Author Archives Laura Arnold

IURC Nominating Committee Met to Begin Process Looking for new Commissioner to Replace Atterholt

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   June 27, 2014  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 26, 2014
Contact: Kara Brooks
IURC Nominating Committee Accepting Applications for Commission
 
INDIANAPOLIS – The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission Nominating Committee is soliciting applications from persons interested in filling one current vacancy on the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) created by the appointment of Commission Chair Jim Atterholt as the Governor’s Chief of Staff.
Applications will be accepted today through close of business on July 11, 2014.  Applications must be received in the Governor’s Office by close of business on July 11, 2014.  After the close of the application period, the nominating committee will schedule and conduct a public meeting on July 30, 2014 to interview applicants.  The committee will present Governor Mike Pence with a list of three qualified candidates from which he will select an individual to fill the remainder of Commissioner Atterholt’s term.  Commissioner Atterholt’s term expires March 31, 2017.
Members of the nominating committee include Committee Chair Gwen Horth, Eric Scroggins, John Blevins, Larry Buell, Win Moses, Michael Evans, and Michael Mullett.
Applications for the position may be obtained by emailing boardsandcommissions@gov.in.gov, by calling 317-232-4567, by hard copy in Statehouse, Room 206, or by visiting http://www.in.gov/gov/2682.htm. Completed applications should be returned to:  Gwen Horth, Chair, IURC Nominating Committee, c/o Office of the Governor, Statehouse, Room 206, Indianapolis, IN  46204.  To be considered timely, applications must be received in the Governor's Office and not simply postmarked by close of business on Friday, July 11, 2014.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to a member of the IURC Nominating Committee, the following was also decided at the meeting held earlier this week as follows:

  • another notice about the vacancy to be issued after 4th of July;
  • IURC Nominating Committee to hold conference call on 7/17/14 @ 1 pm to discuss who should be invited for interviews;
  • IURC Nominating Committee to conduct interviews on Wed., July 30; and
  • meeting of IURC Nominating Committee on Aug. 13 to select three candidates to recommend to Governor Pence.

Elkhart County (IN) dairy farm anaerobic digester using NIPSCO voluntary feed-in tariff; Green Cow Power will lower GHG emissions

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   June 26, 2014  /   Posted in biomass, Feed-in Tariffs (FiT), Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO)  /   No Comments

 Elkhart County dairy cows are going green with Green Cow Power

Jun 25 - McClatchy-Tribune Regional News - Jeff Parrott The Elkhart Truth, Ind.

A developer is bringing a new project to Elkhart County aimed at reducing the environmental impact of dairy farms and helping the nation's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Brian Furrer is building a $7 million facility on a former gravel mining site in rural southwest Goshen that will turn cow manure into electricity. The project, called Green Cow Power, will be up and running by September if construction goes smoothly.

The facility at 24242 C.R. 40 is believed to be the eighth such operation in Indiana. It's not the first one in the county to turn animal waste into energy, but it will be the largest. Culver Duck, a duck processor near Middlebury, also operates such a digester, using the blood, heads, tails and innards -- the parts not used for food products -- to generate methane that makes electricity.

Culver Duck produces about 800 kilowatts per hour of electricity, which is less than one-third of the 3 mwh that Green Cow plans to send into the grid.

Furrer has done this before. His company, Bio Town Ag, operates a larger facility in the White County town of Reynolds, about 25 miles north of Lafayette. It's producing about twice the electricity that the town of Reynolds uses.

He committed to the Reynolds project in 2005, started construction in 2010 and became operational in 2011.

Energy price key

Furrer, from White County, said he decided to try the concept in Elkhart County because it has so many dairy farms and it's served by electric utility NIPSCO. By contrast, Rural Electric Membership Corporations, or REMCs, serve many rural areas but haven't been willing to pay high enough prices for electricity, he said.

"NIPSCO is doing the best job of working with dairy farmers of anyone in the state," Furrer said. "We needed a dairy farm, a lot of cows, and we needed NIPSCO, so that's why we're here."

The utility industry calls such energy "biomass" and is looking to buy more biomass, solar and wind energy, all renewable sources, as new federal environmental regulations allow less use of coal. Through its Feed-in Tariff Program, NIPSCO bought about 6,200 megawatts in the program's first year, 2011, and last year bought about eight times as much, or 49,000 megawatts -- enough to power about 6,000 homes per year, said NIPSCO spokeswoman Kathleen Szot.

Biomass power generation grew about five-fold, rising from 6,200 to 31,600 megawatts during that time.

Renewable sources in the FIT pilot program still make up a tiny fraction of electricity produced in coal- and natural gas-heavy Indiana, about 0.3 percent last year, but that will change eventually, Furrer predicted.

"We're going to use less dirty coal in this country," Furrer said. "That is just a fundamental fact of life. We have a governor that's fighting that and U.S. legislators and state legislators, but the reality is we're going to reduce our carbon footprint in this country. We're going to do it through many different mechanisms. This is one mechanism that's going to help."

How it works

Furrer said the Reynolds facility has been a success, but he and his staff are still learning how to improve it. If things go well at Green Cow Power, he will look to launch another project elsewhere. He declined to say where.

"It has a huge amount to do with how well we can make the digester perform," Furrer said, noting that some anaerobic digesters have lost money while others barely break even. Based on what he's learned in Reynolds, he figures it will take about seven years to recoup the $7 million in capital costs.

"It's a biological process and there's not a tremendous amount of science behind the biology of methane digestion," he said. "When we have trouble, it's really difficult to troubleshoot it."

For example, in Reynolds last winter, methane production fell way off.

"We never figured out what caused the problem and we're not sure what we did to fix it," Furrer said. "We made a few changes and it came back up and it's working great again."

At Green Cow Power, the manure will be pumped into two underground sealed tanks, called anaerobic digesters, that hold a combined 5 million gallons. Bacteria break down the manure and methane gas is separated. Heat from the methane gas powers engines that turn generators to make electricity.

Solids from the waste will be separated, dried and used as bedding for the cattle barns. Leftover liquids will be sent into a 25-million-gallon open lagoon, where it will be stored until the dairy farmers can spread it on crops as fertilizer. Manure will remain in the digester for 22 days.

Furrer said there should not be much odor coming from the lagoon because fatty acids, which cause the most odor, are removed in the digester.

At Reynolds they're trying to perfect the process so that it results in water that's clean enough for cattle to drink. In Goshen that water might be used to grow crops if the process works.

"You have to remember that astronauts recycle their own urine," Furrer said with a chuckle. "If they can do it..."

Feeding the beast

The digester will need about three semitrailers full of manure per day. Supplying it will be local dairy farmer Brent Martin and some of his relatives, who are partners and investors in the project. Their five dairies all are within a roughly 3-mile radius of the site.

Martin said he has about 1,000 cows and hopes to win state approval to increase that number to 1,700 once the facility is operational. He said the change should help him avoid some state environmental regulation violations he's had in the past.

In 2006, Martin pleaded guilty to a Class D felony charge of unlawful discharge of a deleterious substance, after prosecutors alleged he illegally spread manure on a frozen field. He received a one-year suspended jail sentence.

In Martin's most recent routine inspection by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management on May 19, the inspector found three violations at his dairy operation at 66569 C.R. 13 near Goshen, according to IDEM records.

Liquid manure had breached the wall of a storage structure, there was no marker in an open manure lagoon indicating how deep the manure was, and Martin's barn did not contain written records documenting his required self-monitoring of the condition of his manure storage system. He has 60 days to correct the violations.

Martin and his relatives will no longer be storing as much manure in open lagoons on their properties.

"The digester needs a lot of manure every day, and now we got a place to go with it," Martin said. "It's going to be a good thing."

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is so supportive of the concept that it's created a separate agency to promote it called AgStar.

Furrer notes his project benefits the environment in three ways:

--Methane, a contributor to greenhouse gas, doesn't escape into the atmosphere.

--Fossil fuels aren't being used for electricity, so there's no carbon release into the atmosphere.

--Potassium and phosphorous are infinitely recycled as crop fertilizer, rather than being mined.

County Commissioner Mike Yoder, a dairy farmer, agreed.

"It's kind of nice to see something being built in the area producing methane from dairy farms," Yoder said. "It's a very large facility. There's a lot of manure being produced in that area. It's a very environmentally friendly way to handle that manure."

Yoder said he and two neighboring farms in 2006 considered building such a facility, on a smaller scale, but said NIPSCO at that time was offering too low of a rate to justify the $1 million construction expense.

Yoder said the county will monitor the condition of C.R. 40 and other roads near the facility to make sure they can handle the increased truck traffic coming to and leaving the facility, but he doesn't anticipate problems.

Are rooftop solar leases always a good thing? Is there a downside when homeowners sell? Do you have a story?

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   June 24, 2014  /   Posted in solar  /   No Comments

Rooftop Solar Leases Scaring Buyers When Homeowners Sell

By Will Wade  Jun 23, 2014 7:01 PM ET, Bloomberg

Dorian Bishopp blames the solar panels on his roof for costing him almost 10 percent off the value of the home he sold in March.

That’s because instead of owning them he leased the panels from SunPower Corp. (SPWR), requiring the new owner of the house to assume a contract with almost 19 years remaining. He had to shave the asking price for the house in Maricopa, Arizona, to draw in buyers unfamiliar with the financing arrangement.

Leasing is driving a boom in solar sales because most require no money upfront for systems that cost thousands of dollars. That’s made solar affordable for more people, helping spur a 38 percent jump in U.S. residential installations in the past year. Since the business model only gained currency in the past two years, the details embedded in the fine print of the deals are only starting to emerge.

“Homeowners don’t understand what they’re signing when they get into this,” said Sandy Adomatis, a home appraiser in Punta Gorda, Florida, who created the industry’s standard tool for valuing the systems. “You’ve got another layer to add on top of finding a buyer for the house. It’s not a plus.”

For people who own rooftop power systems, solar adds value to the home -- about $25,000 for the average installation in California, according to a study in December by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, funded by the U.S. Energy Department’s SunShot Initiative.

Photographer: Thor Swift/The New York Times via Redux

SolarCity employees install photovoltaic panels on the roof of a house in San Leandro,... Read More

Personal Property

Leased systems are another story because they’re considered personal property rather than part of a house. For many potential buyers, a solar lease is a liability rather than an asset, and may drive some people away, said Adomatis, who wrote the Residential Green Valuation Tool, a guide offered by the Appraisal Institute trade group.

Solar leases were introduced in 2008 and started to take off in about 2012. That means most of the systems in place remain in the hands of the original customer, suggesting the difficulties in selling these properties are just beginning.

“Some buyers just won’t be on board” with assuming a solar lease, said Nick Culver, a solar analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance in New York. “Even if you save money every month, you limit yourself to a certain subset of buyers.”

SolarCity Inc. (SCTY), the solar installer backed by billionaire Elon Musk with 110,000 lease customers, has transferred ownership of about 1,500 contracts to date and says the new owners typically will continue to enjoy lower power costs. It created an eight-person team that’s handling about 150 transfers a month because of growing demand for the service.

Lower Costs

“They’re essentially moving into a home with a lower cost of ownership, a lower cost of energy,” so a solar lease shouldn’t make it harder to sell a house, said Jonathan Bass, a spokesman for SolarCity in San Mateo, California. “It becomes a selling point instead of a point of misunderstanding.”

Scott Vineberg, a SolarCity customer, received multiple offers for the Scottsdale, Arizona, home he sold in January. The lease made the deal more complicated because the buyers were reluctant to take over the contract and asked him to pay off the balance in advance, about 10 years of payments.

“I don’t think they understood it,” said Vineberg. He refused to pay off the lease, and instead provided years of documentation to verify the monthly energy savings. After the sale closed, the buyers opted to pay off the lease, and Vineberg installed another SolarCity system at his new home.

‘A Deterrent’

Bishopp had a tougher time. “We had one offer in five months, and they pulled back as soon as they found out about the solar lease,” he said. “It’s a deterrent, definitely.”

The solar panels saved him about $50 a month on power costs. Before the panels were installed, he paid the local non-profit utility, Electrical District No. 3, 11.85 cents a kilowatt-hour for the first 500 kilowatt-hours a month, and 14.35 cents after that. His monthly bill was about $242.

With the lease from SunPower, he paid $160 a month for the 30 rooftop panels and owed another $32 to cover the utility’s monthly minimum charge. Under the lease, he paid 11.5 cents a kilowatt-hour for electricity, a rate guaranteed for the length of the contract.

The house sold for $140,000 in March, and the buyer took over the lease with the same rates. Bishopp had initially sought $155,000, and lowered the price three times.

He had to “price the house lower than houses without solar to get people interested,” said Brian Neugebauer, the real estate agent at Re/Max Excalibur who helped sell the property. Potential buyers, he said, were “scared of the solar lease.”

That may change as leases become more common. “It’s going to become a non-issue,” Neugebauer said. “It’s going to be like asking ‘Does your house have lightbulbs?’”

Credit Scores

There was one more hurdle: to take over the contract, SunPower had to approve the new leaseholder. The buyer’s credit score was a few points short of the solar company’s minimum, and was initially rejected. Bishopp had to persuade SunPower to reverse its decision.

In the “vast majority of cases,” buyers who qualify for a mortgage will also qualify to take over a solar lease, Martin DeBono, a SunPower vice president, said by e-mail.

The company has 20,000 residential lease customers, and fewer than 1 percent have sold their homes. Most of them transferred the lease to the buyer.

To contact the reporter on this story: Will Wade in New York at wwade4@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Reed Landberg at landberg@bloomberg.net; Rick Schine at eschine@bloomberg.net Carlos Caminada

SEPA Presents Solar Power Stats; 2014 Utility Solar Leaders; SEPA Webinar on Solar Market Report 6/26/14

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   June 23, 2014  /   Posted in solar, Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Download a copy of the Solar Electric Power Association (SEPA) report HERE > solar-market-snapshot-ver7

Join SEPA on June 26th for a high-level overview of information and trends revealed by the SEPA utility solar survey and the Utility Solar Market Executive Snapshot, being released on June 12th. This webinar will focus on three specific trends in the areas of distributed generation and the utility business model; utility-scale solar versus distributed generation; and the development of new offerings for utility customers.

We will dive into the top ten rankings to uncover the details of the utilities that are shaping the marketplace. Explore how different market segments are deploying PV and CSP and compare the portfolios of different utilities.

The presentation will be followed by audience Q&A.

Date: Thursday, June 26, 2014 11AM Pacific/2PM Eastern. Estimated duration: 1 Hour

Participant take-aways will include an improved understanding of the following:

  • Where and how utilities are adapting their business models in response to the solar market growth and trends.
  • How today’s utilities view their customers and growing trends in what utilities are offering.
  • The factors impacting growth of utility-scale and distributed generation solar markets and trends and forecast for Concentrating Solar Power.
  • Who is investing in solar and what is expected in coming decades.
  • How technology prices, utility/industry business models, and policy are driving solar adoption

Target Audience: General interest to all stakeholders working in the solar and electricity markets

Speakers: Becky Campbell, Senior Research Manager, SEPA
Miriam Makhyoun, Research Manager, SEPA

Cost: Free to SEPA members and the media (subject to verification), $199 for Non-Members

Register Now!

Get a refresher on the Top 10 Utility Solar Rankings and Infographic!

Massachusetts Solar Industry, Utilities and Regulators Reach a Deal on Solar Policy including NEM and SRECs

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   June 22, 2014  /   Posted in solar, Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Massachusetts Solar Industry, Utilities and Regulators Reach a Deal on Solar Policy

Massachusetts Solar Industry, Utilities and Regulators Reach a Deal on Solar Policy

In an era of gridlock and confrontation, stakeholders in solar policy have actually reached a workable deal on NEM and SRECs.

Herman K. Trabish
June 16, 2014

Compromise legislation pertaining to solar policy in Massachusetts has been devised, and it could serve as a template for reforms in other battleground states.

Two important solar policies will change significantly if lawmakers approve the proposal.

Net energy metering (NEM), which provides a retail-rate bill credit to solar owners for electricity their systems send to the grid, will remain in place unaltered, but the cap will be eliminated and ratepayers will have a “minimum bill” instead of the present “monthly charge.”

Solar renewable energy credits (SRECs), which create revenue for solar owners when purchased by utilities to meet state-mandated renewables obligations, will be replaced by a tiered, performance-based incentive system after a six-month period of transition during which both will be available.

The compromise was driven by politics and the marketplace, according to sources involved in the negotiations.

Under existing policies, uncertainty had begun to hamper solar installers. If a cap was to end NEM, the solar value proposition would be diminished. What's more, the state’s SREC market had become unreliably volatile. As Governor Deval Patrick's final term comes to an end, slowing solar growth threatens his legacy-enhancing  target of a 1,600-megawatt installed solar capacity by 2020.

In March, key stakeholders were asked to find “a good long-term framework for solar growth” that would also make the governor’s target statutory, according to Carrie Hitt, SVP of State Affairs for the Solar Energy Industries Association.

Source: GTM Research SREC Market Monitor

A group of stakeholders including Northeast Utilities, National Grid, the New England Clean Energy Council, SEIA, and the Massachusetts Division of Energy Resources worked out the compromise, according to both Hitt and Janet Gail Besser, VP of Policy and Government Affairs for the New England Clean Energy Council.

“The biggest wins are that net metering will now be uncapped for solar and the introduction of performance-based incentives, offering predictable revenue streams paid out over fifteen years,” explained GTM Research Solar Analyst Cory Honeyman. The framework also revises the credit calculation downward for virtual-net-metered systems, which is expected to impact project economics for large ground-mount systems. “Key uncertainties lie in what the performance-based incentives will be set at and what the minimum bill will ultimately be.”

The key to the agreement was that each side got something it wanted, according to several participants in the 90 meetings that took place over three months of negotiation.

“We needed to see the cap on net metering eliminated or somehow adjusted,” Hitt said. “That’s what the solar industry was looking for. The Division of Energy Resources had always said it would revisit its SREC program. The minimum bill is an ask the distribution companies needed.”

Utility representatives “came to the table with open minds,” Hitt said. They were aware of solar’s popularity in Massachusetts but were also concerned about how to pay for the distribution system with increasing levels of distributed generation, increasing use of energy efficiency and demand response, and diminishing load growth.

Northeast Utilities and National Grid participants “didn’t come in with a lot of rhetoric,” Hitt said. “They didn’t come in saying, ‘Solar [is] costing us money.’”

There was no debate over solar’s costs and benefits, Hitt added, only a discussion about “cost recovery from all ratepayers for whatever the value of the distribution system is, in a way that doesn’t discriminate against any customers or discourage new technologies.”

The answer was the minimum bill approach, which, Hitt said, is not an additional cost or charge. “It just says that your bill will not go below a minimum amount.”

It is different than the fixed monthly fee that has been proposed or implemented in other states in response to concerns about infrastructure costs, Honeyman said. “The minimum bill sets a floor. And it only comes into play if a customer offsets enough of his or her monthly bill to fall below the minimum charge."

Some energy efficiency advocates say the minimum bill could discourage efficiency upgrades.

“There is a lot of confusion about the minimum bill,” the New England Clean Energy Council's Besser said. “I would be surprised if it has any impact on most customers’ bills. You do the energy efficiency and then you size your PV system appropriately to your usage. That’s how you save the most money.”

The agreement was, in fact, designed to get systems sized to fit customers’ loads, she said. “Net metering is supposed to be about sizing systems to your own use, not generating electricity to sell back into the grid and make money. That’s not why there is an incentive for solar.”

After the new policies are approved by the legislature, the minimum bill and the tiered performance-based incentive schedule will be established by the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities in a standard regulatory proceeding.

The compromise agreement is “precedential,” according to Bryan Miller, Sunrun Public Policy VP and President of the Alliance for Solar Choice. "While high-pitched battles between utilities and the solar industry continue across the country, Massachusetts has found a collaborative path forward."

“This will save our ratepayers no less than half a billion dollars,” according to Ronald Gerwatowski, National Grid's SVP of Regulation and Pricing. “In a lot of states, you find solar developers at loggerheads and battling politically with utilities. We think solar is a very good technology, but we want to advance it at a reasonable cost to our customers. We achieved that here.”

TAGS: governor deval patrickmassachusettsnational gridnet energy meteringnet metering capnortheast utilitiesperformance based incentivessolarsolar renewable energy creditssrecs

Copyright 2013 IndianaDG