Author Archives Laura Arnold

Hearings held last week in latest push against Ohio energy laws; What’s the impact of Ohio SB 310 on Indiana?

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   April 04, 2014  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Hearings begin today in latest push against Ohio energy laws

Posted on 04/02/2014 by Kathiann M. Kowalski


(Photo by Chris H. via Creative Commons)

Hearings begin today on an Ohio bill that would cancel requirements for additional renewable energy and energy efficiency after 2014.

Senate Bill 310 would freeze Ohio's renewable and alternative energy requirements at 2014 levels. Those levels are about one-tenth of the current law's target of 25 percent by 2025.

Energy efficiency requirements would stay at the 2014 level of 4.2 percent. Current law calls for a 22 percent cumulative reduction in retail electricity sales by 2025. That's about five times as much as the 2014 levels.

The bill, introduced last Friday by state Sen. Troy Balderson of Zanesville, would also set up a study committee, let larger electrical customers opt out of the law's energy efficiency requirements, and require utility bills to have separate line items for the costs of energy efficiency and renewable energy compliance.

Introduction of SB 310 follows after vigorous opposition throughout the fall to Senate Bill 58. That bill, introduced by Cincinnati-area State Senator Bill Seitz, would have substantiallyweakened the energy efficiency and renewable energy standards, while nominally leaving their targets in place.

"If I had a preference, it would be for 58," Seitz says. But, he adds, "We're also trying to get something passed, so I'm comfortable with either approach."

Seitz heads the state senate's Public Utilities committee, which plans to begin hearings on the new bill today.

The bill is backed by major utilities and industrial customers.

"We're dealing today with circumstances that are very different from the future we assumed back in 2008," when the current standards were adopted, says Sam Randazzo, counsel for Industrial Energy Users-Ohio (IEU).

Randazzo and Seitz say the state's electricity demand has not grown as expected because of the recession. Both also note that more natural gas reserves have since been found in Ohio.

"AEP Ohio believes Senate Bill 310 is moving in the right direction," says company spokesperson Terri Flora. "The bill, if passed, freezes mandates at the 2014 level and allows for a more comprehensive study of the competing interests to determine the best path for Ohio moving forward."

However, no additional targets would kick in automatically under the bill.

In effect, "It's a repeal of both the efficiency and the renewable standard," says Trish Demeter, who heads energy and clean air programs for the Ohio Environmental Council.

Demeter and Randazzo both note Senate Bill 310's similarity to a proposal that FirstEnergy favored in 2012.

"It's really unfortunate that we're back where this whole debate over the value of the efficiency and renewable standards started in 2012," says Demeter.

'Unintended consequences'

Seitz argues that costs for continuing the current law's standards will "be extremely substantial and constitute a hidden electricity tax on consumers."

The Office of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel is still reviewing the new bill. However, the agency has previously opposed Senate Bill 58's efforts to cut back on energy efficiency standards.

Meanwhile, Demeter and other supporters of the current standards say that consumers would lose out under both bills.

"Energy efficiency is the most cost-effective resource for utilities to deploy in order to meet demand," notes Demeter. "If you pull back the reins on that, then there's most definitely going to be impact on every single ratepayer and what they're paying. We'll see some skyrocketing costs as a result."

Supporters of the current standards worry about jobs, too. So far, utilities and electric supply companies have generally met the current standards by contracting with other companies to buy renewable energy credits or energy efficiency credits.

If the bill passes, those contracts probably won't get renewed, says Demeter. "We'll see a tremendous domino effect in contractors and subcontractors in Ohio jobs lost."

"That's so detrimental to people out there trying to create jobs in this industry," notes Dan Sawmiller of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign.

As of 2012, Ohio had about 25,000 people working in the renewable energy, advanced energy, and energy efficiency industries, reports Ted Ford, president of Advanced Energy Economy-Ohio. The group's members come from those industries.

The bill wouldn't only affect new projects, says Ford. Its "unintended consequences" would harm existing projects as well.

"There are investments that have been made with the expectation that there would be a standard in place that would pay off over time," stresses Ford.

Many existing projects make economic sense when viewed as a whole, says Ford. However, if renewable energy credits or energy efficiency credits are no longer in the balance,  some projects' financing could fall apart.

"Who's left holding the bag?" Ford says.

"If the only way they can make a go of things is to have government mandates and government subsidies, then maybe they're in the wrong business to begin with," says Seitz.

"The status quo is heavily subsidized," counters Ford. Generally, electric rates have made sure utilities could recover reasonable and prudent costs of business.

Additional hurdles

The new bill doesn't preclude adopting new requirements for future years. However, it does introduce more hurdles.

Among other things, a committee would do a cost-benefit analysis of the law's mandates before the legislature would set any new targets. The majority of the 21 members would be legislators and interest group appointees chosen by the heads of Ohio's State Senate or House of Representatives.

"Senate Bill 310 attempts to simply hit the pause button as the legislature studies the issues surrounding the mandates, allowing us to continue offering our customers cost-effective programs," says Flora.

"Why not simply do the study commission and keep the standards in place?" says Ford. "We think the cart is before the horse here."

The costs and benefits of energy efficiency have been "reviewed it to death, " adds Sawmiller. "It makes sense. But [opponents of current standards are] still trying to kill this law for some reason."

Last fall, for example, The Ohio State University's Center for Resilience reported that Senate Bill 58's proposed rollbacks on energy efficiency would cost ratepayers an average of more than $300 million per year between 2014 and 2025. Senate Bill 310 would go further and eliminate all additional energy efficiency targets required by current law.

Senate Bill 310 would also require utility bills to have separate line items showing the costs for energy efficiency and renewable energy. Presumably the idea is to highlight how much consumers would pay to meet the frozen standards.

"If we're talking about a level playing field here, then let consumers see everything that's in that distribution charge," says Demeter.

Among other things, those charges would include part of utilities' lost revenues from providing energy efficiency.

Consumers also pay a rider that makes up for any money utilities lose by giving "reasonable arrangement" rate breaks to large industrial customers.

Many of those same customers could opt out of paying for energy efficiency compliance if the legislature passes either Senate Bill 310 or Senate Bill 58.

Saying that large customers should have to pay because they already benefit from lower rates than residential customers have is like "comparing raisins and grapes," says Randazzo.

Supporters of the current standards say those breaks are relevant when consumers wind up paying the difference.

"There's no free lunch," says Demeter. "Somebody's paying for that, and it's all consumers."

Back-door changes?

Meanwhile, in late January, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) proposed changesto  the implementation and review process for Ohio's renewable energy and energy efficiency standards. The proposals arise from the agency's five-year review of the rules for both standards.

Utilities, consumer groups, environmental advocates, and others filed extensive comment briefs with the PUCO at the end of February. Reply briefs filed last week respond to points raised by various stakeholders. Various parties also put forth their own proposed rule language.

Some proposals supported by utilities closely track some provisions from Senate Bill 58.

For example, Industrial Energy Users-Ohio (IEU) and American Electric Power-Ohio (AEP) want programs that reduce consumer water use and wastewater to count toward benchmarks for energy efficiency. Similar language was proposed by Seitz in SB 58 last fall.

AEP also wants utilities to expand "shared savings" for energy efficiency programs. Current provisions let utilities keep part of the savings only if they exceed the law's goals. AEP's proposal would let utilities retain a share if they meet the law's requirements.

"Consumers realize the majority of the savings, and it is a classic win-win situation for pursuing more energy efficiency," says Flora.

SB 58 also included language to expand utilities' ability to share in cost savings. The Office of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel criticized that provision for turning energy efficiency into a "profit center" for utilities.

PUCO action on the proposed rule revisions is expected late this summer, reports Jason Gilham at the agency's public affairs office.

All or part of that action could become moot, however, if Senate Bill 310 passes.

"We look forward to moving it smartly along, assuming we can get it heard thoroughly, and have it out expeditiously," says Seitz.

The Ohio Environmental Council and the Sierra Club are members of RE-AMP, which publishes Midwest Energy News.

Download the written statement of 

STATE SENATOR TROY BALDERSON
20th District, Ohio Senate
SB 310 Sponsor Testimony
April 2, 2014

Balderson Sponsor Testimony on SB 310

 

Former US Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN): “Don’t pull the plug on nuclear power”

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   April 01, 2014  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments
Getty Images

By Former Sens. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) and Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) - 03/31/14 06:57 PM EDT

On Jan. 7, during one of the coldest periods in decades, the nation’s fleet of existing nuclear energy plants — more than any other generation source — kept America’s lights on and our homes and businesses warm. In fact, nuclear energy had an availability factor of 95 percent across the country, underscoring the critical role that existing nuclear energy plants play in ensuring a reliable and stable electric grid.

Yet despite the fact that nuclear energy is our most reliable source of power, normally operating at 85-90 percent capacity factors and generating power 24 hours a day, seven days a week through all weather conditions, it tends to be taken for granted.

So it might come as a surprise when we say that America’s existing nuclear fleet, a resource that provides about one-fifth of our energy supply today, is facing severe economic headwinds that threaten its survival. If our goal is an energy strategy that is diverse, reliable and clean — both now and in the future — we must ensure that existing nuclear energy plants are preserved.Existing nuclear energy plants are the backbone of our nation’s energy portfolio, powering tens of millions of homes and businesses across the country. Nuclear energy is mission-critical in providing a diverse energy mix, which ensures that the lights stay on without an over-reliance on any one fuel source.

What’s more, our nation’s existing nuclear energy plants produce zero carbon emissions and release no toxic chemicals into the atmosphere, making them the largest source of clean, uninterrupted mass-produced electricity available today. In fact, existing nuclear energy plants accounted for 64 percent of emission-free generation in the U.S. in 2012, proving that nuclear is a vital part of America’s plan to continue the transition to cleaner forms of energy. If we are serious about addressing carbon emissions, we have to be serious about preserving nuclear energy.

Our existing nuclear plants are also drivers of jobs and economic growth, currently providing 100,000 jobs to Americans across the country — more jobs per plant and per kilowatt-hour of generation than that of any other energy source. Not to mention the substantial contributions that nuclear plants make to local tax bases and economies. The average U.S. nuclear energy plant has an average payroll of $40 million, generates about $470 million a year in sales of goods and services, and annually pays $16 million in local and state taxes.

Another overlooked fact is that production costs for nuclear energy are among the lowest of all “round-the-clock” generating sources, at 2.4 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2012, according to Ventyx Velocity Suite. By comparison, coal production cost was 3.27 cents per kilowatt-hour, and natural gas was 3.4 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2012. The low and stable cost of nuclear energy helps reduce the price of electricity for consumers.

And a note on safety, because it warrants mentioning: America’s state-of-the-art nuclear energy plants are designed with layer upon layer of redundant safety features and multiple independent backup safety systems. Additionally, nuclear operators receive extensive and frequent training. All of this allows our existing nuclear energy plants to withstand severe events, both natural and manmade, keeping employees and communities safe at all times.

But alarmingly, we are in danger of losing the enormous advantages we gain from our nation’s existing nuclear fleet because of a combination of factors, including unintended consequences of market structure and government policy, an influx of cheap natural gas and flat electricity demand.

Already, two nuclear plants have announced plans to close in the past year — Kewaunee Power Station in Wisconsin and Vermont Yankee in Vermont — because of these conditions, which, if left unaddressed, could force additional plant closures. These are energy plants with strong safety records that provided real jobs and benefits to their communities while operating extremely efficiently, at greater than 90 percent capacity.

The bottom line is that the threat to our national fleet of existing nuclear energy plants is real and needs to be addressed. Policymakers and the public would do well to take notice of the value of our existing nuclear fleet and to begin to engage in a dialogue about the kinds of supportive public policies that take the full value of existing nuclear energy plants into account, along with the new reality in which they are operating. Nothing is more critical to ensuring America’s energy security.

Bayh represented Indiana in the U.S. Senate from 1999 to 2011. Gregg represented New Hampshire in the U.S. Senate from 1993 to 2011 and is a columnist for The Hill. The two are co-chairmen of Nuclear Matters, a campaign designed to engage and inform policymakers and the public about the need to preserve existing nuclear energy plants. 

Read more: http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/202240-dont-pull-the-plug-on-nuclear-power#ixzz2xe1vvw8Z
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Bill Spratley with Green Energy Ohio (GEO) says: “Green energy across Ohio faces a new challenge under SB 310.”

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   March 29, 2014  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

- Bill Spratley, Green Energy Ohio

Green energy across Ohio faces a new challenge:

Ohio Senate Bill 310 to Make Ohio First State to Eviscerate an RPS - SB 310 introduced March 28 in the Ohio Senate that would gut (proponents say "freeze") the EE and RE requirements of SB 221 enacted nearly unanimously in 2008.  See full SB 310

Below this message is the Gongwer Statehouse Report on this.  Also below the story are links to several related new stories.

Senate GOP Unveils Proposal To Freeze Renewable, Energy Efficiency Benchmarks - Gongwer

Senate Republicans introduced a plan Friday to freeze Ohio’s green energy requirements at current levels to buy time for a study commission to determine whether further changes to the controversial law are warranted.

The proposal (SB 310) sponsored by Sen. Troy Balderson (R-Zanesville) would limit the state’s energy efficiency requirements to a 4.2% reduction from when the 2008 law took place. The legislation also freezes the renewable requirement at the current 2.5% of the total amount of electricity sold by Ohio’s utilities.

Meanwhile, a 21-member study committee would review the law and recommend possible changes to the General Assembly by the end of 2015.

The bill comes after months of contentious hearings on Sen. Bill Seitz’s (R-Cincinnati) proposed overhaul of the law, which requires electric utilities to cut customer consumption 22% by 2025 and sell 12.5% of their power from renewable resources.

Senate President Keith Faber (R-Celina) said nearly two months ago that the chamber was revisiting FirstEnergy Corp.’s original proposal to freeze the green energy standards at current levels. (See Gongwer Ohio Report, February 3, 2014) [Note: This appears to require a paid subscription to access.]

Details in today’s Gongwer News Service Ohio Report.

GOP drafts plan to freeze Ohio ‘green’ energy rules
- Columbus Dispatch March 28

Ohio renewable energy and energy efficiency mandates under attack
- Cleveland Plain Dealer March 28

NRG’s David Crane: Who will connect the consumer with their own energy-generating potential?

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   March 29, 2014  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

NRG’s David Crane: Where Is the Amazon, Apple and Google of the Utility Sector?

NRG’s David Crane: Where Is the Amazon, Apple and Google of the Utility Sector?

NRG Energy’s CEO pens his manifesto on consumer empowerment in the electricity sector.

David Crane
March 27, 2014

Occasionally I make reference to the "four companies that will inherit the earth," by which I mean Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google.

While there is a hint of facetiousness in my designation -- after all, who can predict the future in the ever-changing business world? -- I do have infinite respect for them, their innovativeness, the quality of the service that each provides, and, most of all, the comfortable ubiquity they have achieved in the hearts and minds and everyday lives of the vast majority of people, both here at home and abroad.

What do these four very successful, but very distinct, companies have in common? They all provide products or services, directly to the consumer, which are deemed essential to the enrichment of the consumer's life experience, day in and day out. What causes these four companies to rise well above others that have similar offerings? The "Big Four" offer their own product or service in a manner that is more comprehensive, seamless, intuitive and, in the case of Apple, visually elegant, than their respective competitors. They enable, they connect, they relate, they empower. [Emphasis added]

  • There is no Amazon, Apple, Facebook or Google in the American energy industry today.
  • There is no energy company that relates to the American energy consumer by offering a comprehensive or seamless solution to the individual's energy needs.
  • There is no energy company that connects the consumer with their own energy-generating potential.
  • There is no energy company that enables the consumer to make their own energy choices.
  • There is no energy company that empowers the individual wherever they are, whatever they are doing, for however long they are doing it.

And there is no energy company that the consumer can partner with to combat global warming without compromising the prosperous "plugged-in" modern lifestyle that we all aspire to -- not just for those of us who are so blessed to live a prosperous life in the United States, but for the billions of people who live in the developing world and aspire to what we already have.

NRG is not that energy company either, but we are doing everything in our power to head in that direction, as fast as we can. But we need to pick up the pace more, and that is what we intend to do.

The good news is that we have been working hard over the past few years to put the pieces in place, so we aren't starting from scratch.

Preparing to win the short, medium and long term

So far, I have told you why we want to transform our company, our industry and our society. Now I am going to give you a glimpse of how we intend to do it, before ending with my vision of the outcome we hope to achieve. This is a bit of a broader and longer vision than you are used to, but you deserve to know where we are headed.

Just a few years ago, the prevailing wisdom was that the path to a clean energy economy depended on our collective willingness to build a nationwide high-voltage transmission system in order to transport electricity in vast quantities from the relentlessly windy and brutally sunny parts of the country, where people generally don't live, to the more temperate places where Americans tend to congregate.

The folly of that idea thankfully was realized before anyone actually began to build such an expensive and pointless white elephant. Now we are headed for the same goal, but in the opposite direction: down the path toward a distributed-generation-centric clean energy future featuring individual choice and the empowerment of the American energy consumer.

The only real question is how quickly this future will occur

Even if you believe, as we do, that this future world will be upon us with lightning-like quickness in electricity industry terms, in real time, the distributed future is going to take a while to get here. In the meantime, the lights need to be kept on, homes heated and chilled, and appliances powered up. So at NRG, we are positioning ourselves to succeed during a prolonged period through which the traditional centralized grid-based power system co-exists with the fast-emerging high-growth distributed generation sector -- much like fixed-line telephony has co-existed with the wireless world for a couple of decades.

So we are in the process of reorganizing ourselves from the customer's perspective. Our conventional generation business will be focused not only on maintaining our existing 50,000-megawatt fleet in top operating condition, but also on repowering select plants with flexible fast-start units located in advantageous positions on the grid.

Furthermore, in response to the increasing realization in the business community that no serious industry or commercial enterprise can prudently run their business based on 100 percent dependence on the grid, we see a growing B2B opportunity for our wholesale business in on-site generation for industry and large-scale commercial customers. The cost to our business customer of maintaining localized generation will be defrayed by our ability to sell excess capacity and generation, on behalf of that customer, back into the traditional grid.

As growing lack of confidence in the grid coincides with the introduction of new technologies, businesses and homeowners will realize that there is a better way. And, for them, that means generating most of the electricity they consume on the premises, from their own resources. In this new reality, our "mass" retail electricity franchise, consisting of Reliant, Green Mountain and NRG itself, becomes ever more important.

Our retail focus is on ensuring that we remain a first mover in bringing technological innovation aimed at the home energy consumer to our customers, on terms that they find attractive. Our marketing relationship with Nest, and their award-winning learning thermostat, is a case in point. But it is only the beginning. We expect to be soon to market with a robust platform offering rooftop solar to homes and businesses and other forms of sustainable and clean generation that will offer our customers the ability to dramatically reduce their dependence on system power from the centralized grid.

And for the customer, business or individual who simply wants nothing to do with the grid, the centralized control it represents and the inhibition of individual choice and restriction of personal freedom that is implicit in being "inter-tied" to the grid, there is the post-grid future -- a future that is driven by renewables, incorporating both energy storage and sophisticated localized automation to balance production and load.

There will be systems that harness thermal and electric synergies and across not only clean energy, but also fresh water production, waste disposal and electrified transportation to create a virtuous circle of civil sustainability. We are just getting started in this area with, among other projects, our groundbreaking Necker Island announcement, but we expect to be a leader in the area of renewables-driven ecosystems.

Our goal is to achieve the level of quality and ubiquity of energy outcomes on behalf of our customers that would one day cause us to be mentioned in the same breath as the "four companies who will inherit the earth." And in turn, our customers would have the same kind of experience with us that they have with the four of them, and we can emulate the shareholder value creation of four companies which, at present, have an aggregate market capitalization of over $1 trillion.

They will hold us accountable

As we forge ahead, I am mindful of the fact that the next generation of Americans -- the generation of my soon-to-be-adult children -- is different from you and I. Somehow, someway, the next generation of Americans became "all in" in their commitment to sustainability, in every sense of the word, including clean energy. With them, it is built into their DNA, not just "learned behavior," as it is for many of us.

And make no mistake about our children. They will hold all of us accountable -- true believers and climate deniers alike. The day is coming when our children sit us down in our dotage, look us straight in the eye, with an acute sense of betrayal and disappointment in theirs, and whisper to us, "You knew… and you didn't do anything about it. Why?" And for a long time, our string of excuses has run something like this: "We didn't have the technology…it would have been ruinously expensive…the government didn't make us do it…"

But now we have the technology -- actually, the suite of technologies -- and they are safe, reliable and affordable as well as sustainable. They do not represent a compromise to our ability to enjoy a modern lifestyle. They represent an opportunity for us to do the right thing while multiplying shareholder value through greater value-added services. And these technological solutions are focused on the individual consumer -- both businesses and individuals -- so the shameful passivity and failure to act of government is irrelevant.

The time for action is now; we have run out of time for more excuses.

You should know that I get up each day animated and motivated to lead NRG into a transformational role in the clean energy economy by my intense desire to have a better answer to that question when it comes from our children, whether it comes from your children or mine:

"At NRG, we did all that we could, as fast as we could do it, and what we accomplished with our partners and customers turned out to be quite a lot. Enough, in fact, for you and your generation to finish the job."

That would be a much better answer.

So let's make it happen.

Indiana Governor Mike Pence: Allows SEA 340 to become law; Calls for new direction on energy efficiency in Indiana

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   March 28, 2014  /   Posted in 2014 Indiana General Assembly  /   No Comments

Governor Mike Pence

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 27, 2014

Contact: Kara Brooks, kbrooks@gov.in.gov                                                                                                                                    

 

GOVERNOR PENCE CALLS FOR NEW DIRECTION ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN INDIANA

Seeks recommendations for energy efficiency program in 2015

 

Indianapolis — In announcing his intention to allow SEA 340 to become law without his signature, Governor Pence issued the following statement:

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

[Editor's Note: Governor Pence was not in Indianapolis last when this statement was released by his office. Instead he was  participating  in the First Annual Forbes Reinventing America Summit at JW Marriott in Chicago.

A Government of Growth: Politics and Policy that Foster Innovation
So what is the role of government in all this? How can Washington and the states create policies that allow the new industrial revolution to thrive? Our panelists will debate the right—and wrong—strategies for fostering innovation.

A. Paul Alivisatos, Ph.D., Director, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
The Honorable James S. Gilmore III, President & Chief Executive Officer, AmericanOpportunity.org; Governor, State of Virginia 1998-2002
The Honorable Michael Pence, Governor, State of Indiana
The Honorable Rick Snyder, Governor, State of Michigan
The Honorable Thomas Vilsack, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Moderator: Steve Forbes, Chairman & Editor-in-Chief, Forbes Media
Floor Moderator: Dan Bigman, Managing Editor, Forbes Media

It would interesting to obtain a copy of Governor Pence's prepared remarks.]

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

“Low-cost energy is an essential element of Indiana’s economic development and prosperity. The simple fact is that higher energy costs will cost Indiana jobs.  By reducing our need for electricity, we reduce our need to build expensive power plants at a cost to Hoosier ratepayers. For this reason, I believe that energy efficiency is an important part of our ‘all of the above’ energy strategy.

 

“As such, I was disappointed that the General Assembly chose to eliminate the energy efficiency program established by the previous administration without offering a viable alternative. For that reason, I have declined to sign this bill and acknowledge that this bill will become law without my signature.

 

“I could not sign this bill because it does away with a worthwhile energy efficiency program. I could not veto this bill because doing so would increase the cost of utilities for Hoosier ratepayers and make Indiana less competitive by denying relief to large electricity consumers, including our state’s manufacturing base.

 

“To ensure that Indiana’s energy policy continues to include sound efficiency programs that lower electricity usage and support economic growth, I am calling on the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission to immediately begin to develop recommendations for a new energy efficiency program that would include an opt-out for large electricity consumers.

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

 [Editor's Note: The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) already opened an investigation Cause No. 44441 on 01/15/14 to address this issue.

44441 Order creating DSM Opt-out Docket dated 2014-01-15

An excerpt is below:

On December 9, 2009, the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission ("Commission") issued its Phase II Order in Cause No. 42693 ("Phase II Order") wherein it found, among other things, that demand side management ("DSM") must be available to all customer classes to ensure that every Indiana energy consumer has the opportunity to benefit from energy cost reductions that can be achieved through energy efficiency improvements. Phase II Order at 29. Consequently, the Commission established annual energy savings goals for all jurisdictional electric utilities designed to meet an overall goal of 2% annual cost-effective DSM savings within ten years. Id at 30-31. The energy savings goals, while not mandates, were established to ensure all DSM opportunities for all customer classes were fully pursued. We explained that such a broad approach should help ensure that significant reservoirs of untapped cost-effective energy efficiency potential were not omitted from consideration. Id at 30. Nonetheless, the Commission specifically indicated that it was not foreclosing possible consideration of opt-out provisions at some future date. Id

On February 27,2013, the Commission issued an Order initiating an investigation in Cause No. 44310 to consider "whether to pursue the adoption of a 'structured' self-direct DSM program for certain large customers. Specifically, whether the DSM expense allocated to certain large customers for Core and Core Plus Programs should be utilized to fund a self-direct DSM program whereby these quaifying customers may access the funds, or receive credits, to complete defined energy efficiency projects that are subject to evaluation, measurement and verification." (Order at 1). In
establishing the procedural schedule for the investigation, the Presiding Officers' March 28,2013 Docket Entry specifically provided that, "related issues, such as opt-out programs and the energy savings goals established in Cause No. 42693, will not be addressed .... "

Now further informed by the various positions of the parties in the Cause No. 44310, and concerned that the efforts which would be required to effectuate a structured self-direct DSM program after an order establishing the reasonable parameters for such an offering would not be insignificant, the Commission is persuaded that administrative efficiency is best served by more fully exploring alternative solutions beyond the stated purpose of that proceeding. Although we remain convinced that cost-effective DSM offerings must be available to all customer classes and market segments, we recognize that economic drivers outside the present model may serve as powerful
incentives toward that objective. Therefore, we open this investigation to undertake a critical review on the continued reasonableness of certain large customer participation in utility sponsored and Commission regulated DSM programs. This investigation will occur on an expedited basis to ensure continued implementation of the Phase II Order requirements for the submission of three-year DSM plans by the regulated electric utilities and the continued offering of Core Programs. The investigation will also consider any associated and necessary revisions to the energy savings goals
established in the Phase II Order.

...

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE INDIANA UTILITY REGULATORY
COMMISSION that:
1. An investigation is hereby commenced to allow the Commission to consider and
review the reasonableness of continuing to require the participation of certain large customers in utility sponsored and Commission regulated DSM programs and any associated impacts on the energy savings goals established in the Phase II Order.
2. A Preliminary Hearing and Prehearing Conference to establish a procedural schedule is set for February 3, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. local time in Room 222 of the PNC Center, 101 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Editor's Note: So why does Pence say:  "I am calling on the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission to immediately begin to develop recommendations for a new energy efficiency program that would include an opt-out for large electricity consumers." Wasn't the IURC already doing that?]

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

“In addition, I have informed leaders of the General Assembly of my actions and my intention to bring energy efficiency legislation during the 2015 legislative session. I look forward to working with legislators to develop a new energy efficiency program for our state that will encourage conservation and promote a strong Indiana economy.”

 

 

 

Christy Denault

Communications Director

Office of Governor Mike Pence

cdenault@gov.in.gov

317/233-9997 (Office)

317/775-1170 (Cell)

 

Copyright 2013 IndianaDG