Author Archives Laura Arnold

Indiana Supreme Court on Validity of Logansport to Negotiate Agreement for LMU Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) Project; Watch On-line 9/5/13 at 10:30 am EDT

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

Yup, today  (9/5/13), we have a double header for energy/utility issues before the Indiana Supreme Court. (See previous post http://wp.me/p37Lx8-1pD.)  The issue of a proposed refuse derived fuel (RDF) project for the Logansport Municipal Utility (LMU) has been raging for many months. The oral arguments this morning before the Indiana Supreme Court pertains to just one aspect of this controversy.

To watch on-line click the headline below:

Julie Kitchell v. Ted Franklin, et al.

Case Summary

This case involves a ratepayer’s challenge to the validity of a city ordinance and resolution allowing the City of Logansport to negotiate a public-private agreement that would change certain aspects of how electricity is generated and provided to Logansport residents. On April 10, 2013, the Cass Superior Court, the Honorable Rick A. Maughmer presiding, granted the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, and on May 9, 2013, the Plaintiff appealed. On July 2, 2013, the Supreme Court assumed jurisdiction over the appeal by granting a verified motion to transfer filed by the Appellees/Defendants pursuant to App. Rule 56(A).

When:
THU, SEP 5, 2013 at 10:30 AM 
Case No: 09S00-1307-PL-476
County: Cass
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See this post from 2012 about the original RFP issued by the City of Logansport. http://www.indianadg.net/logansport-indiana-seeking-proposals-for-new-power-plant/

Indiana Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Rockport (IN) Indiana Gasification LLC SNG Contract; Watch On-line 9/5/13 at 9 AM EDT

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

The contract approved for the Indiana Gasification, LLC plant in Rockport, IN proposed by Leucadia has been the subject of many blog posts in recent months. The Indiana Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in this case Thursday, Sept. 5 beginning at 9:00 am EDT (local time) in Indianapolis. IN.

Click headline below to watch on-line:

Indiana Gas Company, Inc. v. Indiana Finance Authority

Case Summary

The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission approved a contract between the Indiana Finance Authority and Indiana Gasification, LLC for the purchase of substitute natural gas. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding the contract defines retail end use customer contrary to statutes authorizing the contract. Indiana Gas Co. v. Indiana Fin. Auth. , 977 N.E.2d 981 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted petitions to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.

When: THU, SEP 5, 2013 at 9:00 AM 
Case No: 93S02-1306-EX-407
County: Appeal from agency

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

Leucadia SNG Legislation was hotly debated during the 2013 session of the Indiana General Assembly and resulted in Final Passage of the Conference Committee Report for SB 494.

DIGEST OF SB 494 (Updated April 27, 2013 1:21 am - DI 103)

Substitute natural gas. Defines "2011 order", "business day", and "savings". Makes additional findings concerning substitute natural gas (SNG). Requires the Indiana finance authority to submit certain contracts and agreements to the utility regulatory commission (IURC) for approval. Specifies that if a certified appellate opinion does not affirm the 2011 order in its entirety, the IURC shall, after notice and hearing, approve, reject, or require the modification of a purchase contract if in the public interest. Specifies certain factors the IURC must consider before taking action. Requires the IURC to issue a final order within 180 business days. Provides that a party that seeks to appeal a final order shall do so through an expedited direct appeal to the Indiana supreme court under rules to be adopted by the Indiana supreme court. Authorizes the IURC to adopt rules, including rules establishing filing deadlines. Requires the IURC to study the sales price of natural gas and report the study results in an electronic format to the general assembly by November 30, 2013.

Indiana Legislative Committee to hear reports 9/4/13 from IURC on electricity and renewable energy; Watch on-line

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   September 04, 2013  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

The Regulatory Flexibility Committee of the Indiana General Assembly is comprised of members of the two standing committees that address utility issues during the regular sessions of the state legislature, namely, the Indiana Senate Utilities Committee and the Indiana House Utilities and Energy Committee.

To watch on-line, please visit http://www.in.gov/legislative/2441.htm and select the video stream for the appropriate room from the drop down list to watch the Webcast, i.e. Senate Chamber.

Meeting Number: 1

Meeting Date: Wednesday, September 4, 2013

Meeting Time: 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM EDT

Meeting Place: State House, 200 W. Washington St., Senate Chamber

Meeting City: Indianapolis, Indiana

 

REVISED MEETING AGENDA

 (1) 10:00-11:00 a.m.: Reports by the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC)

Annual reports on the electricity, natural gas, communications, and

water/wastewater industries: James Atterholt, Chairman, IURC

• Questions and comments by the Committee

 (2) 11:00-11:45 a.m.: Indiana water resource data (SEA 132-2012)

• Commissioner Carolene Mays, IURC

• Questions and comments by the Committee

 (3) 11:45 a.m.-1:00 p.m.: Lunch break

(4) 1:00-1:45 p.m.: Indiana water resource data (continued)

• Jack Wittman, Ph.D., Groundwater Hydrologist, Water Supply Specialist

• John Hardwick, Chair, Water Utility Council, Indiana Section, American

Waterworks Association

• Vince Griffin, Vice President, Environmental & Energy Policy, Indiana

Chamber of Commerce

• Questions and comments by the Committee

(5) 1:45-3:15 p.m.: Video service franchise fees (HEA 1280-2012)

• Commissioner Larry Landis, IURC

• Indiana Association of Cities and Towns

• John Ruckelhaus, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, and Todd A. Lard,

Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP, on behalf of the Indiana Cable

Telecommunications Association

• Damon Stewart, Vice President, State Government Affairs, DIRECTV

• Questions and comments by the Committee

 (6) 3:15-4:00 p.m.: Annual report by the State Utility Forecasting Group (SUFG)

Annual report on renewable resources; preview of 2013 biennial electricity forecast: Doug Gotham, Director, SUFG

• Questions and comments by the Committee

** Times allotted are subject to change at the discretion of the Chairmen**

(The meeting will be broadcast over the Internet for those unable to attend. Please

visit http://www.in.gov/legislative/2441.htm and select the video stream for the

appropriate room from the drop down list to watch the Webcast.)

Written reports presented will be available following this meeting. Please send an email to Laura.Arnold@IndianaDG.net to request copies.

E&E: Solar, utility companies clash over changes to net metering; What are the implications of this clash in your state? Indiana?

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   September 03, 2013  /   Posted in Feed-in Tariffs (FiT), solar, Uncategorized  /   No Comments

http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2013/09/03/stories/1059986606

Solar, utility companies clash over changes to net metering

Umair Irfan, E&E reporter

Published: Tuesday, September 3, 2013

In the sunny Southwest, a fight between utilities and solar companies is heating up, casting a shadow over future renewable energy growth.

At stake are revisions to net metering, a key incentive for rooftop solar installations in the United States. Under these policies, the utility gives the homeowner a credit for the energy his rooftop photovoltaic panels put onto the grid that is subtracted from the electricity his home uses when the sun isn't shining.

Currently, 43 states, the District of Columbia and four U.S. territories have net metering policies in place, with differing capacity limits. Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, all public utilities are required to offer net metering to customers upon request.

According to the Energy Information Administration, the number of residential net-metered utility customers exploded from almost zero in 2003 to more than 300,000 in 2012. Falling panel prices, coupled with attractive incentives, expanded the market for rooftop solar. Last month, even the White House installed a rooftop solar array.

This rapid growth is leading some utilities to rethink rules favoring solar energy, citing unexpected consequences and issues of fairness. But rooftop solar developers are aggressively pushing back, accusing utilities of attempting to quash an emerging competitor and entrenching their energy monopoly.

 A proposed surcharge

Arizona's main electric utility, Arizona Public Service Co., proposed a surcharge in July for new residential solar installations based on how much energy they draw from the grid. The other option is for customers to receive a bill crediting them for the energy they put on the grid at the same market rate the utility gives to other generators. Existing residential installations would be grandfathered in, and commercial installations would be exempt. The policy still needs approval from regulators.

"Everybody that's connected to the grid is utilizing the grid at some time, and solar customers are no exception," said Greg Bernosky, manager of renewable energy programs for APS. "There are costs that solar customers avoid on their bills that are ultimately shifted to non-solar customers."

He explained that most homes don't have a way to store excess energy, so even if they produce more than they use over the course of a day, they still draw on the grid once the sun sets or when clouds form above. For conventional homeowners, the costs of transmission, distribution, maintenance and upkeep are built into their rates.

A home with a rooftop photovoltaic array foists the cost of keeping electricity on tap onto everyone without a solar installation, to the tune of an extra $1,000 annually per home, according to Bernosky.

This recent push for new rules in large part stems from efficiency improvements and cost reductions for photovoltaic panels in recent years, making the economic case for a home installation much more viable. "The technology wasn't as vibrant as it is today. It wasn't anticipated at that time it would evolve to where it was evolving today," said David Owens, executive vice president of the Edison Electric Institute, a utility industry group.

Net metering policies are a distinctly American incentive for renewable energy and spread gradually at a time when rooftop solar was a novelty. Countries like Germany, Italy and Spain used feed-in tariffs to encourage residential solar. Such tariffs give electricity from solar panels an above-market price so consumers stand to make more money from their investment.

Owens explained that this led to a large and rapid build-out for rooftop arrays but ended up costing these countries a great deal. In wake of the financial crisis, policymakers are scaling back tariffs and even adding more taxes for home solar systems, leading some homeowners to remove their installations.

A 'disruptive challenge' to utilities?

Though not as dramatic, net metering is also facing some growing pains in the United States as distributed solar takes up a greater share of the generation mix. Grid operators now have to account for power flowing in the opposite direction, away from homes and onto the grid. This requires new investments in hardware, monitoring and safety, Owen said.

Solar energy advocates, however, say that the industry has had distributed generation in its cross hairs since its inception. "Utilities have opposed net metering from day one," said Bryan Miller, president of the Alliance for Solar Choice. "What's different now is utilities have woken up and realized solar is a threat to their business model."

He cited a report from the Edison Electric Institute published in January that described distributed solar as a "disruptive challenge" and a "[threat] to the centralized utility business model." Though some utilities have their own incentives in place for residential solar, they are making these offers to comply with state renewable portfolio standards. "They certainly aren't doing it voluntarily," Miller said.

The notion that rooftop solar systems put an undue burden on the grid is spurious, Miller added. "When there are legitimate circuit issues, the solar developers pay for those upgrades," he said. "The idea that the grid cannot handle two-way flow has been proven wrong by every high renewable penetration state."

Solar panels also generate the most power in the afternoon, which is often when electricity demand rises, thereby relieving congestion and strain on the grid, Miller observed. This peak shaving more than offsets any grid interconnection costs, he said.

Dan Sullivan, president and founder of San Diego-based Sullivan Solar Power, concurred. "It's really disingenuous for [utilities] to say [rooftop solar installations] are not paying their fair share," he said. "That energy generates revenue for the utility. Their talking points are weak at best."

California is also facing a net metering fight in the guise of A.B. 327, currently under debate. The bill would change how electricity prices are tiered, moving toward flatter and more equal rates. Solar advocates argue that flat billing removes incentives to improve energy efficiency or to generate energy on-site with solar. A fixed charge would lengthen the payback period for a solar installation.

Can Calif. find common ground?

"California is the largest solar market in the country," Sullivan said. "If it's not done properly in California, it will not be done right anywhere."

The fundamental rift is determining whether rooftop solar installations provide more value than they use. Utilities say they don't; solar companies say they do.

"We would agree that you would be able to avoid some losses in transmission and distribution, about 6 percent," said David Rubin, director of service analysis at Pacific Gas and Electric Co., the utility with the most rooftop solar in its network in the nation.

The emerging concern, according to Rubin, is how the utility will prepare for electricity needs in the future. By 2020, solar energy will make up 15 percent of the power supply for PG&E, but the demand profile is likely to shift, as well. An incentive structure that focuses on upfront assistance for solar, like grants and tax breaks, would give the utility more flexibility to meet its obligations than ongoing rate-based incentives like net metering.

Rubin said the utility is nonetheless strongly supportive of renewable energy projects, though he acknowledged that it opposed net metering in the past. On 1995, PG&E sent a letter to California state Sen. Al Alquist (D) describing net metering as a "bold scam by the solar power industry to force our electric customers to subsidize the sale of expensive residential photovoltaic systems."

"That was the only time we opposed it," Rubin said. "Every time the net metering cap was raised [since], we supported it."

Still, utilities and solar developers have yet to find common ground. "It's challenging getting some consensus on what those numbers should be," said Lori Bird, a senior analyst at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. "I think if there could be a consensus on those issues, it might be feasible to come to an agreement on a rate that makes sense."

The California Public Utilities Commission, the regulatory agency behind the state's electric grid, is aiming to do just that, producing a cost-benefit analysis for rooftop solar in October this year that could finally settle the fight. A draft copy is expected later this month.

SEPA: The Net Energy Metering (NEM) Stalemate: What steps are needed to fix the stalemate? Your thoughts?

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

THE NEM STALEMATE

Thursday August 29, 2013

In Samuel Beckett’s seminal play Waiting for Godot, two vagabonds named Estragon and Vladimir spend the better part of two days waiting – somewhat impatiently – for the arrival of a mysterious man named Godot.

They generate verbal diversions to pass the time, vacillating between periods of heated discussion and long stretches of quiet deliberation. At many points, Estragon forgets where they are and what they are waiting for, only to be reminded by Vladimir that they simply wait for Godot.

The play ends, unfortunately enough for the two, with another day passing that seems a surreal replication of the previous day, which was much like the day before that, all without ever achieving fulfillment in the form of the never-present Godot.

It strikes me that the debate surrounding Net Energy Metering (NEM) has reached much the same impasse that faced Vladimir and Estragon. In multiple jurisdictions across the country, NEM has become a topic hotly debated by utilities and solar stakeholders, and in many cases it seems like resolution is not only difficult but potentially nonexistent.

Part of the issue today is that all parties are hoping to see a solution arise that meets everyone’s needs from day one, and that the current NEM framework, to the extent required, can be switched over to a new paradigm overnight. If we are waiting for that solution, we will likely get no further than Vladimir and Estragon.

Rather than searching for a one-size-fits-all magic bullet, all parties should take a longer view and look for a solar transaction that combines near-term needs with long-term sustainability.

What does that look like structurally? Essentially, it requires a defined transition plan to ensure that the interests of utilities and the solar industry are progressively aligned and, ultimately, individually and mutually sustainable.

What does that mean in plain terms? The first step is to recognize that any changes to the current NEM transaction will have a direct, immediate, and likely negative impact on the economic value proposition for solar adoption, so a defined transition must be designed to moderate that impact. Whether through the imposition of a new cost (in the form of demand charges or standby fees), or a move away from retail rate compensation (via wholesale market-based bill credits or the Value of Solar model), modifications to the status quo often have been proposed as changes that must occur immediately. We need to introduce any change with more deliberation.

Abrupt changes in how distributed solar transactions are compensated have drawn the ire of customers, interest groups, and the solar electric power industry because there is little time afforded to consider how business models can be transformed to survive in the new regime.

To counterbalance that concern, utilities may want to look at a staged approach to implementing their proposals, which allows for the market to adjust how deals are structured and also recognizes the expected decline in solar installed costs that should persist for the next several years.

A phased-in transition period can consist of the introduction (or reintroduction for some utilities) of a transparent incentive (either in $/watt or $/kWh) with an explicit step-down schedule, or, alternatively, a ramp-up over several years of any proposed demand or standby charge. In either case, the goal would be to:

  1. Envision a future point in time where utilities, industry participants, and solar electric customers are in concord with the value solar provides and how it is compensated; and,
  2. Outline a clear and transparent path forward that supports the needs of the solar industry and consumers in the near-term while providing a long-term solution utilities can accept.

Elevating the conversation away from an immediate impact that causes market disturbances and toward one that sustains today’s market momentum while aligning with a long-term market transformation will enable all parties involved to break the stalemate and allow a sustainable solution to occur. If we don’t change the debate and attempt to find realistic common ground, we may all become stuck like Vladimir and Estragon, waiting in vain for our proverbial Godot to arrive.

You might also want to read this SEPA blog post on net metering:

http://www.solarelectricpower.org/posts/2013/07/solar-is-from-mars,-utilities-are-from-venus-finding-a-common-language-for-net-energy-metering.aspx

Copyright 2013 IndianaDG