required, above average sunshine, which boosts capacity factors, can also play a role, as the list of leading cities suggests.

But Indianapolis has none of those things going for it. Not really. In 2011, Indiana did enact something called the Clean Energy Portfolio Standard, but its call for 10 percent renewables by 2025 is modest (California is targeting 33 percent by 2020). Besides, it’s voluntary. As for electricity prices, Indiana’s, at 11.91 cents per kilowatt-hour, are about a half-cent below the national average, according to the most recent data. And central Indiana is not particularly sunny, but you knew that.

So what brought Indianapolis into the solar big-time? Simple: A generous feed-in tariff offered by the local utility company, Indianapolis Power & Light, a subsidiary of AES Corporation that serves some 470,000 customers in and around Indiana’s capital city. And as Laura Arnold, president of the Indiana Distributed Energy Alliance pointed out in an interview, “The most remarkable thing is, IPL did it voluntarily.”

98th Indianapolis 500 Mile Race

IPL surfaced the program in December 2008, in the wake of President Obama’s first election win. In early 2010, a three-year pilot program offering 24 cents per kilowatt-hour to facilities between 20 and 100 kilowatts in size, and 20 cents/kWh for bigger installations, was approved by regulators. The queue for the approximately 100 megawatts of solar up for grabs – equal to about 1 percent of IPL’s retail electricity sales – filled up. But as often happens with proposed projects, actual construction was slower to follow. IPL and regulators also found themselves working through technical issues in implementing the program.

Arnold and other solar supporters last year expressed fear that, with the program closed to new projects, some of the unbuilt projects might fail to be built, leaving a long line of viable projects that didn’t make it into the queue out in the cold. But a tally recently provided to Arnold by IPL showed that as of the end of May, more 53.4 MW was operating under Rate REP, and another 12.3 was under construction. In an email, IPL spokeswoman  Brandi Davis-Handy said no projects had fallen through, and that “IPL still expects the remainder of the projects to be completed by the end of 2014.”

Along with the big Speedway project, the IPL feed-in tariff has yielded a couple of other landmark solar installations: the first utility-scale farm on a Superfund site, and the nation’s largest airport-located installation, at Indianapolis International.

Assuming the remaining 33 megawatts of solar on the Rate REP list get built, Indianapolis should maintain its spot among top solar cities for at least another year. But what happens thereafter is uncertain. Solar advocates would love to see IPL revive the feed-in tariff, and are hopeful that proposed federal carbon emissions reductions – though fairly modest for coal-friendly Indiana – might be an inducement.

For its part, IPL isn’t committing to anything. However, the company did make an interesting discovery as it worked through the bumpy process of implementing the feed-in tariff. For complicated reasons, it ended up holding a reverse auction for 30 megawatts in the program. That process revealed that developers, with the cost of solar falling, were willing to build at a far lower guaranteed price for their power – around 10 cents/kWh – than the program originally offered.

“The reverse auction demonstrated the pricing dynamics and would be a better vehicle than a standing offer,” Davis-Handy said. “Another option would be a self-build/ownership structure.”

Will Iowa Supreme Court Eagle Point Solar decision help other states get third party solar PV PPAs?

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   July 11, 2014  /   Posted in solar  /   No Comments

<br />
This photo taken Jan. 20, 2014, shows Barry Shear, president of Eagle Point Solar, with one of his company's solar panels inside their Dubuque, Iowa, office.  Eagle Point Solar is involved in a case over solar power going to the Iowa Supreme Court.<br />

This photo taken Jan. 20, 2014, shows Barry Shear, president of Eagle Point Solar, with one of his company's solar panels inside their Dubuque, Iowa, office. Eagle Point Solar is involved in a case over solar power going to the Iowa Supreme Court. 

THE DES MOINES REGISTER, CHRISTOPHER GANNON / AP PHOTO

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/07/11/4230352/iowa-supreme-court-to-decide-solar.html#storylink=cpy

Iowa ruling gives boost to solar energy expansion

BY RYAN J. FOLEY

ASSOCIATED PRESS

IOWA CITY, Iowa -- Solar energy companies can legally sell power directly to customers, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled Friday in a boost to the small but growing source of renewable energy.

The ruling will likely expedite the adoption of rooftop solar power generating systems — particularly by cities, schools and nonprofit groups — that can reduce users' energy costs and their impact on the environment. It also puts Iowa in line with about two dozen other states that allow so-called power purchase agreements, at a time when state leaders are hoping to expand solar energy production.

"This is an important milestone for solar energy in Iowa," said Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association in Washington. "It undoubtedly will help to jump-start solar installations across the state."

At issue was whether Eagle Point Solar could enter into an agreement with Dubuque to install solar panels at a city building. Under the arrangement, the city would purchase power generated from its rooftop from Eagle Point, which would own and maintain the panels for a period of time before the city gained ownership.

Such agreements allow entities that don't pay taxes — including governments and nonprofits — to take advantage of generous federal tax breaks designed to promote solar energy. They allow users to avoid the expensive initial costs of installation, and let solar companies recoup their investments by bringing in revenue from energy sales. Dubuque-based Eagle Point and other companies plan to market similar agreements statewide after Friday's ruling.

Alliant Energy and other utilities had argued that the agreements were illegal. They claimed solar companies could not sell power to customers under Iowa law, which grants regulated utilities the exclusive right to customers in their service territories in exchange for providing affordable electricity to all. Allowing such agreements, the companies warned, could lead to higher rates for customers to make up for lost business.

The Iowa Utilities Board, which regulates utilities, agreed. The board had ruled that Eagle Point Solar would be acting as a "public utility" by selling power to Dubuque, which wasn't allowed, and could take away customers from Alliant. Eagle Point and other solar advocates appealed, and a judge overturned the board's decision last year.

In the Supreme Court's 4-2 decision, Justice Brent Appel wrote that agreements such as the one proposed for Dubuque do not have enough "public interest" to justify treating the solar company as a regulated utility. He said demand for electricity from utilities could drop if the solar movement "gets legs in Iowa," but there was no evidence offered about the potential impact. He noted that in states that allow purchase agreements, "there was no suggestion that the integrity of the grid or economic health of regulated providers has been adversely affected."

Appel noted the "countervailing positive impacts" of solar energy.

"Behind-the-meter solar facilities tend to generate electricity during peak hours when the grid is under the greatest pressure," he wrote, adding that Iowa law also requires utilities to promote renewable energy.

Dissenting Justice Edward Mansfield said the court was improperly acting "as experts on the delivery of electrical energy" and should have deferred to the Iowa Utilities Board decision.

A spokesman said the board would factor the ruling into its ongoing review of self-generation of solar and wind energy, which could lead to rule-making or recommendations to lawmakers. Mark Douglas, president of the Iowa Utility Association, said utilities were studying the "broad implications" the ruling could have on customers and service.

Iowa has the 16th most potential for solar energy production, according to an Iowa Environmental Council report. Gov. Terry Branstad signed a law earlier this year expanding state tax credits for solar energy projects.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/07/11/4230352/iowa-supreme-court-to-decide-solar.html#storylink=cpy

 

Iowa Supreme Court ruling clears way for third-party rooftop solar agreements

Friday, July 11, 2014 10:35 AM

The Iowa Supreme Court issued a ruling this morning that a Dubuque solar energy company did not act as a public utility when it attempted to enter into a third-party power purchase agreement with the city of Dubuque, the Dubuque Telegraph Herald reported.

In a split decision, the court ruled, 4-2, with one abstention, in favor of Eagle Point Solar in the case filed against the Iowa Utilities Board. The ruling is expected to clear the way for additional municipalities or nonprofits, which cannot directly claim solar tax credits, to buy solar energy from non-utility third parties and take advantage of the credits.

"It's a big deal for small business," Ralph Rosenberg, executive director of the Iowa Environmental Council, told the Business Record. "I know there are a lot of people in the solar industry who are really happy about how this is going to promote solar energy."

Third party power purchase agreements are an important tool for expanding renewable energy in the state, along with tax incentives, loans, grants and other financing vehicles, he said.

The court found that the power purchase agreement didn't infringe on Alliant Energy Corp.'s exclusive operating area. The city had planned to have Eagle Point Solar install solar panels on a city-owned building. Energy harvested through the panels would be sold to the city, through a third party, and used to supply some of the building's electricity.

Though the solar-generated electricity would not have passed through Alliant meters, Alliant officials claimed the agreement violated terms of its exclusive operating rights agreement.

Read more: http://www.businessrecord.com/Content/Energy---Utilities/Energy---Utilities/Article/Iowa-Supreme-Court-ruling-clears-way-for-third-party-rooftop-solar-agreements/183/930/64389#ixzz37CenQyEq

What consumers need to know before committing to solar PV on their roof

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   July 04, 2014  /   Posted in solar  /   No Comments

The Rise of the Residential Solar PV Customer

And how a business model threatens to derail the U.S. solar revolution.

Paula Mints, SPV Market Research 
July 02, 2014  |  5 Comments

Residential solar is booming in the U.S., driven primarily by the lease/power buying business model. This model appeals to the energy consumer’s desire for a degree of independence from utility rate hikes and allows the consumer to continue renting electricity instead of making the shift to owning the means of electricity production.

Understanding what it means, i.e, the relative independence of owning the means of electricity production, has always been a lot to ask of electricity consumers in the U.S. The educational effort required to help consumers make this change is expensive, complex and tough going as it requires a paradigm shift in outlook.  When you throw in the generally held impression that a residential PV system is expensive, the task can seem insurmountable.  When you add a lack of available low interest (or zero interest) financing, well … the task takes on a pushing-a-boulder-uphill aspect.

Germany’s first PV innovation was offering zero interest financing to encourage homeowners to install PV systems on their roofs – this mid-1990s program was rapidly oversubscribed.  The lesson, evident also by the lease/power buying model, is that giving consumers a way to afford a PV system on their roof breaks down the too-expensive barrier and does so rapidly.

Asking consumers, or anyone for that matter, to change behavior as well as altering their expectations is a difficult proposition, and the word “difficult” understates the task.  In the U.S. electricity consumers generally rent their electricity and heat from a utility paying by the kilowatt-hour for electricity consumption.  In exchange for this rent, the utility maintains the system by which electricity is generated and delivered. Consumers have been used to flipping the light switch and turning on the TV without worrying too much about the machinery and method of delivery http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2014/01/which-is-more-effective-marketing-solar-with-anxiety-or-inspiration unless, of course, their utility increases its rates.

Current research indicates that residential PV lease/power buyers want the least expensive way to choose solar (no money down), the least complicated way to go solar, to save money and for someone else to handle repairs — in other words, again, to continue habitual electricity renting habits. Many do not want to learn how the system operates.

As owning/leasing/buying power from a PV system that is installed on a residential roof means going through the installation process, which does make changes to a home, as well as having an electricity generating PV system on their roof, whether the consumer wants an education or not, one should be provided.

Consumers should understand what the technology on their roof will or will not provide, how to know if it is functioning or not, what will happen in a utility blackout and what will happen if their system underperforms (will they have a surprise bill from the utility at the end of the year?) or, in the case of power buyers specifically, should the system "overperform" will they pay for only the electricity they use or all of the electricity the system generates?

During the sales qualification process potential customers should be asked to present six months (at least) of electricity bills so that an assessment can be made as to a) whether they are a candidate and b) what size system will cover most or all of their electricity.  They should know what they are currently paying on average for electricity by the kilowatt-hour and if they do not know what a kilowatt-hour is, it should be explained.

If the consumer is sold a system, or is leasing/buying power based on the number of panels, s/he should understand what this means in kilowatts and kilowatt-hours. As the consumer will have electricity generating machinery on his roof, he needs to understand how the inverter and panels work together to generate this electricity.  Potential customers need to be told of all incentives available to them in order to make an informed decision about whether to buy a system or lease/buy power from a system on their roof and they need to informed about whether or not there is an escalation charge on their lease and what this means.

Lessees and power buyers, who are typically promised that all repairs will be covered, should clearly understand who to call and how long repairs will take if necessary.  After all, when utility power goes out there is a response, it may be slow, but it is a response. It should be clearly explained to consumers that though an owned PV system may well be an asset, a leased system, or, a system from which electricity is purchased by the kilowatt-hour may not be an asset in a sale.  In fact, a recent report shows that it may be the opposite of an asset in a sale.

Prospective customers should be encouraged to ask questions because a happy, educated customer is an asset, while an unhappy, uneducated customer who assumed that leasing or buying power from a PV system installed on their roof would be roughly the same as continuing to rent electricity from the utility may be an extremely unhappy customer if expectations and assumptions are not met.  The responsibility in this regard is with the leasing/power selling company not with the customer. Things your potential customer should do before committing to having a PV system on the roof include:

1. Before you buy, lease or sign a contract to buy power: Do an audit of your annual electricity usage (your utility will have the records).

2. Before you buy, lease or sign a contract to buy power: Know what you are paying on average per kilowatt-hour (your tier if applicable).

3. Have your own energy audit and make changes.

4. After your audit wait six months and see the difference in your electricity usage.

5. Have your roof inspected.

6. Have your electrical inspected.

7. Understand the basics of what to expect from solar as well as the terminology.

8. Call a few real estate agents and ask if owning a solar system is an asset or a liability and if the same holds true for leasing or buying electricity from a system that is on your roof and that you do not own.

Disappointed Customers Could Have a Very Bad impact on a Fragile Industry

Despite an almost annual prediction of their demise, in the U.S. the small to medium PV installer is still the backbone of the industry. These small businesspeople have for decades been the face of solar in the U.S.  They have built their businesses from the backs of trucks and their garages usually on the basis of customer service and referrals. They take customer service, including after service, seriously. They are often the subcontractors used by larger firms to install the systems that are leased or from which the customer buys power.  These small business people have been the forefront of the U.S. solar revolution for decades and they built the platform on which today’s residential solar industry currently stands on their belief in solar and on shoestring budgets.

The solar lease/power buying model is not inherently bad, but it does need a tune up before there is a customer backlash.  Aspects of these models that could use attention include customer qualification, customer education (if the customer does not want to be educated, maybe it’s the wrong customer) and a clearly written list of what the lease/power buying customer should expect in the way of repairs and customer service along with timelines and who to call, an estimation of what the system will provide and what happens in the case of excess production or underproduction.

Recently in the news are extreme examples of what happens when corporations do not keep their word, or put profit above customer care. There are also many examples of companies that are committed to putting the customer first — you can find many of these examples among the small to medium PV installers, who remain, again, the backbone of U.S. Solar.

Juwi Wind abandones plans for 150 MW Prairie Breeze Wind Farm in Tipton County (IN); BZA imposed impossible conditions

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   July 03, 2014  /   Posted in wind  /   No Comments
National Wind Watch: Presenting the facts about industrial wind power
National Wind Watch: Presenting the facts about industrial wind power
National Wind Watch: Presenting the facts about industrial wind power
filed:  July 3, 2014 • IndianaPress releases

Juwi Wind abandons plans for Prairie Breeze wind project; continues lawsuit against Tipton County Board of Zoning Appeals

Credit:  Juwi Wind ~~

Tipton – Juwi Wind announced today that it no longer plans to pursue the development of the Prairie Breeze Wind Farm, a wind energy project in Tipton County, Indiana, that would have had a nameplate capacity of approximately 150 megawatts. “Withdrawing from a late-stage development project is always a difficult decision,” said Mike Martin, president of Juwi Wind, “especially when the development work has complied with all substantive and procedural regulations, and Juwi has had the support of dedicated and civic-minded landowners and other community members who championed the merits of this project.”

A key reason that Juwi originally identified Tipton County as a desirable site for the Prairie Breeze Wind Farm was the clear regulatory guidelines concerning wind projects because a straightforward local regulatory scheme typically reduces development risk. However, the permitting authority that issued the principal permit for the project, the Tipton County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), imposed conditions that Juwi believes were outside of its administrative authority and which effectively rendered the project impossible to build.

Consequently, Juwi and a group of landowners in support of the project jointly initiated a lawsuit against the BZA to reform the conditions of the permit. Juwi strongly believes in the merits of the litigation and believes the ultimate outcome of the lawsuit would allow the Prairie Breeze Wind Farm to be constructed. But, the continuing litigation costs and indefinite time period associated with pursuing the permits through litigation no longer make sense for the company.

Juwi officials noted that although the company has decided to withdraw from the project, there are other plaintiffs involved in the lawsuit who may choose to continue pursuing their claims against the BZA. To facilitate these efforts, Juwi has already begun the process of notifying the landowners and appropriate officials of its decision.

For more information, contact: Chad Thompson (765) 513-1031 thompson@juwi.com

Source:  Juwi Wind

Jasper (IN) Power plant’s future open for discussion; Utility Board seeking options for city’s power plant

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   July 02, 2014  /   Posted in biomass, Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Power plant’s future open for discussion

July 2, 2014

Herald File Photo

By CANDY NEAL
Herald Staff Writer

JASPER — Options are being researched for the city’s former power plant on East 15th Street near the Patoka River.

The Jasper Utility Service Board’s electric committee decided this morning it will propose sending notice to gauge if any group is interested in utilizing the plant. The committee also decided to explore the steps necessary should the plant be dismantled.

The full utility service board must agree to those ideas, which it will consider at its next meeting July 21.

“Since the start of negotiations with Twisted Oak, a lot has happened in the power industry,” committee member Wayne Schuetter said at this morning’s meeting. “(The plant) still has potential as an asset. What that is, I’m not sure.”

Twisted Oak is the Atlanta-based organization that had a lease for the plant. Twister Oak planned to convert the power plant into a biomass plant that burned natural gas and miscanthus grass.

The plan drew criticism from those concerned about the negative impact the center could have on health. Several of those in objection formed Healthy Dubois County. The day before the lease was approved in August 2011, Healthy Dubois County filed a lawsuit against the Jasper Common Council and Jasper Utility Service Board, citing what Healthy Dubois County considered a violation of the Open Door Law with several executive sessions leading up to the decision to approve the lease.

The lawsuit lasted more than a year and included a successful appeal for Healthy Dubois County to the Indiana Court of Appeals. The lawsuit, which cost the city at least $700,000, was mutually dismissed in January.

Twisted Oak ultimately terminated its lease, effective June 20, saying the project was no longer profitable financially. The termination of the lease brought the electric committee to this morning’s meeting with questions about the power plant’s future.

The committee determined the notice for letters of interest this time around will be more broad, reaching out to power sources as well as other entities, such as research and development companies.

“We (can) put it out there that we have this facility that’s been well-maintained that could be used for that, not just for production of power,” Schuetter said.

Board member Alex Emmons agreed. “We don’t want to limit ourselves,” he said.

General Utilities Manager Bud Hauersperger said research needs to be done to determine the environmental impact for dismantling the plant. That information, he said, would help the utility service board in its future decisions for the plant as well as assist any company interested in utilizing the plant. The committee agreed.

Members of Healthy Dubois County attended this morning’s meeting. After the meeting, organization member Rock Emmert handed The Herald a written statement.

“Our leaders are above all entrusted to protect the public’s health,” he wrote. “Responsible, critical thinking requires comprehensive analysis, which includes well-established health risks. Citizens desire full disclosure, especially when they are footing the bill and bearing the health costs. HDC will continue to address the health hazards of any proposal at this site that will increase our area’s already high cancer and asthma rates.”

The utility service board will hear the recommendations at its July 21 meeting, which will begin at 7 p.m. in the council chambers of City Hall, 610 Main St.

Contact Candy Neal at cneal@dcherald.com.

Copyright 2013 IndianaDG