Author Archives Laura Arnold

Healthy Dubois County (HDC) continues opposition to City of Jasper (IN) proposed conversion of coal-fired powerplant to biomass powerplant

Posted by Laura Arnold / October 07, 2013 / Posted in biomass / No Comments

Biomass lawsuit price tag exceeds $500,000 (so far)

by Matthew Crane on October 2, 2013 in News

The Jasper Power Plant

Jasper — The City of Jasper’s defense in the lawsuit filed by Healthy Dubois County, Inc. in August of 2011 has cost city utility ratepayers over half a million dollars so far.

The city has paid Bingham Greenebaum Doll, LLP, the firm representing the city, $514,547 on a nearly monthly schedule over the course of the 25 month litigation. These payments are made by the city’s electric utility through a special account funded by ratepayers’ utility payments.

On August 5, 2011, the Jasper Council and Utility Service Board approved the lease agreement with Twisted Oak in a joint special meeting. Twisted Oak Corporation, founded in 2003, is a firm from Atlanta, GA, interested in converting the Jasper power plant from a coal-fired power plant to a biomass power plant.

Dr. Norma Kreilein, Rock Emmert, and Healthy Dubois County, Inc. (HDC), a grassroots organization composed of local citizens concerned about the health and economic impact of a biomass burning power plant being developed in Jasper, filed the original lawsuit concerning alleged violations of Indiana’s Open Door Law August 5, 2011. After the hearing in December of 2011, special judge Lucy Goffinet ruled in favor of the City of Jasper.

Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP had billed the city 722.80 hours at a cost of $190,952.50 to get to this point.

HDC filed an appeal, and a three judge panel of the Indiana State Appeals Court reversed Goffinet’s decision based on several factors including questioning the members of a group of volunteers who met to work out essential details concerning the contract with Twisted Oak. In the ruling by the appellate court, HDC was allowed to depose members of this controversial volunteer group that met without public scrutiny about 12 to 15 times during negotiations with Twisted Oak CEO Jay Catasein.

The firm billed 436.7 hours from January 3, 2012 to January 3, 2013, the timeframe it took to get through the appeal, for a total of $109,081.00.

Since January 3, 2013, the city has paid Bingham Greenebaum Doll, LLP an additional $214,513. 50 for 691.9 hours of work in preparation for the second trial scheduled for January 16 and 17 of 2014.

Besides advising the city in its defense, Bingham Greenebaum Doll assists the city in several other areas including: vetting documents regarding the lease and the volunteer group at the heart of the appeal before releasing them to HDC’s counsel; representing members of the volunteer group and city employees during depositions’ providing the city council and Utility Service Board with updates as the lawsuit progresses; and Bingham Greenebaum Doll will also be deposing members of HDC.

Recently, over 12,000 documents were released to HDC’s lawyer, Too Keller, who is with the firm Keller Macaluso, LLC of Carmel, IN.

According to City Attorney Renee Kabrick, whose office is responsible for collecting and vetting the documents before they are released to HDC or any other entity, the requests about the power plant lease agreement and lawsuit comprise the vast majority of the information requests received by the city. “From my perspective for the most recent records requests, it takes a lot of time to compile,” Kabrick stated.

Kabrick and her department’s legal assistant, Valerie Cockerman, are responsible for reviewing the documents for privileged information before they are provided to any outside source. “Writing a check for legal fees is easy to calculate,” Kabrick said, “When it comes to compiling the data, that is just my time and my assistant’s time, that doesn’t take into account the amount of time it took for every member of the Utility Service Board, every member of the council, staff members who are affected, managers who are affected, to go back through and look at all their emails or all of their files to compile their information. Then I go through it or I forward it to Bill’s (Kaiser) office (Bingham Greenebaum Doll, LLP). There is a lot of time consumed every time we get one of these fishing expedition request for records.”

The city is requesting a summary judgement from Judge Gilmore in regards to what information the city has to provide to HDC —information about the executive sessions or the volunteer group sessions. The city says the information about the volunteer group is the only thing applicable under the appellate court’s ruling. The summary judgement is scheduled for October 16.

Little has been done with the power plant since the lawsuit was filed in August of 2011. The city has complained that it has not received any of the quarterly lease payments from Catasein since the lease was approved and signed in December of 2011, but they approved a resolution then to relieve Catasein of the obligation of those lease option payments until the lawsuit was resolved.

HDC’s ultimate goal is the abandonment of the power plant biomass conversion, and they have stated publicly that no settlement offer would be accepted if it did not include that stipulation. From an earlier story concerning the recent settlement offer made by HDC, Dr. Norma Kreilein provided this statement. “While Jasper officials have been blaming HDC and its Open Door Lawsuit for their ills, perhaps potential partners and purchasers realize the liability and risky business plan that Jasper refuses to acknowledge. While government transparency is still a critical issue, as informed, educated citizens, we firmly stand by our allegations and find that although our treatment by city officials was demeaning and deplorable, the necessity of the lawsuit specifically to oppose the biomass plant appears to be lessening. We offered a settlement because it was the right thing to do, just as opposing the plant and filing the lawsuit were and are the right thing to do. We are waiting for Jasper officials to represent all citizens, not just their own interests.”

The plan for the power plant from the beginning was to revitalize a stranded asset. According to a report completed by Bingham Economics in 2011, the city would realize $14.5 million over the 20 year lease of the plant through the option, lease and royalty payments. It would create approximately 30 jobs and increase property tax revenues for the city. A copy of the report is at this link http://www.duboiscountyfreepress.com/press-conference-regarding-the-economic-impact-for-the-jasper-clean-energy-center/.

HDC contends that no amount of money is worth the lives of those who could be adversely affected by the pollution released through the burning of miscanthus and natural gas. A peer reviewed article released by Dr. Kristin Shrader-Frechette, Department of Biological Sciences and Department of Philosophy, the University of Notre Dame, predicted 40 deaths (compared to 2 from coal), 75 heart attacks, 730 asthma attacks, and greater than 4000 lost work days annually from the Jasper Clean Energy Center. In the study, Dr. Shrader-Frechette stated the particulates released would “cause undeserved family tragedies and cause annual losses of $110 and $220 million” for the ratepayers.

According to Wayne Schuetter, the city will continue to defend itself and not abandon the biomass conversion. “That (the lease) is not part of the litigation,” he said about the lawsuit and recent settlement offer from HDC requiring the city to abandon the project. “To me that is trying to slip something in that is not part of it. We are saying we did not violate the open door law, we have a standing lease agreement; we aren’t going to throw that out because someone has sued us over the open door law.”

HDC has not commented on the amount they have spent in the lawsuit against the city. However, they announced in July that the Indiana Utility Rate Payers Trust had awarded the organization a sizeable grant for its efforts in the open door lawsuit.

Arizona Corp. Commission staff reject APS net metering proposal; Make net metering decision in next APS rate case

Posted by Laura Arnold / October 05, 2013 / Posted in Uncategorized / No Comments

Rooftop Solar Scores a Crucial Win Against Arizona’s Dominant Utility

Landmark regulatory memo rejects the APS net metering proposal.

Herman K. Trabish
October 3, 2013

Staff experts for Arizona’s utility regulators have come out against a proposal by Arizona Public Service, the state’s biggest electricity provider, to alter solar’s net metering incentive.

“Staff recommends that the Commission not approve either of the [net energy metering] cost-shift solutions proffered by APS,” reads a September 30 memo from the Arizona Corporation Commission staff to the commissioners who will decide on the utility’s proposal. The memo also recommends the issue not be evaluated until APS’ 2014 rate evaluation process.

Making the decision in the context of the next rate case “is precisely what the solar industry proposed,” said Bryan Miller, Alliance for Solar Choice President and Sunrun VP, “and precisely the opposite of what APS proposed.”

“The Staff report makes it clear that the current net metering structure is not fair for all customers and must be changed,” an APS press release commented. “Staff’s recommended alternatives are a starting point, but don’t go far enough,” it added. “We stand by our initial proposal and we look forward to working with the commissioners. We need to act now. This issue will get worse for customers and harder to solve the longer we wait.”

This is an issue that is important far beyond Arizona, as well, because the fight over net metering (also referred to as "NEM," for net energy metering) at the ACC is one of the first in a series of coming confrontations involving regulators, utilities, and the rooftop solar industry, according to SolarCity (SCTY) Policy/Electricity Markets Director Meghan Nutting. Similar decisions on the fate of net metering will follow in Colorado, Hawaii, California, and many other of the 43 states where the practice supports distributed generation.

This staff recommendation demonstrates to other utilities that if they pursue an APS-style campaign to change net metering policies, their approval from customers will fall and regulators will take note of it, Miller added in pointing out that APS’ favorable ratings in polls have fallen 27 percent.

Also likely to get the attention of other state regulators and potentially to set a precedent is the memo’s conclusion that “the development of a common set of assumptions and inputs will be fundamental in any future analysis of NEM costs and benefits as in APS’ next rate case.”

There are, the staff memo says, “two forms of value inherent in DG systems.” This points to an interpretation of DG’s value that diverges from that used by APS and most other utilities. The less controversial “Objective Value” includes “measurable benefits” such as avoided fuel costs. The “Subjective Value” includes “monetary values” for “future benefits that are not easily measurable,” such as better grid security or air quality.

The equitable allocation of costs and benefits of DG among customers "is a matter of rate design,” the memo says, and “can best be determined in the context of a general rate case.”

Commissioner Gary Pierce requested the staff analysis after APS filed its solutions for what it has described as a cost shift that was unfair to its non-solar-owning customers. Multiple solar advocates, including The Alliance for Solar Choice, filed objections. An ACC decision on the APS proposal could come at the commission's mid-October meeting.

The memo notes that APS had approximately 900 rooftop solar systems in June 2009 and over 18,000 in June 2013. “APS data confirms DG installations have increased at approximately 500 per month [in 2013],” the memo says, “and the cost shift within the residential ratepayer class is within the range of $800 to $1,000 per year per DG customer.”

The utility’s filling proposed two possible solutions. New APS residential DG customers could either take APS’ existing rate and use net metering, or take an altered rate and get “a bill credit for 100 percent of the DG system’s production at a market-based price.”

“The recent rapid increase in NEM installations, despite declining upfront incentives, validates the success of the NEM incentive,” the staff memo notes, and “staff recommends that the Commission not approve either of APS’ proposed NEM cost-shift solutions.”

The first APS option contains an unnecessary cost-shift surcharge, the memo says, because the Lost Fixed Cost Recovery (LFCR) mechanism agreed to by APS in May 2012 already added a surcharge to all APS customers’ bills to make up for revenues lost to energy efficiency and DG. The bill credit in APS’ second option is not the same as NEM and is not revenue-neutral, the staff’s memo concludes.

Proposals from DG advocates, the memo says, “present legal challenges that would be avoided if the Commission were to adopt one of Staff's recommended options.”

The staff memo offers two “bridge solutions” if the ACC decides it must act on net metering before the next rate case. “Both involve adjustments to APS’ LFCR adjustor mechanism” and “lend themselves to implementation outside of a rate case.” Neither alters the LFCR provisions that APS agreed were adequate.

The staff’s first alternative to the APS proposals provides an LFCR flat charge for new DG customers. The second creates an LFCR DG premium for new DG customers “based on the difference between APS’ cost for purchasing a DG customer’s excess generation and its cost to purchase an equivalent amount of energy [produced by a utility-scale solar farm] from a wholesale PPA.”

Politico: Obama FERC nominee Ron Binz withdraws amid coal pushback; Isn’t this sad for renewable energy?

Posted by Laura Arnold / October 01, 2013 / Posted in Uncategorized / No Comments

Ron Binz is pictured. | M. Scott Mahaskey/POLITICO

Obama FERC nominee Ron Binz withdraws amid coal pushback

By DARIUS DIXON | 10/1/13 8:18 AM EDT

President Barack Obama’s nominee to lead FERC announced Tuesday that he had pulled his name from consideration in the face of mounting opposition from coal supporters and a stalemate in a crucial Senate committee.

The fall of the former Colorado utility regulator Ron Binz is a stunning setback for the president, who has succeeded in winning Senate confirmations for far more controversial nominees at EPA, the Pentagon and the Labor Department.

Perhaps just as striking was the political fervor brought to bear against a nominee to lead a regulator that is little known outside of Washington, and one that typically restricts its work to the highly technical rules for the nation’s energy backbone of power lines and pipelines.

“Last evening I asked the president that my name be withdrawn from further consideration as his nominee to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,” Binz said in a statement from his Colorado energy-policy consulting firm, less than two weeks after it became clear he didn’t have the votes to win the backing of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

He added: “I am withdrawing so that the president can move forward with another nominee, allowing the FERC to continue its important work with a full complement of commissioners.”

In an interview with POLITICO, Binz said his failed bid to lead the agency was a “cautionary tale” for regulators and energy policy.

“I think the implications of this fight are something worth pondering. If this kind of handling of a nomination becomes … the new normal, that’s going to make it a lot more difficult for good energy policy to grow,” he said.

The career energy regulator and consultant said his record was “spun and respun” in an effort to show he was biased against coal and unfairly in favor of renewable power sources.

“The caricature that they created had nothing to do with who I am and nothing to do with what I might’ve brought to FERC. It was just a blood sport,” he said.

The battle over Binz was unprecedented among the four current FERC commissioners, along with outgoing Chairman Jon Wellinghoff, who had all been confirmed by the Senate on a simple voice vote.

But Binz’s nomination drew an unusual flurry of circumstances: Unlike many past nominees for FERC, he wasn’t paired with a nominee from the other party to ensure a smoother confirmation. Some critics found it odd that Obama chose an outsider to chair FERC rather than elevate a sitting commissioner. Backs also stiffened on the news that an environmental organization hired a public relations firm to help Binz’s nomination — a level of political maneuvering not previously seen at the independent regulator.

He lost all Republican support on the energy committee within days of testifying last month, in part for his past and perceived policies, and in part because of the strategy on how his nomination was handled.

Critics claimed that Binz’s past work as chairman of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission showed an anti-coal bias, and he quickly drew criticism from groups such as the American Energy Alliance and the American Tradition Institute. Eventually, the issue prompted Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) to announce his opposition to Binz, a move that would have led to a tie vote on the nomination in the committee.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page moved quickly after Binz was nominated in late June, launching multiple attacks against that dubbed him a “radical,” and criticizing FERC’s actions during the Obama administration.

The August recess also gave Binz’s opponents crucial time to attack his record. It also provided enough time for his critics to file a request for documents that showed him in email communication with the PR firm and other political operatives on his FERC nomination — disclosures that ultimately alienated a key Republican voice on the energy committee, ranking member Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).

The time and effort spent muddying his reputation was unfair, Binz said.

“I came to Washington with this 35-year career behind me only to encounter a fictional Ron Binz, a fictional character that I didn’t recognize and I would never even support,” he told POLITICO. “I’m 64 years old. The term is a five-year term, so I would have been 69 at the end of this,” Binz said. “That adds up to fact that this was not a career lillypad for me. This was a sort of capstone of my career.”

Binz lamented that much of the opposition to his nomination wasn’t really about policy issues but rather that “almost immediately, my appointment devolved into pretty raw, partisan and sectoral politics.”

He said his views on coal and natural gas regulation were twisted into caricatures, and that he had a record of supporting cleaner technologies to use fossil fuels, such as carbon capture technologies.

“I was hardly against those fuels. I believe the science of climate change and I think we need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, but that’s different from saying I’m anti-coal or anti-gas,” he said.

Binz also balked at the way FERC’s regulatory powers were characterized by his opponents, who argued that a Binz chairmanship would mean slower approvals for liquefied natural gas facilities and interstate pipelines, which the agency oversees.

“This whole notion about what I might do at the FERC completely ignored what the actual authorities of the FERC were,” Binz said, flatly denying assertions that he would put a thumb on the scale in favor of renewable energy over fossil fuels.

“I think this notion that I was somehow going to use the FERC for all kinds of extralegal purposes … completely belies the career that I’ve had to this point,” he said.

He also said that the fact that his nomination was announced the same week that Obama unveiled his climate action plan was purely coincidence.

“I’ve never spoken to the White House about the climate action plan and I had no vision that FERC had a role in that, other than a very indirect one in the sense that FERC works to ensure access to energy markets from all resources,” he said.

“That might be read by some as favoring some resources, in the sense that making the playing field level for everybody favors resources that have been shut out previously,” Binz said, referring to renewable energy sources, which have sought changes to regulatory hurdles that affect intermittent power like solar and wind.

And he said he was never part of an Obama climate strategy.

“I was doing the talking, they weren’t. I frankly didn’t know what they were looking for,” he said. “I talked about my theory of what regulation could and should try to achieve.

Binz also said it was his preference that led Obama to nominate him for the top FERC job rather than simply as one of the five commissioners.

“In December of 2012 when I interviewed with the White House, I was asked if I would be interested in a position other than the chairmanship and I said I would not,” he said, since he’d spent the previous 40 years in Denver and was entering the latter stage of his career.

“I thought I had the talent and vision to lead the FERC and so I was interested in that position,” he said. “So, they knew then that if they were going to choose me, I would accept it if I were named chairman and I would not otherwise.”

And though his nomination drew the interest of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Binz said he’d actually never spoken to the Nevada Democrat.

“I’ve never met Sen. Reid. He doesn’t know me and I don’t know him,” he said. Binz said he’d never spoken to Reid directly but has had some discussions with his staff while trying to win their support for his nomination.

He also continued to defend his interactions with Murkowski, contending that he didn’t intentionally mislead her.

“I don’t know what happened. I attempted to be as open as I could be with her in the discussions in her office,” Binz said, referring to Murkowski’s concerns over his coordination efforts with VennSquared Communications, the PR firm.

“I was not trying to obscure anything,” he said.

Alex Guillén contributed to this report.

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

If you missed the live webcast of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on 9/17/13, you can watch the archived video. CLICK HERE TO WATCH.

The purpose of the 9/17/13 hearing was to consider the nominations of Mr. Ronald J. Binz to be a Commissioner of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Ms. Elizabeth M. Robinson to be Under Secretary of Energy, and Mr. Michael L. Connor to be Deputy Secretary of Interior.

Are small modular nuclear reactors coming to a state near you? How about Indiana? What do you think?

Posted by Laura Arnold / October 01, 2013 / Posted in Uncategorized / No Comments

Indiana lawmakers study prospects for nuclear power

17 hours ago • By Dan Carden dan.carden@nwi.com, (317) 637-9078

INDIANAPOLIS | Could Indiana lead the way in the development of the second generation of nuclear power after being the only Midwest state to skip the first?

It's too soon to tell, but a group of Hoosier lawmakers spent nearly two hours Monday learning about small modular nuclear reactors and how they could replace the energy generated by the state's mostly coal-fired power plants -- many of which are expected to be retired in the wake of new federal pollution restrictions.

Michael Whatley, of Virginia-based Babcock and Wilcox, the manufacturer of a 180-megawatt nuclear reactor, told lawmakers that unlike traditional 1,200-MW nuclear power plants, the new modular reactors are mostly built in a factory and can be assembled on a 40-acre site.

He said underground reactor placement and natural cooling ensure safety, and several reactors can be linked together at a single site to increase staffing efficiency.

"You can build the facility to meet the megawatt needs of the utility," Whatley said.

The Legislature's Regulatory Flexibility Committee did not formally recommend the General Assembly enact measures to encourage the development of modular nuclear power, though state Rep. Terri Austin, D-Anderson, urged lawmakers keep an open mind.

"We have a void in our energy portfolio, and this is something we should look at long-term," she said.

Grant Smith, of Indiana's Sierra Club chapter, urged lawmakers to take extreme caution in embracing nuclear power, noting that citizen protests and cost overruns doomed the proposed Bailly and Marble Hill nuclear plants in the 1970s and '80s.

"The history of nuclear power is government subsidies, and a lot of subsidies," Smith said.

He said during the decade or more needed for federal and state approval of a nuclear power plant, technological advances in solar and wind power likely will permit those forms of electricity, which also produce no nuclear waste, to operate subsidy-free.

Republican Gov. Mike Pence has said he supports an "all of the above" state energy plan that includes nuclear power.

GTM: Can Solar Be a Differentiator in Deregulated Electricity Market? How would this work in Indiana and other regulated markets if changes were made?

Posted by Laura Arnold / September 30, 2013 / Posted in Uncategorized / No Comments

Can Solar Be a Differentiator in Deregulated Electricity Markets?

A new Green Mountain Energy offering in Texas will be a test.

Herman K. Trabish
September 26, 2013

Retail electricity customers of Texas power provider Green Mountain Energy can now choose 100 percent solar-generated electricity for a 1 cent per kilowatt-hour premium.

Texas has become an intensely competitive market since its deregulation in 2002.

For example, entering a ZIP code for a typical Houston suburb into the state’sPower to Choose online marketplace returns 262 plan options including 71 plans that offer 100 percent renewable energy. Plans ranged from a six-month, $0.068 per kilowatt-hour contract with Reach Energy to a one-year, $0.139 per kilowatt-hour, 100 percent renewable energy contract with Entrust Energy.

There were three Green Mountain 100 percent renewables contracts for that ZIP code, one for six months at $0.118 per kilowatt-hour, one at a month-to-month rate of $0.128 per kilowatt-hour, and a one-year, $0.131 per kilowatt-hour contract. With the introduction of its new SolarSPARC program, Green Mountain will find out if a 100 percent solar contract can be a differentiator.

Green Mountain has attracted an estimated half a million customers and sold 14 million megawatt-hours of electricity since Texas deregulated its market in 2002. It is a fully owned subsidiary of NRG Energy, the biggest U.S. independent electricity provider, and the parent of NRG Solar, which has been aggressively acquiring solar assets in the last two years. Among NRG Solar's purchases have been the 372-megawatt BrightSource Energy solar power tower project and the 66-megawatt Alpine Solar photovoltaic project. None of its acquisitions have been in Texas.

A combination of ample open land and excellent insolation give Texas the best solar resource in the U.S., Green Mountain Production Innovation Manager Shay Ohrel said, but its current installed capacity is ranked fifteenth in the country. Some 85 percent of Texas' installed capacity, Ohrel added, is in the CPS Energy territory in San Antonio and the Austin Energy territory, because those two utilities offer “solar-friendly” policies and incentives, according to Ohrel.

“For people who don’t have a solar array on their roof or participate in a community solar program,” said Green Mountain Senior Strategy and Marketing Manager Jason Sears, “this is a chance to have solar-generated electricity without having a roof for it or signing a twenty-year lease or putting in thousands of dollars upfront.”

Green Mountain guarantees at least 4 percent of the Renewable Energy Credits purchased to fulfill the SolarSPARC contract will be from Texas and all will be retired.

The new solar product has three components, according to Ohrel.

It is a 100 percent solar offering, the first in Texas
Green Mountain will contribute $4 per month per new customer to a fund dedicated to building solar assets in Texas and will fund the first project itself, a 10-kilowatt installation at the Green Mountain Energy Wind Farm in West Texas
SolarSPARC customers will get an $11 bill credit, on a recurring annual basis, for each of the first eleven new projects built by the program, a potential $121 annual dividend

“Average usage in Texas is 900 kilowatt-hours to 1,000 kilowatt-hours per month,” Ohrel said. “The bill credit is a small monetary reward, but our customers are driven by environmental impact concerns and we are really giving them the direct connection to getting solar installed in Texas.” If a sizeable portion of the half-million-household Green Mountain customer base elects to buy the SolarSPARC product, that $4 per month contribution to development could make a significant difference to the installed capacity of Texas solar, Ohrel claimed.

As a measure of the possibility, Green Mountain’s customers have made enough $5-per-month voluntary contributions to its Sun Club program since 2002 to build 50 installations for nonprofit organizations, totaling 575 kilowatts. And through the SolarSPARC program, it will be not customers but Green Mountain that will be anteing up.

SunEdison Government Affairs Director Maura Yates said, “This Green Mountain move demonstrates that the Texas retail solar market is approaching a point where solar is a competitive resource absent utility incentives.”

“We are constantly asking our customers what products they want,” said Green Mountain PR Manager Katie Ryan. “It is going to be fascinating to see if there is an appetite for this.”

TAGS: austin energy, community solar, cps energy, customer base, deregulation,