Author Archives Laura Arnold

Oklahoma House passes solar surcharge bill; DWEA Statement on Oklahoma Senate Bill 1456

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   April 17, 2014  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Oklahoma House passes solar surcharge bill

Apr 15 - Daily Oklahoman (Oklahoma City)
Apr 15 - Daily Oklahoman (Oklahoma City)

Utility customers who want to install rooftop solar panels or small wind turbines could face extra charges on their bills after legislation passed the Oklahoma House of Representatives on Monday.Senate Bill 1456 passed 83-5 after no debate in the House. It passed the Senate last month and now heads to Gov. Mary Fallin for her approval.

The bill was supported by the state's major electric utilities, but drew opposition from solar advocates, environmentalists and others. It sets up a process at the Oklahoma Corporation Commission to establish a separate customer class and monthly surcharge for distributed generation such as rooftop solar or small wind turbines.

Customers who already have those systems installed wouldn't be affected by the bill. It also wouldn't apply to electric cooperatives, which aren't regulated by the Corporation Commission . The new tariffs for distributed generation would start by the end of 2015.

Representatives of Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co. and Public Service Co. of Oklahoma said the surcharge is needed to recover some of the infrastructure costs to send excess electricity safely from distributed generation back to the grid. The representatives said utilities need the new surcharge to prevent customers who can't afford the installation costs of distributed generation from subsidizing customers who have the systems installed.

"This neither unfairly advantages or disadvantages a class of customers," said PSO spokesman Stan Whiteford .

"It levels the playing field where one customer class was subsidizing another."

Solar advocates and others said the bill protects utility profits by opening up another revenue stream for them. The number of OG&E and PSO customers who have distributed generation in Oklahoma is small, but the declining costs of solar panels and a federal tax credit could make the systems more attractive.

SB 1456 was authored by Sen. A.J. Griffin , R- Guthrie , and sponsored by Rep. Mike Turner , R- Edmond .

 

 

http://www.altenergymag.com/news/2014/04/04/statement-from-dwea-executive-director-on-oklahoma-senate-bill-1456-/32967

Statement from DWEA Executive Director on Oklahoma Senate Bill 1456

Visit http://distriubtedwind.org for further information

April 3rd – Distributed Wind Energy Association Executive Director Jennifer Jenkins issued the following statement today as Senate Bill 1456, a bill that would add a new surcharge for distributed generation moved through a House subcommittee:

Submitted on 04/04/14, 07:55 AM

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

April 3, 2014
FOR MORE INFO: Lauren Glickman
Email: Lglickman@distributedwind.org
Tel: 504-258-7955

April 3rd – Distributed Wind Energy Association Executive Director Jennifer Jenkins issued the following statement today as Senate Bill 1456, a bill that would add a new surcharge for distributed generation moved through a House subcommittee:

"It's disappointing to see Senate Bill 1456 moving forward in Oklahoma. This legislation does nothing but jeopardize renewable energy growth in the state. Distributed forms of energy generation like small and community wind and solar power help to keep the lights on and Oklahomans at work. The state legislature should be examining legislation that will support this growing industry, and utilities should be encouraging distributed generation instead of trying to penalize it."
DWEA's president, Mike Bergey, president & CEO of Bergey Windpower in Norman, OK added: "It is unfortunate that some utilities that enthusiastically support wind power for their own use are promoting a regressive policy that will make it harder for their customers to use wind power on their own. Oklahoma offers tax credits for large wind turbines which are built elsewhere, but wants to penalize small wind which we manufacture here in the state? That makes no sense to me. The truly ironic thing is that net metering, a standard policy in 42 states, saves utility administration costs and, because so little small wind and solar capacity is installed in Oklahoma, implementing SB 1456 through the Corporation Commission would cost ratepayers and taxpayers $5 for every $1 that it could theoretically save the utility."
###
About the Distributed Wind Energy Association

The Distributed Wind Energy Association is a collaborative group comprised of manufacturers, distributors, project developers, dealers, installers, and advocates, whose primary mission is to promote and foster all aspects of the American distributed wind energy industry. Distributed wind is the use of wind turbines at homes, farm and ranches, businesses, public and industrial facilities, off-grid and other sites connected either physically or virtually on the customer side of the meter to offset all or a portion of local energy consumption or to support grid operations. DWEA seeks to represent members and associates from all sectors with relevant interests pertaining to the distributed wind industry. For more information on DWEA, please go to www.distributedwind.org. Follow us on Twitter @DWEA and like us on Facebook

Shining Cities Report Shows Indianapolis #7 on Top 20 Solar Cities; #5 Solar PV/capita; Due to IPL VFIT Rate REP

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   April 13, 2014  /   Posted in IPL Rate REP, solar  /   No Comments

REPORT: A MILLION SOLAR ROOFS

Shining Cities

AT THE FOREFRONT OF AMERICA'S SOLAR ENERGY REVOLUTION
Released by: Environment California Research & Policy Center
Release date: Thursday, April 10, 2014

Editor's Note: The ranking achieved by the City of Indianapolis in this report is due to the Indianapolis Power and Light (IPL) voluntary feed-in tariff (VFIT) called Rate REP. IndianaDG has been in the forefront promoting VFIT's in Indiana including IPL's Rate REP.  

Solar power is on the rise across the country. The United States has more than 200 times as much solar photovoltaic (PV) capacity installed today as it did in 2002. With solar module prices coming down, increasing national awareness of solar energy, and a growing legion of solar businesses large and small, solar power is emerging as a mainstream energy solution with widespread benefits for our health, our economy and the environment.

Figure ES-1. Annual and Cumulative Installed Photovoltaic (PV) Capacity through 2013, United States

America’s major cities are helping to lead this clean energy revolution. Forward-thinking local governments and large cities in leading states are benefiting from smart policies that encourage investment in solar PV installations and the growth of local jobs.

This report provides a first-of-its-kind comparative look at the growth of solar power in major American cities. Just 20 cities, representing just 0.1 percent of the land area of the United States, account for 7 percent of solar PV capacity in the United States. These top 20 cities contain more solar power today than was installed in the entire U.S. just six years ago.

Solar energy brings important benefits to cities.

  • Solar energy avoids pollution—Pollution-free energy from the sun displaces fossil fuel-powered energy sources, reducing a major source of pollution that contributes to urban smog and global warming. Outdoor air pollutants endanger the health of city residents, and many urban centers are vulnerable to the global warming-induced threats of sea-level rise, increasingly frequent and severe extreme weather events, and the public health impacts of heat waves. Rooftop solar energy also increases city resilience to extreme weather events, which are only due to get worse with increased global warming. For example, solar energy can power cities when drought strikes without diverting precious water resources and help prevent blackouts by reducing strain on the grid. As the electric system evolves, solar panels will be able to provide backup power during power outages caused by storms or other disasters.
  • Solar energy protects consumers—Cities often depend on electricity transmitted from power plants hundreds of miles away to meet local demand. Using local solar energy reduces the need for electricity transmission and the need for costly and inefficient “peaking” power plants. Solar energy also typically supplies electricity on hot, sunny days when grids are under the most strain and electricity is most expensive. In addition, since there are no fuel costs associated with solar energy, it can reduce the vulnerability of city economies to price increases for fossil fuels.
  • Solar energy helps the economy—Solar power creates local jobs in solar installations and manufacturing. Solar industry employment grew 10 times faster than the national average growth in employment in 2013 and employed 142,000 Americans as of November 2013.

The top 20 cities have a total installed solar PV capacity of over 890 MW and are located in almost every region of the U.S.

Figure ES-2. Map of 57 Principal Cities Ranked by Cumulative Installed Solar PV Capacity, End of 2013

On a per-capita basis, Honolulu is the leading solar city, followed by San Jose, and Wilmington, Delaware. 


Figure ES-3. Map of 57 Principal Cities Ranked by Installed Solar PV Capacity per Person, End of 2013

America’s leading solar cities are increasing their use of solar energy in a variety of ways. Some cities are focusing on distributed solar PV on homes and small businesses, others are building utility-scale solar power plants, while still others are developing solar energy at the neighborhood scale or through community projects. What makes these top cities solar leaders?

  • Commitment from local governments. Cities can lead and catalyze local markets by installing solar power on city buildings and setting ambitious but achievable targets for solar energy. Leading solar cities, including Denver and Portland, are driving solar growth starting with their public buildings.
  • Support from city policies and programs. Cities can create policies that promote solar power in their communities. Cities can encourage local lending for solar projects, provide predictable and accessible tax incentives that make solar energy more affordable and welcoming to businesses, and adopt solar-friendly permitting policies and building codes. New York City, for example, has a property tax credit for residents who install solar panels. Cities can also run “Solarize” programs that use collective purchasing and educational campaigns to help neighbors “go solar” together, as Portland, Oregon did, or create programs to facilitate solar project financing like Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing.
  • Partnership with local utilities. Municipal utilities in several cities have driven the growth of solar power by setting renewable energy goals and offering attractive financial incentives for solar projects. Austin Energy, the municipal utility serving Austin, has set a goal of installing 200 MW of solar power by 2020 and offers an array of solar financing options and monetary incentives to its customers. Seattle City Light allows its customers to invest in community solar projects that are not located on their properties but whose output is still credited on their utility bill. Other cities have effectively partnered with investor-owned utilities to incentivize solar power. New York City partnered with Con Edison, its local investor-owned utility, to connect solar power to the city grid for the first time and create designated “Solar Empowerment Zones” where solar power could deliver the most benefits.
  • Strong state-level policies. New Jersey, Delaware and Massachusetts have among the strongest standards in the country, boosting the solar capacity of cities such as Newark, New Jersey, Wilmington, Delaware and Boston, Massachusetts. Hawaii, California, Arizona and New York also benefit from strong state policies that make them home to some of the most prominent solar cities. Net metering policies that allow solar producers to receive the full benefits of their solar power production are important for a robust solar market; states should also allow for virtual net metering that facilitates shared solar projects.
  • Support from federal programs. Federal renewable energy tax credits and funding from federal programs like the Solar America Cities program, the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant program and the U.S. Department of Energy’s Sunshot Initiative provide support for local solar power growth and valuable technical assistance to local governments.

America’s leading cities have made significant progress but have just begun to tap solar energy’s immense potential. Strong public policies at every level of government can help America continue to harness clean solar energy and overcome legislative and regulatory barriers to distributed generation. To achieve America’s full solar potential:

  • Local governments should follow the lead of America’s top solar cities by adopting programs that promote the rapid expansion of solar power and by demanding that state and federal officials and investor-owned utilities facilitate that expansion.
  • State governments should set ambitious goals for solar energy and adopt policies to meet them. State governments should also use their role as the primary regulators of electric utilities to encourage utility investments in solar energy and implement rate structures that maximize the benefits of solar energy to consumers. States can streamline permitting, inspections and net metering rules to reduce the non-equipment costs of getting solar power on rooftops. States should require that upcoming investments in the electric grid are designed to ensure that clean, distributed energy such as solar power plays a larger role.
  • The federal government should continue to provide long-term support for solar power through tax credits and other incentives. The federal government should continue to support research, development and deployment efforts designed to reduce the cost of solar energy and related storage and smart grid technologies; this will enable more solar energy to be reliably incorporated into the electric grid. The federal government should continue to offer programs like the Solar America Cities program, the Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant program and the U.S. Department of Energy’s Sunshot Initiative, which provide support and technical assistance while fostering innovations that drive solar development at the state and local levels.
  • All levels of government should lead by example by installing solar energy technologies on government buildings.

 

 

 

NIPSCO Electric Infrastruture Plan Approved by IURC 2/17/14 but OUCC filed petition for reconsideration 3/10/14

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   April 12, 2014  /   Posted in Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO), Office of Utility Consumer Counselor (OUCC), Uncategorized  /   No Comments

NIPSCO ELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN

Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) has received Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) 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 Electric Infrastructure Modernization Plan.

NIPSCO's request was the first to be filed under a new law (Senate Enrolled Act 560) passed by the Indiana General Assembly in 2013.

The Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor's (OUCC's) testimony in these cases is summarized in its October 11, 2013 news release. Links to the testimony are available below.

The IURC issued orders on the 7-year plan and the methodology for calculating cost recovery on February 17, 2014. On March 10, 2014, the OUCC filed a petition for reconsideration. The motion is currently pending.

 

A brief summary of the new 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.

 

NIPSCO's request

NIPSCO filed its 7-year electric system improvement plan on July 19, 2013, in IURC Cause No. 44370. In a separately filed case, IURC Cause No. 44371, NIPSCO requested establishment of the methodology for calculating rate recovery of future costs with the first rate increase expected in 2015.

According to the utility's testimony and exhibits:

  • The 7-year plan has a total of about $1.07 billion in capital improvement projects, including $314.2 million in transmission projects, $544.5 million in distribution projects, and $214 million in overhead and economic development.
  • Projects throughout NIPSCO's electric service territory include new transmission and distribution lines, new substations, upgrades to existing lines and substations, and replacement of aging infrastructure (such as poles, transformers, etc.).
  • Construction is scheduled start in 2014 with a proposed electric rate increase of approximately 0.4 percent in 2015. The annual rate increase amounts are projected to grow over the course of the plan, reaching 1.7 percent in 2020. The average annual percentage increase over the 7-year term is 0.9 percent.

NIPSCO is requesting approval of a 7-year natural gas infrastructure plan in a separate case filed on October 3, 2013.

 

Key documents

NIPSCO's July 19, 2013 filings include:

All filings in both cases are available by visiting the IURC's Electronic Document System and entering the appropriate docket number.

 

OUCC review & testimony

The OUCC issued a September 6, 2013 news release to invite consumer comments and filed the following testimony on October 11, 2013:

 

  • Cause No. 44370: Smith (18 pages)
  • Cause No. 44370: Eke (13 pages)
  • Cause No. 44370: Rutter (14 pages)
  • Cause No. 44371: Bolinger (39 pages)
  • Cause No. 44371: Blakley (14 pages)
  • Cause No. 44371: Hand (13 pages)
  • Cause No. 44371: Eckert (14 pages)4-2-14

For more information please see:

44371 OUCC'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION_filed 2014-03-10

44371 Petitioner's Response to OUCC Petition for Reconsideration

IURC: Opportunity for public comment on Indiana state energy savings program; After SEA 340 Gov. Pence wants recommendations for 2015

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   April 09, 2014  /   Posted in 2014 Indiana General Assembly, Uncategorized  /   No Comments

IURC Logo

Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission
Media Advisory

101 W. Washington Street, Suite 1500E, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

Media Contact: Danielle McGrath 317.232.2297

Opportunity for public comment
on State energy savings program

 

 

What: Following the enactment of Senate Enrolled Act 340, Governor Pence issued a letter to the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) requesting that the agency make recommendations on demand side management (DSM) and energy efficiency (EE) policies and programs, so that they may serve as a framework for potential legislation in the upcoming 2015 session of the Indiana General Assembly.

 

Specifically, the Governor asked that the IURC's recommendations accomplish the following:

 

  • ·         Include appropriate EE goals for Indiana;
  • ·         Reflect an examination of the overall effectiveness of current DSM programs in the state;
  • ·         Reflect any and all issues that may improve current DSM programs;
  • ·         Reflect a thorough benefit-cost analysis of the cost impact to ratepayers of possible DSM programs; and
  • ·         Allow for an opt-out whereby large electricity consumers can decide not to participate in a DSM program.

 

When: From April 9, 2014 to June 9, 2014, the IURC will collect comments to ensure transparency and the opportunity for public participation.

 

Why: In 2009, the IURC issued a decision that required the state's investor-owned electric utilities (e.g., Northern Indiana Public Service Company, Vectren South, Indianapolis Power and Light, Duke Energy, and Indiana Michigan Power) to achieve an energy savings target of 2% within 10 years.

 

Since the issuance of the IURC's decision, interested stakeholders, under the umbrella of the Demand Side Management Coordinating Committee, have worked collaboratively to implement and publicize the programs. However, this past year, concerns were raised about its overall expense. Consequently, during the 2014 legislative session, Senate Enrolled Act 340 was enacted into law so that the General Assembly could examine the IURC's program. Although the law allows Indiana utilities to continue offering DSM programs, it lets the statewide program, run by a third-party administrator, expire on December 31, 2014.

 

To aid the public in obtaining information related to this program and the Governor’s request, the IURC has created a webpage dedicated to the issue. On this site, readers can find a copy of the Governor’s letter, as well as brief overviews and reference materials related to the case. For more information, please visit: www.in.gov/iurc/2802.htm.

 

How: Comments on DSM and EE policies and programs may be submitted to the IURC in writing. Details are provided below. The deadline for the submission of written comments is June 9, 2014.

 

Email: urccomments@urc.in.gov

 

Mail: General Counsel Beth Krogel Roads
Re: IURC's EE/DSM Recommendations
Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission
101 West Washington Street, Ste. 1500 E
Indianapolis, IN 46204

 

# # #

 

The Commission is a fact-finding body that hears evidence in cases filed before it and makes decisions based on the evidence presented in those cases. An advocate of neither the public nor the utilities, the IURC is required by state statute to make decisions that balance the interests of all parties to ensure the utilities provide adequate and reliable service at reasonable prices.
For more information, please visit: www.in.gov/iurc.

 

------------------------------------------------------------

Danielle McGrath, APR

Executive Director of External Affairs

 

Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission

101 West Washington Street, Suite 1500 East

Indianapolis, IN  46204

 

Tel:        317-232-2297

E-mail:  dmcgrath@urc.in.gov

 

ACEEE: Ohio poised to take a big step backwards with SB 310

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   April 09, 2014  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments
By R. Neal Elliott, Associate Director for Research

The state of Ohio is poised to take a major step backwards if its legislature enacts SB 310. The bill would gut what has been a successful energy efficiency policy that has saved ratepayers hundreds of millions of dollars so far, and would save even more in the future. The passage of SB 310 would set a very bad precedent, and would lead to higher electricity bills and electricity rates for customers.

Last year ACEEE analyzed the impacts of Ohio’s current energy efficiency policy and found that the state’s utility energy efficiency targets (established under the bipartisan legislation SB 221 in 2008) would save customers a total of almost $5.6 billion from avoided energy expenditures and reduce wholesale energy and capacity prices through 2020. Today ACEEE released a report that takes a look at state energy efficiency resource standards (EERS) around the nation, which finds very positive to-date results for Ohio. The report documents that through 2012, Ohio’s utility efficiency programs have achieved over 150% of the savings targets set in SB 221, saving customers even more than projected. Based on evaluations filed with the Public Utility Commission of Ohio, these energy savings have come at a fraction of the cost of new generation. Another recent ACEEE report found the cost of utility energy efficiency programs averages about 2.8 cents per kilowatt hour—2 to 3 times less than new generation.

The fact that efficiency is a good deal for ratepayers should not be news to Ohio or its utilities. Last month, AEP Ohio released its 2015 To 2019 Energy Efficiency/ Peak Demand Reduction (EE/PDR) Action Plan , which projects a lifetime cost of saved energy of $0.013/kWh. The plan projects total net benefits of about $1.5 billion for AEP Ohio customers, who would save over $1.60 for every program dollar.

SB 310 would effectively put an end to the energy efficiency resource standard that has resulted in such impressive savings in Ohio. If the bill goes forward, utility customers across the state would pay more for electricity. That might enhance utility profits, but it would be bad news for consumers and the Ohio economy.

Copyright 2013 IndianaDG