Join us for Indiana Renewable Energy Day 2020
There is still time to join us for the Indiana Renewable Energy Day on Tuesday, January 7, 2020 at the State House, 200 West Washington, Indianapolis.
This is a FREE event, however, we would like for people to register with Eventbrite at
If you register with your home address we will attempt to schedule a meeting for you with your state legislators.
ANDERSON — The Madison County Planning Commission has agreed to extend the moratorium on development of a large-scale solar farm for six months.
The Planning Commission voted unanimously Monday to accept the change voted on by the Madison County Board of Commissioners on Nov. 25 to reduce the moratorium from one year to six months.
The Planning Commission in November voted to extend the moratorium for one year to allow Planning Director Brad Newman sufficient time to draft a new solar energy ordinance for Madison County.
But the county commissioners voted to reduce the extension to six months to July 7.
The moratorium was put in place for the county to consider changes to the solar energy ordinance adopted by Madison County in 2017.
Planning Commission members had three options: to accept the change in the length of the extension, modify the extension and return it to the commissioners or take no action by which it would have gone into effect for six months after 45 days.
Newman explained that if the Planning Commission modified the moratorium extension or took no action it could open a disputed window of two or eight days for another solar farm application to be submitted under the existing ordinance.
Attorney Jeff Graham indicated the commissioners could be willing to schedule a special meeting before Jan. 1 if the Planning Commission rejected the six-month extension.
County Surveyor Tom Shepherd made a motion to extend the moratorium for one year, but it failed to get the necessary five votes for adoption.
Shepherd and several Planning Commission members were uncertain of why the commissioners reduced the time to six months.
Member Cory Bohlander said he was concerned about the opening of a window for another application to be filed.
“Are we confident the commissioners will schedule a special meeting?” he asked. “I liked our original recommendation, but I’m not confident the commissioners will have another meeting.
“I don’t want to leave the county vulnerable,” Bohlander said.
David Kane asked Newman how far along in the process was he in recommending a new solar energy ordinance for the county.
Newman said he has collected 90% of the data in the form of ordinances approved in other Indiana counties and other states.
He hopes to have a draft ordinance completed by April to present to the Planning Commission for adoption by July 1.
Kane said an additional extension could be requested if necessary.
Alexandria resident Debbie Spooner said residents didn’t want a window open for another application to be submitted.
Lee Walls, an opponent of the proposed Lone Oak Solar Energy Center in northern Madison County, encouraged the acceptance of the six-month extension.
“We can all agree the original ordinance was not a good one,” he said. “We want to see something done.”
The moratorium was put in place after the Madison County Board of Zoning Appeals approved a special use for the proposed $110 million, 120-megawatt Lone Oak Solar Energy Center on 850 acres near Elwood.
The Board of Zoning Appeals approved the special use with the requirement that the setback for the placement of the solar panels had to be 500 feet from the property line of a nonparticipating property owner.
In January, Kentucky utility regulators will begin accepting rate cases under the revised Net Metering Act, shaping the future of solar in the Commonwealth.
In a final order issued Wednesday, The Kentucky Public Service Commission said it will hire an outside consultant to help evaluate rates for new net-metering customers based on each utility’s specific costs.
“We’re going to hire a consultant because there are issues of first impression here that the commission is going to need some technical assistance with,” said Andrew Melnykovych, PSC spokesman.
Net-metering cases that go before the commission will change the way new rooftop solar customers are credited for the electricity they put back on the grid.
Under the revised rules, customers with solar panels on their homes will receive a “dollar-denominated bill credit” for the excess energy they feed back into the electric grid. The new law says utilities are entitled to recover all the costs necessary to serve net-metered customers.
Utilities would like to credit net-metering customers less, while solar advocates would like the benefits of renewable energy to be reflected in the credits they receive. Right now, the credits net-metering customers receive have little impact on overall utility rates.
Net-metering rates for new customers won’t change until utilities go before the Public Service Commission.
A spokeswoman for Louisville Gas and Electric and Kentucky Utilities said they haven’t established a timeline for when they intend to file a rate case, but utilities can begin applying for changes as early as January 1.
Both LG&E and Kentucky Resources Council Environmental Attorney Tom FitzGerald said hiring an outside consultant was a step in the right direction.
“I think they have approached this in a very thoughtful way,” FitzGerald said.
They also approved of the commission’s decision to update the interconnection guidelines, which specify how customers can safely hook up to the grid.
“The last time the commission had a look at those interconnection guidelines was in 2008 and our industry has seen a lot of technological change so I think it’s important to review those,” said LG&E spokeswoman Chris Whelan.
Wednesday’s order also includes a summary of arguments from utilities, advocacy groups and the public that will be included in all future net-metering cases that go before the Public Service Commission.
FitzGerald with the Kentucky Resources Council encourages those interested in net metering to read through Wednesday’s order.
“It’s a good synopsis of the range of opinions and the range of articles and perspectives that surround the issue of distributed solar generation and net metering,” FitzGerald said.
The year may be almost over, but the fight for a wind farm in Henry County continues.
Big Blue River Wind Farm, LLC, has asked a judge to review a decision the Henry County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) made in November.
This court filing is the latest in a step in a process that started with the Henry County Planning Commission.
Big Blue River Wind Farm, a part of Calpine, filed a commission approved use (CAU) with the planning commission earlier this year. The CAU request was to build 38 turbines in northwestern Henry County.
The planning commission hosted a public hearing July 23 in Bundy Auditorium to hear from people supporting the request and people opposing the request. The hearing ended after the Henry County Planning Commission came to a 4-4 tie vote on the request.
In September, the planning commission approved a “Findings of Fact” that the CAU was officially denied because it had not received enough votes.
Lawyers for the wind farm argued the planning commission cannot take any official action without a majority vote, that is, the request may not have been officially approved, but it also was not officially denied.
The BZA voted Nov. 9 to uphold the Henry County Planning Commission decision that the CAU was denied.
Big Blue River Wind Farm filed a verified petition for judicial review Dec. 9 in Henry Circuit Court 1.
According to court documents, the wind farm claims the BZA decision “did not address the adequacy or non-substance of the Findings, instead simply affirming the [Henry County Planning Commission] without explanation.”
The lawsuit noted the BZA cited two previous cases in which the planning commission had deemed a petition denied because of a tie vote.
“And, in doing so, assumed that prior tie votes were handled correctly and comported with the local procedural rules,” the suit stated.
Throughout the filing, Big Blue River Wind Farm refers to Henry County Rules of Procedure.
The lawsuit claimed these rules require majority votes for official action. The lawsuit also points to the rules regarding members of the planning commission who recuse themselves from any vote.
Big Blue River Wind Farm is arguing the Henry County Rules of Procedure “indicate that an alternate must participate” in place of the absent member.
“The BZA’s decision was contrary to the evidence before the BZA, the local Rules of Procedure, and Indiana law,” the suit claimed.
The lawsuit also claims the decision by the Henry County Board of Zoning Appeals was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” “contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity,” “in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right,” “without observance of procedure required by law,” and “unsupported by substantial evidence.”
The request for judicial review is asking the court to find that Big Blue River Wind Farm “has been prejudiced” and send the case back to the BZA “to take official action on the Application and make findings of fact tied to the evidence and testimony presented at the Hearing and/or to grant Big Blue River’s Application.”
Big Blue River Wind Farm filed a summons Dec. 9 for Henry County BZA chair Dan Roach.
As of Thursday, no court dates had been scheduled in the case.
Indianapolis Power & Light Company (IPL) is engaged primarily in generating, transmitting, distributing, and selling electric energy to more than 500,000 retail customers in Indianapolis and neighboring areas, with the most distant point being about 40 miles from Indianapolis. IPL’s service area covers about 528 square miles. They are subject to the regulatory authority of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. They fully participate in the electricity markets managed by the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO).
IPL is a transmission company member of Reliability First. Reliability First is one of eight Regional Reliability Councils under the North American Reliability Corporation, which has been designated as the Electric Reliability Organization under the EPAct. IPL is part of the AES Corporation, a Fortune 500 global power company with a mission to improve lives by accelerating a safer and greener energy future.
IPL's 2019 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) identified a Preferred Resource Portfolio that includes approximately 200 megawatts (MW) of replacement capacity. The purpose of this all-source request for proposal (RFP) is to competitively procure replacement capacity by June 1, 2023, which is the first year IPL is expected to have a capacity shortfall. IRP modeling indicates that a combination of wind, solar, storage, and energy efficiency would be the lowest cost options for the replacement capacity, but IPL will assess the type, size, and location of resources after bids are received.
IPL is issuing this RFP for firm capacity resources within the IPL service territory. IPL forecasts that 200 MW of additional unforced capacity (UCAP) will be needed by June 1, 2023. Proposals will be accepted for all or a portion of the capacity needs. IPL will estimate the UCAP for wind and solar resources from the methodology described in the MISO Renewable Integration Impact Assessment Version 6, dated December 2018. Proposed resources must be located within the IPL service territory or have the transmission system interconnection directly interconnected to the MISO Zone 6 network. Proposed resources may include (a) capacity from new facilities, (b) new incremental capacity at existing facilities, (c) power purchase agreements (PPAs) or, (d) demand-side management opportunities. The capacity resources may be proposed for any of the following:
IPL has contracted Sargent & Lundy to manage this RFP process. Sargent & Lundy is an engineering consulting firm providing comprehensive engineering, energy business consulting, and project services for power generation and delivery systems. Sargent & Lundy will act as an independent third-party consultant on behalf of IPL to execute the RFP and evaluate proposals. Learn more about Sargent & Lundy at sargentlundy.com.
Project Schedule
RFP milestone dates and deadlines. Read More
RFP Documents
Learn how to submit an RFP proposal. Read More
Information Sessions
Sargent & Lundy will host information sessions for prospective bidders. Read More
Submit RFP Questions
Ask a question about IPL's RFP process. Read More
RFP Q&A
Read RFP questions and answers. Read More
Subscribe to RFP Emails
Enter your contact information to receive occasional updates about IPL's RFP process. Read More