Author Archives Laura Arnold

Solar farm possible at Fort Wayne International Airport; Really?? How would this work? IndianaDG wants to know!

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   February 28, 2014  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Solar farm possible at Fort Wayne International Airport

Similar project costing $40 million opened in Indianapolis last year

By Kevin Leininger of The News-Sentinel
Thursday, February 27, 2014 - 9:15 am
A solar-energy farm could be coming to Fort Wayne International Airport.According to Executive Director Scott Hinderman, the Fort Wayne-Allen County Airport Authority and Carmel-based Telamon Corp. are exploring the possibility of developing a park of up to 75 acres on two airport-owned sites along Coverdale Road and Airport Expressway.

No deal has been signed, and Telamon must determine the viability of the project before negotiations on a lease can begin. But the authority has pledged to negotiate in good faith should the company decide to move forward, Hinderman said.

Although solar farms on airport grounds are relatively rare – there are about 30 installations in 15 states -- they are becoming more common. In 2011, in fact, Telamon announced it would be a partner on what was billed as one of the largest airport-based solar farms in North America. That $40 million, 75-acre project at Indianapolis International Airport, which was commissioned last October, was projected to include more than 41,000 solar panels capable of producing enough energy to power more than 1,800 homes for a year. The company says the renewable energy created is the equivalent of 450,384 gallons of gasoline per year.

The company will determine whether Allen County receives enough sun light to make a similar project feasible here, Hinderman said. It would also require approve from the Federal Aviation Administration, which must ensure the facility would not endanger safety. Concerns about glare have limited airport-based solar farms in the past, but new panels have been developed to minimize that concern, Hinderman said.

“We've been talking to (Telamon) for about a year,” he added.

Although some airports tap directly into power generated by nearby solar farms – Chicago's O'Hare International is planning to get up to 10 percent of its electricity from a farm slated for completion in 2016 -- a Fort Wayne facility would feed electricity into the existing power grid, company spokeswoman Alexa Amatulli said. In Indianapolis, the power is fed to Indianapolis Power and Light Co. No public funds were used in the project, she added. The Indianapolis project was a joint venture between Telamon and Johnson-Melloh Solutions.

California PUC President Proposes Grandfathering Current Net Energy Metering (NEM) Tariff for Solar

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   February 24, 2014  /   Posted in 2010 Mid-term Election & Candidates  /   No Comments

Solar bargain to last 20 years, for some

By Morgan Lee 8:44 P.M.FEB. 22, 20
Rooftop deck with solar panels and vegetated roof. MANDATORY CREDIT: Pablo Mason
Rooftop deck with solar panels and vegetated roof. MANDATORY CREDIT: Pablo Maso

Rooftop solar customers can hold on to a popular tariff that reduces their power bills for 20 years as the state reconfigures the tariff for those who adopt solar in the future, under a proposal from the president of the California Public Utilities Commission.

The current "net energy metering" tariff allows rooftop solar customers who feed excess electricity into the grid to receive credits against consumption that substantially reduce bills. The proposed grandfathering clause would apply for 20 years starting with the plug-in date of individual rooftop solar arrays.

The current tariff has underpinned a boom in solar-electricity generation by utility customers, but will be reconfigured by order of the state governor and legislature after investor-owned utilities complained that solar customers were avoiding their fair share of costs for maintaining the electrical grid.

Homeowners, businesses and public agencies have worried their investment in rooftop solar, with a payoff calculated under the old tariff, would be undercut under the new credit system still being drafted.

The 20-year grandfathering period was designed to ensure customers get "reasonable payback that includes some return on the customer's investment," Utilities Commissioner Michael Peevey's wrote in a recommended decision released late Thursday. He based the time period on a "conservative" estimate of the functioning life for solar equipment, along with common 20-year terms for solar loans and financing agreements.

The five-member commission may vote on the measure as soon as March 27, with a last minute flurry of written petitions and lobbying efforts expected from interest groups before then.

Evan Gerza, director of government affairs for San Diego-based rooftop solar installer Sullivan Solar, characterized the proposal as positive step.

"We think it's a good start," he said. "They very clearly did not side with the utility proposals, which would have been damaging to solar."

Other pending regulatory decisions could substantially alter the economic payoff of rooftop solar, as California rewrites its electricity billing system for residential customers and considers a shift to time-of-use pricing.

In his recommendation, Peevey dismissed concerns raised by utilities of a possible "gold rush" of solar installations to take advantage of the existing tariff before it expires.

The new net-metering tariff is scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2017. That would be the cutoff date for the old tariff, or sooner for customers of a particular utility if rooftop solar generation expands past 5 percent of peak demand.

Utilities would be required to clearly report their progress toward that cutoff threshold to the public through their websites, under the decision. The proposal also outlines legal and ethical responsibilities for solar installers to disclose applicable tariffs and terms for the transition to a successor tariff. Terms of the new net metering tariff are supposed to be finalized by the end of 2015.

Solar installations would be grandfathered under the current tariff for the full 20 years even if the house or property changes hands. Repairs and equipment upgrades can be performed without losing the tariff if they don't expand generating capacity more than 10 percent or 1 kilowatt.

Gov. Pence Stop the Assault on Hoosier Consumers and Jobs, Oppose SB 340; Protect DSM and EE Programs

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   February 24, 2014  /   Posted in 2014 Indiana General Assembly, Uncategorized  /   No Comments

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE—February 24, 2014

CONTACT:  Kerwin Olson (317) 205-3535; kolson@citact.org

OPEN LETTER TO GOV. MIKE PENCE:  STOP THE ASSAULT ON HOOSIER CONSUMERS AND JOBS, OPPOSE SB340

The Honorable Mike Pence, Governor of the State of Indiana:

Senate Bill 340 (Demand Side Management Programs) is working its way through the State’s legislative process, currently on second reading in the House of Representatives.  The bill in its current form promises to eviscerate energy efficiency in Indiana, lead to the loss of hundreds of Hoosier jobs, stifle additional and significant private sector investment in our communities, and cause unnecessary and potentially significant increases to the already escalating utility bills of Hoosier businesses, consumers and taxpayers.

Representing over 40,000 residential ratepayers in our great State, Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana respectfully requests that you protect Hoosier ratepayers and jobs by opposing SB340 and taking a strong position against this harmful piece of public policy.  Please urge the General Assembly to slow down and consider the harmful effects of rushing this bill through a short legislative session.  Instead, lawmakers should look into the costs and benefits of these programs through an in-depth summer study committee which should include all interested parties.

The current energy efficiency/DSM programs are working.  Launched in January 2012, these programs are in their infancy.  With just one year of verified data available, the programs are already having a positive impact on Hoosier ratepayers.  The State Utility Forecasting Group (SUFG) projected significant reductions in future load growth versus what had previously been forecasted, citing investments in energy efficiency as the primary driver causing this decline.  This reduction in demand will save Hoosier ratepayers billions of dollars by avoiding the future costs of expensive new generation facilities.

By allowing Big Business to “opt-out” of participating in Indiana’s successful energy efficiency/DSM programs and to not pay into the fixed costs of those programs, SB340 will unfairly discriminate against other classes of ratepayers, causing the electric bills of everyday, hard-working Hoosiers and small businesses to increase.   Energy efficiency is a “resource” for the utility system—just like a power plant.  No customer or group of customers would be able to refuse to pay for a new power plant.  Instead, all customers must pay.  Similarly, all customers should pay for the energy efficiency resource.

And, because industrial customers consume almost half of all energy used in Indiana,[1] excluding them from the program would mean that an enormous amount of very cost-effective energy efficiency resources would not be realized…and much more expensive supply resources would have to be purchased for the utility system.    At 2 to 4 cents per kWh, energy efficiency is about one-third the cost of electricity from a new power plant (i.e., 8 to 12 cents per kWh), and industrial energy efficiency is the cheapest energy efficiency of them all.[2]  Taking that resource off the table goes against Indiana’s law mandating public utilities to provide their customers with the lowest cost resource that is reasonably possible.  Energy efficiency is the quickest path to reducing energy costs and the cheapest kWh of electricity we can generate.  It is counterintuitive to work towards reducing electric rates by eliminating energy efficiency. SB340 will achieve the exact opposite of its stated goal.

On the campaign trail in August of 2012, you announced a new energy policy in which part of the stated intent was to “to maintain low-cost energy and improve environmental health for Hoosiers.”[3]  Under your direction, the Office of Energy Development is now creating that new energy plan for our State in which you tasked them with pursuing an “’all of the above’ energy mix.”[4]

If SB340 becomes law, Indiana will not maintain low-cost energy, because the cheapest energy resource would become unavailable to serve the needs of captive Indiana ratepayers and the overall cost of the energy efficiency resource will be much higher than necessary.

If SB340 becomes law, the environmental health of Hoosiers will not be improved, because electricity demand will unnecessarily increase, leading to more expensive power plants and more emissions from fossil-fuel generation facilities – dirtying the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the soil in which we cultivate our crops.

If SB340 becomes law, any new State energy plan would not include an “‘all of the above’ energy mix”—instead, the least cost resource we have will be off the table.

If your administration also intends to increase private sector investments and jobs in Indiana, do not remain silent on SB340 as it will kill hundreds, if not thousands, of current and future jobs in our State.  Here are just some of the companies currently investing in our State as a result of Indiana’s energy efficiency/DSM programs and providing high-quality jobs to Hoosiers:  Honeywell, Lockheed Martin, Navigant, Good Cents, CLEAResult, Franklin Energy, Wisconsin Energy Conservation Cooperation, JACO, and Ecova.

We appreciate the claimed intent of the legislation—electric bills are becoming unaffordable in Indiana, and all ratepayers need relief.  However, energy efficiency/DSM is not the problem; it’s the solution.   The sooner we embrace energy efficiency as the preferred resource for our State, the sooner Indiana will realize the substantial economic and environmental gains that energy efficiency can deliver.

Lastly, CAC was invited by your administration to participate in the stakeholder collaborative process and assist in crafting the new State energy plan.  We accepted this honor and sincerely appreciate the inclusive approach your administration has taken.  We have found those we have worked with in your administration to be knowledgeable, sincere, and thorough.  We are hopeful that this constructive and thoughtful approach your administration has taken to date also includes a discussion with the members of the Indiana General Assembly and ultimately weighing in on SB340.

SB340 is contrary to your stated campaign and gubernatorial objectives.  Please protect Hoosier ratepayers and jobs by standing by your campaign promises and taking a strong position against SB340.

Respectfully,

Kerwin Olson

Executive Director

(317) 205-3535

www.citact.org

Eight (8) House 2nd Reading Amdts filed on SB 340 industry DSM opt out; More Amdts Coming??? MEEA Fact Sheet on SB 340

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   February 23, 2014  /   Posted in 2014 Indiana General Assembly, Uncategorized  /   No Comments

SB 340 has been on the House Second Reading Calendar for a few days now, however, the House sponsor Rep. Eric Koch (R-Bedford) has not called the bill down. Second reading is where any member of the House can offer an amendment to the proposed legislation before it is voted on final passage.

Thus far eight (8) proposed amendments have been filed, however, it is widely speculated that House Sponsor Rep. Eric Koch will also file a proposed second reading amendment before he calls the bill down.

To learn more about why Demand Side Management (DSM) programs for electric utilities are important, see this fact sheet from the Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.

Indiana MEEA SB340 Handout--2-18-14 (excerpt from this handout below)

Indiana Industrial Energy Efficiency Policy Impacts

Indiana’s economy is energy intensive. In 2012, Indiana ranked 10th highest among state electricity consumption (kWh) per dollar of state gross domestic product. The industrial sector, in 2011, consumed 46% of all energy used in the state. Economic growth in Indiana depends upon managing this energy demand.

Demand-side management (DSM) programs:
o Save participating companies money
o Benefit all ratepayers by reducing the need to rely on costly electricity generation during peak times and avoiding the need to build additional power plants and transmission facilities
o Create high quality jobs across a range of manufacturing and service industries
o Reduce Indiana’s reliance on imported fuels: Indiana currently imports 99% of the natural gas, oil, and petroleum used in Indiana, and 41% of the coal. Energy efficiency funds are invested directly into Indiana and reduce the amount of fuels imported from out of state.

The House Calendar for Monday, February 24 can be found at http://iga.in.gov/legislative/2014/calendars/house/24/.

The House is scheduled to convene Monday starting at 1:30 pm.

We urge that you follow IndianaDG on Twitter to learn when SB 340 might be called down on second reading and then watch the debate on-line at http://iga.in.gov/legislative/2014/session/home/.

IndianaDG asks that you contact your House member and ask them to:

  • support Amendments 1, 2, 3 and 4 in Green ; and
  • oppose Amendments 5, 6. 7 and 8 in Red.

SB 340.1 filed by Rep. Matt Pierce340.1 Pierce Amend

I move that Engrossed Senate Bill 340 be amended to read as follows:

1 Page 1, line 3, delete "(a) For purposes of this section, "DSM order".

2 Page 1 delete lines 4 through 16.

3 Page 2, delete lines 1 through 41.

4 Page 2, line 42, delete "(h)".

5 Page 1, run in line 3 through page 2, line 42.

6 Page 3, between lines 29 and 30, begin a new line block indented

7 and insert:

8 "(9) Estimated fuel savings as a result of energy efficiency

9 programs.

10 (10) Financial savings to all customers as a result of energy

11 efficiency programs.

12 (11) Quantifiable system wide benefits as a result of energy

13 efficiency programs.

14 (12) Reduced energy consumption by all customers as a result

15 of energy efficiency programs.".

1 Page 3, line 30, delete "(9)" and insert "(13)".

2 Page 3, line 32, delete "subsection" and insert "section".

(Reference is to ESB 340 as printed February 14, 2014.)

 

SB 340.2 filed by Rep. Matt Pierce. 340.2 Pierce Self Direct Amend

I move that Engrossed Senate Bill 340 be amended to read as follows:

1 Page 2, between lines 3 and 4, begin a new paragraph and insert:

2 "(d) For purposes of this section, "self-directed energy efficiency

3 program" means a program that is:

4 (1) developed or sponsored by an industrial customer or a

5 third party administrator on behalf of an industrial customer;

6 and

7 (2) designed to implement energy efficiency improvements (as

8 defined in 170 IAC 4-8-1(h)) for the industrial customer.

9 The term includes energy efficiency programs or other measures

10 implemented or undertaken after June 30, 2009, by an industrial

11 customer that are substantially similar to energy efficiency

12 programs, targets, or goals established or approved by the

13 commission in a DSM order.".

14 Page 2, line 4, delete "(d)" and insert "(e)".

15 Page 2, line 9, delete "(e)," and insert "(f),".

16 Page 2, line 22, delete "(e)" and insert "(f)".

17 Page 2, line 23, delete "may subsequently opt to" and insert "shall".

18 Page 2, line 24, delete "the same or a different" and insert "a

19 self-directed".

20 Page 2, line 24, delete "The industrial", begin a new paragraph and

21 insert:

22 "(g) The commission shall adopt rules under IC 4-22-2 or

1 guidelines to assist industrial customers in establishing and

2 complying with self-directed energy efficiency programs. The rules

3 or guidelines must include the following:

4 (1) A requirement that an industrial customer invest in its

5 self-directed energy efficiency program in an amount equal to

6 or greater than the amount the industrial customer paid to the

7 public utility for the energy efficiency program from which it

8 opted out.

9 (2) A requirement that an industrial customer establish

10 energy efficiency targets or goals to be achieved through the

11 self-directed energy efficiency program.

12 (3) Annual reporting requirements by the industrial customer

13 to the commission to demonstrate compliance with the

14 self-directed energy efficiency program.

15 (4) Criteria for third party administrators of self-directed

16 energy efficiency programs.".

17 Page 2, delete lines 25 through 32.

18 Page 2, line 33, delete "(f)" and insert "(h)".

19 Page 2, line 36, delete "(d)." and insert "(e)."

20 Page 2, line 37, delete "(g) The" and insert "(i) In addition to the

21 rules described in subsection (g), the".

22 Page 2, line 42, delete "(h)" and insert "(j)".

(Reference is to ESB 340 as printed February 14, 2014.)

 340.3 filed by Rep. Kreg Battles. 340.3 Battles Amend

I move that Engrossed Senate Bill 340 be amended to read as follows:

1 Page 3, delete lines 26 through 29, begin a new line block indented

2 and insert:

3 "(8) Methods by which the cost effectiveness and long term

4 resource value of energy efficiency programs may be

5 measured to assess the effect on rates and charges for all

6 customers.".

(Reference is to ESB 340 as printed February 14, 2014.)

 340.4 filed by Rep. Kreg Battles. 340.4 Battles Amend

I move that Engrossed Senate Bill 340 be amended to read as follows:

1 Page 2, delete lines 1 through 3, begin a new paragraph and insert:

2 "(c) The commission shall adopt rules under IC 4-22-2 to

3 determine whether a person is an industrial customer for purposes

4 of this section. The rules must include the following:

5 (1) A minimum annual usage or demand requirement.

6 (2) A determination whether the person may aggregate usage

7 or demand from more than one (1) site.

8 (3) Provisions establishing the basis by which a person may be

9 designated as an industrial customer, including applicable

10 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes.".

11 Page 2, line 37, delete "The" and insert "In addition to the rules

12 described in subsection (c), the".

(Reference is to ESB 340 as printed February 14, 2014.)

 340.5 filed by Rep. Heath VanNatter 340.5 VanNatter Amend

I move that Engrossed Senate Bill 340 be amended to read as follows:

1 Page 3, after line 32, begin a new paragraph and insert:

2 "(i) A third party administrator that sponsors an energy

3 efficiency program may not provide a financial or other incentive

4 through a community outreach partnership to a nonprofit

5 organization that:

6 (1) is exempt from federal income taxation under Section

7 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code; and

8 (2) is, or is represented by, a lobbyist (as defined in

9 IC 2-7-1-10) before a legislative body (as defined in

10 IC 2-7-1-7.2).".

(Reference is to ESB 340 as printed February 14, 2014.)

 340.6 filed by Rep. Heath VanNatter340.6 VanNatter Amend

I move that Engrossed Senate Bill 340 be amended to read as follows:

1 Page 3, delete lines 26 through 29, begin a new line block indented

2 and insert:

3 "(8) Methods by which the cost effectiveness and long term

4 resource value of energy efficiency programs may be

5 measured to assess the effect on rates and charges for all

6 customers.".

(Reference is to ESB 340 as printed February 14, 2014.)

340.7 filed by Rep. Heath VanNatter. 340.7 VanNatter more Opt Out Amend

I move that Engrossed Senate Bill 340 be amended to read as follows:

1 Delete page 2.

2 Page 3, delete lines 1 through 32, begin a new paragraph and insert:

3 "(c) A public utility may not be required to sponsor, implement,

4 or otherwise participate in an energy efficiency program. A rule or

5 an order of the commission, including a DSM order, that requires

6 a public utility to sponsor, implement, or otherwise participate in

7 an energy efficiency program is void. For purposes of this

8 subsection, a public utility is considered to sponsor an energy

9 efficiency program if a third party administrator sponsors the

10 program for the benefit of the public utility's customers.".

(Reference is to ESB 340 as printed February 14, 2014.)

340.8 filed by Rep. Heath VanNatter. 340.8 VanNatter Opt In Amend

I move that Engrossed Senate Bill 340 be amended to read as follows:

1 Page 2, delete lines 1 through 3.

2 Page 2, line 4, delete "(d) An industrial" and insert "(c) A".

3 Page 2, line 7, delete "An industrial" and insert "A".

4 Page 2, line 10, delete "an industrial" and insert "a".

5 Page 2, line 12, delete "industrial".

6 Page 2, line 17, delete "an industrial" and insert "a".

7 Page 2, line 19, delete "industrial".

8 Page 2, line 21, delete "industrial".

9 Page 2, line 22, delete "(e) An industrial" and insert "(d) A".

10 Page 2, line 24, delete "industrial".

11 Page 2, line 27, delete "industrial customer opts in. If the industrial"

12 and insert "customer opts in. If the".

13 Page 2, line 29, delete "industrial".

14 Page 2, line 33, delete "(f)" and insert "(e)".

15 Page 2, line 35, delete "an industrial" and insert "a".

16 Page 2, line 36, delete "(d)." and insert "(c).".

17 Page 2, line 37, delete "(g)" and insert "(f)".

1 Page 2, line 40, delete "industrial".

2 Page 2, line 42, delete "(h)" and insert "(g)".

(Reference is to ESB 340 as printed February 14, 2014.)

Chronicle-Tribune: E.On wind farm remains up in the air in Grant County, Indiana

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   February 22, 2014  /   Posted in wind  /   No Comments
2/20/2014 12:50:00 PM
E.On wind farm remains up in the air in Grant County
Karla Bowsher, Chronicle-TribuneThe future of Wildcat Wind Farm’s expansion into Grant County remains unclear.After discussing the matter for about two hours, Grant County Council members took no action on a tax break for energy company E.On Climate & Renewables during their monthly meeting Wednesday night. The county had originally granted the wind farm company the abatement back in 2011, but the company had not met a clause requiring construction to start by 2013, which is why they requested an extension.

Since the original abatement and agreements were signed, a grassroots citizens group has become a vocal opponent of the project. Eventually commissioners and E.On altered terms of the deal to try and meet some of the opponents’ requests.

Council member Michael Conner said he favors wind energy, while members Mike Scott and Dan Brock III said they would vote against an amended tax abatement for E.On, but none of the council’s seven members made a motion to vote on the matter. The members did the same thing during their December meeting.

Several E.On representatives addressed the council Wednesday, including lawyer Mary Solada, a partner in the regional law firm Bingham Greenebaum Doll.

She told council members if they did not approve the revised abatement, E.On could void the agreement it reached with the Grant County Board of Commissioners in the fall that included greater setbacks, meaning E.On would not erect wind turbines as close to homes as their original economic development agreement with the county allowed.

“They could choose not to honor that,” Solada said after the meeting, declining to comment further until she conferred with E.On representatives.

E.On spokesman Andy Melka could not be reached for comment after the meeting.

The expansion of E.ON’s $175 million Wildcat Wind Farm project had been expected to consist of 124 turbines in the area between Converse and Point Isabel, which would have encircled Swayzee. Because of the revised setbacks, however, the project would only have consisted of 60 towers in Grant County, meaning less money for the energy company.

If the agreement had been approved, construction would’ve started in December 2014 and finished in December 2015.

Council President Jim McWhirt told the other council members during the meeting that he was unsure of how to answer the question of what would happen if the council did not act on the abatement. He said the future of the wind farm expansion in Grant County would probably be up to E.On.

Mike Burton, board of commissioners president, also said after the meeting the next move is up to E.On.

The company’s options from here include reverting to the prior agreement between E.On and the county because both the Grant County Council and the Board of Commissioners approved it, meaning both are bound by it, he said.

The council’s lawyer, Phil Stephenson, agreed with Burton.

“(The county) can’t just walk away from that,” said Stephenson, a partner in the Marion-based firm Spitzer Herriman Stephenson Holderead Conner and Persinger.

Under the terms of the original abatement, E.On had to move forward with construction by the end of 2013. That did not happen, which is why E.On requested the abatement extension.

So while E.On could opt to proceed with the expansion, whether they could still receive the original abatement is more of a gray area, Stephenson said. Indiana’s property tax abatement laws state that a company only has to “substantially” comply with the terms of an abatement to receive the tax break. And the main thing the original abatement required of E.On was to pour cement for the base of one wind turbine, Stephenson said.

That means E.On could move forward with construction this year if they wanted to and argue they still “substantially” complied.

“They can move forward,” Stephenson said.

The council could decide not to grant or renew the abatement for future years if they wanted to and argue the company did not “substantially” comply, Stephenson said, but E.On could appeal that decision in circuit court.

“The trouble is there are so many variables,” he said. “This one’s pretty complicated statutorily. That’s the problem."

Copyright 2013 IndianaDG