Author Archives Laura Arnold

Indiana legislators to hear about feed-in tariffs 9/18/13; Attend or watch on-line

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   August 08, 2013  /   Posted in Feed-in Tariffs (FiT), Office of Utility Consumer Counselor (OUCC), Uncategorized  /   No Comments

 

The second meeting of the Regulatory Flexibility Committee will be held on Wednesday, September 18, 2013. The meeting will convene at 1:30 P.M. in the Senate Chamber in the State House, 200 W. Washington St., Indianapolis, Indiana 46204.
The meeting will include an update on the activities of the Office of Utility
Consumer Counselor (OUCC). The meeting will also include presentations on the
following topics: (1) Electric grid security. (2) Feed-in tariffs for electricity. (3)
Customer choice, deregulation, and competitive procurement in the energy
industry.
(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.)

See http://www.in.gov/legislative/interim/committee/notices/RFSCG9I.pdf

The first meeting of the Regulatory Flexibility Committee will be held on
Wednesday, September 4, 2013. The meeting will convene at 10:00 A.M. in the Senate Chamber in the State House, 200 W. Washington St., Indianapolis, Indiana 46204.
The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) will present its annual reports
on the natural gas, electricity, communications, and water/wastewater industries.
The IURC's report on the communications industry will include a summary of data
concerning video service franchise fees collected and spent by local units in 2012,
as required by HEA 1280-2012. The IURC will also present a summary of water
resource data provided by Indiana water utilities for the 2012 calendar year, as
required by SEA 132-2012.

[To download copies of the past IURC Regulatory Flexibility Reports see http://www.in.gov/iurc/2493.htm]
The meeting will also include the annual report on renewable energy resources by
the State Utility Forecasting Group, along with a preview of the 2013 state
electricity forecast.

[To download a copy of the September 2012 Renewables Report see http://www.purdue.edu/discoverypark/energy/assets/pdfs/SUFG/publications/2012%20Renewables%20Report.pdf]
(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.)

See http://www.in.gov/legislative/interim/committee/notices/RFSCG94.pdf

The members of the Regulatory Flexibility Committee are as follows:

Members:
Sen. James Merritt, Co-Chairperson
Sen. Rodric Bray
Sen. Michael Crider
Sen. Dennis Kruse
Sen. Jean Leising
Sen. James Tomes
Sen. Carlin Yoder
Sen. Jean Breaux
Sen. John Broden
Sen. Lonnie Randolph
Rep. Eric Koch, Co-Chairperson
Rep. Heath VanNatter
Rep. Robert Behning
Rep. Dale DeVon
Rep. David Frizzell
Rep. Jack Lutz
Rep. Alan Morrison
Rep. Timothy Neese
Rep. Edmond Soliday
Rep. Kreg Battles
Rep. Christina Hale
Rep. Matthew Pierce
Rep. Shelli VanDenburgh

Staff:
Sarah Burkman, Attorney for the Committee
Jessica Harmon, Fiscal Analyst for the Committee

Authority: IC 8-1-2.5-9 and IC 8-1-2.6-4

Grist: Watching Fox News makes you distrust climate scientists; Will you help to stop this attack on science?

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   August 08, 2013  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments
Dear IndianaDG Readers:

I find this article describing the findings of the study entitled, " An attack on science? Media use, trust in scientists, and perceptions of global warming " published in Public Understanding of Science very disturbing. As a graduate of Purdue University in Natural Resources-Environmental Science with the majority of my credit hours in math and science (chemistry, biochemistry, biology, ecology and physics) in addition to three summers working on National Science Foundation (NSF) research projects in the Bionucleonics Department, I am an ardent supporter of science and scientists.

What really concerns me is the inevitable negative spill over effect on science and scientists in general. This article from CNN explains why.

Almost everyone, from educators to government officials to industry experts, laments the lackluster abilities and performance of our nations' students in science, technology, engineering and math (know as STEM education).

Two indicators are particularly worrisome, especially as this country experiences greater global competition and high unemployment. American students score 23rd in math and 31st in science when compared with 65 other top industrial countries. In math, we are beaten by countries from Lichtenstein and Slovakia to the Netherlands and Singapore. In science, we are beaten by countries from New Zealand and Estonia to Finland and Hungary.

For the United States, which led the way in space after Sputnik and showed the way in technological development and economic growth for the last 40 years, this is more than an embarrassment. And, for the future of our own GDP, economic well-being, and employer and employment needs, this is a disaster in the making. If the United States wishes to remain the most competitive and innovative country in the world -- never mind just another competitive and innovative country in the constellation of industrial nations -- this cannot stand.

This attack on science and scientists is bigger than just the attack on climate change by Fox News. This is a serious problem and it needs a serious solution.

What can we do to restore the deserved respect role of science and scientists? Will you join in in trying to find a solution to this problem? The future of our nation is at stake.

Laura Ann Arnold

 

Watching Fox News makes you distrust climate scientists

By Chris Mooney

ff-20110127-globalwarming630pix
Media Matters/Fox News

In the past several years, a number of polls have documented the huge gap between liberals and conservatives when it comes to their acceptance of the science of climate change. Naturally, then, researchers have increasingly turned their attention to trying to explain this dramatic divide over what is factually true. And it wasn’t long before they homed in on the role of conservative media in particular — thus, a number of studies (e.g., here [PDF]) show that watching Fox News increases your risk of holding incorrect beliefs about the science of climate change.

Now, a new paper [PDF] just out in the journal Public Understanding of Science takes this line of inquiry further, beginning to unpack precisely how conservative media work to undermine the public’s acceptance of science. The paper shows that a distrust of climate scientists is a significant factor underlying the modern denial of global warming, and moreover, that watching Fox News and listening to Rush Limbaugh both increase one’s level of distrust of these scientific experts. Or as the paper puts it, “[C]onservative media use decreases trust in scientists which, in turn, decreases certainty that global warming is happening.”

The study, conducted by Jay Hmielowski of the University of Arizona and colleagues at several other universities, relied on a large polling sample of Americans in two phases: 2,497 individuals were interviewed in 2008, and then a smaller sample of 1,036 were reinterviewed in 2011. The respondents were asked about what kind of media they consumed — conservative choices included Fox News and the Rush Limbaugh Show; “non-conservative” media outlets included CNN, MSNBC, National Public Radio, and network news — as well as about how much they trusted or distrusted climate scientists. They were also asked about their belief that global warming is happening. (The study controlled for variables like political ideology, religiosity, and other demographic factors.)

The results showed that conservative media consumption led to less trust in climate scientists, even as consuming nonconservative media had the opposite effect (leading to an increased trust in climate scientists). Between people who said they don’t consume any conservative media and people who said they consume a large amount, “we see a 13 percent difference in the amount of trust in scientists,” according to study coauthor Lauren Feldman of American University.

The authors then proposed that distrust of scientists is a key link in the chain between watching Fox (or listening to Rush) and coming to doubt climate science. The idea is that because most people don’t know a great deal about the science of global warming, they rely on “heuristics” — or mental shortcuts — to make up their minds about what to believe. “Trust” (or the lack thereof) is a classic shortcut, allowing one to quickly determine who’s right and who’s wrong in a seemingly complex and data-laden debate. Or as the paper put it: “The public’s low level of knowledge and the media’s conflicting, often value-laden messages about global warming lead people to use heuristics to make sense of this complex issue.”

Evidence of Fox and Rush Limbaugh raising doubts about climate scientists — in a way that could generate distrust — isn’t hard to come by. Limbaugh includes scientists in his “four corners of deceit … government, academia, science, and the media.” As for Fox, there are myriad examples of coverage that could be said to cast doubt on climate science. For instance, there’s the 2009 memo, exposed by Media Matters, in which Fox Washington editor Bill Sammon instructed staff to cast doubt on climate research in their coverage.

It seems unlikely, however, that conservative media alone can account for the distrust of science on the right. In a major 2012 study [PDF], the sociologist Gordon Gauchat showed that conservatives have lost trust in scientists across the board over a period of many decades, dating all the way back to 1974. Fox News only launched in 1996, however; Rush Limbaugh started national broadcasts in 1988.

Clearly, then, other factors must be involved in sowing distrust as well — including a long history of left-right policy fights in which scientists seemed to be on the “liberal” side, with a canonical example being the battle over Ronald Reagan’s “Star Wars” program in the 1980s.

As a result of these conflicts, politically attuned conservatives today are well aware that scientists and academics rarely seem to come out on their side. Perhaps Fox News and the Rush Limbaugh Show are, in the end, simply the media reflection of that long-standing conservative perception.

This story was produced as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Chris Mooney is host of the Point of Inquiry podcast and the author of four books, including The Republican War on Science and The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science and Reality.

NYT: Former Republican EPA Administrators including Ruckleshaus State the Republican Case for Climate Action

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

Do you remember William D. Ruckelshaus who was from Indiana? Here is some background from Wikepedia. I think his background and political history makes this Op-Ed from the New York Times even more interesting as we watch the politics of climate change unfold in the days and months ahead. 

He served as the first head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970, was subsequently acting Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and then Deputy Attorney General of the United States. During 1983 through 1985 he returned as EPA Administrator.

Ruckelshaus was born in Indianapolis, Indiana, to a distinguished family with a long history of practicing law in Indianapolis and serving in Republican Party politics.

After passing the Indiana bar exam, Ruckelshaus joined the family law firm of Ruckelshaus, Bobbitt, and O'Connor.

Starting at age 28, he was Deputy Attorney General of Indiana from 1960 through 1965. For two years he was assigned to the Indiana Board of Health. As counsel to the Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board, Ruckelshaus obtained court orders prohibiting industries and municipalities from heavy pollution of the state's water supply. He also helped draft the 1961 Indiana Air Pollution Control Act, the state's first attempt to reduce that problem. He then spent two years as Chief Counsel for the Attorney General's Office.

Ruckelshaus then began a political career. He ran in 1964 as a moderate Republican for an Indiana Congressional seat, losing in the primaries to a candidate from the conservative wing of the party. He then spent a year as Minority Attorney for the Indiana State Senate.

He then won a seat in the Indiana House of Representatives, benefitting from an up year for Republicans overall. He became Majority Leader of the House in his first term, serving in that capacity from 1967 to 1969.

Ruckelshaus then won the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in 1968, but lost in the general election 51%-48% to Birch Bayh.

President Richard Nixon then appointed him for the years 1969 and 1970 as Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Division for the U.S. Department of Justice.

Ruckelshaus became the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s first Administrator when the agency was formed on December 2, 1970, by President Nixon. Although many people were mentioned as possibilities for this new position, Ruckelshaus got the nod based upon the strong recommendation of the U.S. Attorney GeneralJohn Mitchell.

Ruckelshaus laid the foundation for the EPA by hiring its leaders, defining its mission, deciding priorities, and selecting an organizational structure.

Just thought you might like to know more.

I sincerely hope that Indiana Republicans are listening.

Laura Ann Arnold

OP-ED CONTRIBUTORS

A Republican Case for Climate Action

By WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS, LEE M. THOMAS, WILLIAM K. REILLY and CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN

Published: August 1, 2013 391 Comments

EACH of us took turns over the past 43 years running the Environmental Protection Agency. We served Republican presidents, but we have a message that transcends political affiliation: the United States must move now on substantive steps to curb climate change, at home and internationally.

There is no longer any credible scientific debate about the basic facts: our world continues to warm, with the last decade the hottest in modern records, and the deep ocean warming faster than the earth’s atmosphere. Sea level is rising. Arctic Sea ice is melting years faster than projected.

The costs of inaction are undeniable. The lines of scientific evidence grow only stronger and more numerous. And the window of time remaining to act is growing smaller: delay could mean that warming becomes “locked in.”

A market-based approach, like a carbon tax, would be the best path to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, but that is unachievable in the current political gridlock in Washington. Dealing with this political reality, President Obama’s June climate action plan lays out achievable actions that would deliver real progress. He will use his executive powers to require reductions in the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the nation’s power plants and spur increased investment in clean energy technology, which is inarguably the path we must follow to ensure a strong economy along with a livable climate.

The president also plans to use his regulatory power to limit the powerful warming chemicals known as hydrofluorocarbons and encourage the United States to join with other nations to amend the Montreal Protocol to phase out these chemicals. The landmark international treaty, which took effect in 1989, already has been hugely successful in solving the ozone problem.

Rather than argue against his proposals, our leaders in Congress should endorse them and start the overdue debate about what bigger steps are needed and how to achieve them — domestically and internationally.

As administrators of the E.P.A under Presidents Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George Bush and George W. Bush, we held fast to common-sense conservative principles — protecting the health of the American people, working with the best technology available and trusting in the innovation of American business and in the market to find the best solutions for the least cost.

That approach helped us tackle major environmental challenges to our nation and the world: the pollution of our rivers, dramatized when the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland caught fire in 1969; the hole in the ozone layer; and the devastation wrought by acid rain.

The solutions we supported worked, although more must be done. Our rivers no longer burn, and their health continues to improve. The United States led the world when nations came together to phase out ozone-depleting chemicals. Acid rain diminishes each year, thanks to a pioneering, market-based emissions-trading system adopted under the first President Bush in 1990. And despite critics’ warnings, our economy has continued to grow.

Climate change puts all our progress and our successes at risk. If we could articulate one framework for successful governance, perhaps it should be this: When confronted by a problem, deal with it. Look at the facts, cut through the extraneous, devise a workable solution and get it done.

We can have both a strong economy and a livable climate. All parties know that we need both. The rest of the discussion is either detail, which we can resolve, or purposeful delay, which we should not tolerate.

Mr. Obama’s plan is just a start. More will be required. But we must continue efforts to reduce the climate-altering pollutants that threaten our planet. The only uncertainty about our warming world is how bad the changes will get, and how soon. What is most clear is that there is no time to waste.

The writers are former administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency: William D. Ruckelshaus, from its founding in 1970 to 1973, and again from 1983 to 1985; Lee M. Thomas, from 1985 to 1989; William K. Reilly, from 1989 to 1993; and Christine Todd Whitman, from 2001 to 2003.

IREC: Washington State Commission Issues Revised Interconnection Rules; Opens Door for 3rd Party Net Metering

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   July 29, 2013  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

IREC News Banner_new

Washington Approves Revised Interconnection Procedures and Paves the Way for Third-Party Ownership of Net-Metered Systems

Posted on July 29, 2013 by IREC Editors

The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission  issued a final order July 18 approving significant revisions to the state’s interconnection rules. The order reflects many of IREC’s recommendations throughout this effort, which began in 2011 with a call for public comment to help identify barriers and opportunities for distributed generation in Washington.

The revised rules mark three important advances that were recommended or supported by IREC: (1) the definition of “interconnection customer” now clarifies that net-metered systems can be owned by a third-party; (2) a multi-tiered approach to evaluating interconnection requests, consistent with the approach in a majority of other states; and (3) eliminating the requirement for an external disconnect switch for Tier 1 systems (inverter-based systems 25 kW or less), a national best practice.

What could prove to be the most significant advance, however, is contained in the order itself. The commission granted the request of parties, including IREC, to clarify in a forthcoming ruling whether third-party owners are subject to commission jurisdiction under state law.

“The Commission is now poised to create an opportunity for a substantial boost to Washington distributed generation by making a relatively simple and narrow clarification to the state’s public utility law, which could have a significant and long-lasting impact on distributed generation in the state,” said Jason Keyes, who represented IREC in this proceeding. “We have repeatedly seen exponential market growth in states that open the door for third-party ownership, as doing so empowers new customers who might otherwise find the upfront cost of installation to be a significant barrier.”

Overall, with the new interconnection process in place, generators in Washington will have a more clearly defined pathway to expedited interconnection, with a multi-level process based on objective technical screens. These aspects of the rule also mean that they are more closely in line with the federally-approved Small Generator Interconnection Procedures and the approach taken in a majority of other states.

Download HERE> 2013-IREC-Interconnection-Model-Procedures

Interconnection Procedures Advance or Impede Clean Energy Growth

State interconnection procedures are a critical component of a state’s policy toolkit.  They specify the technical requirements, timeframe, fees and process for connecting renewable energy systems to the utility grid.  As a result, restrictive, costly procedures can significantly impede a state’s renewable energy growth by discouraging otherwise feasible projects.

As costs of renewable energy come down and more systems seek to connect to the grid, interconnection procedures developed over the last decade are increasingly under strain. They simply weren’t developed to handle the number of applications now received by grid operators. Nor were they designed to address the technical issues posed by the technologies currently in demand.

IREC’s Role

Interconnection procedures cover_2013

IREC has led the effort to improve interconnection procedures in states across the country.  The IREC Model Interconnection Procedures (updated 2013), along with Freeing the Grid provide state policy makers with a clear baseline to measure the minimum adequacy of their procedures. Grades listed in Freeing the Grid often are cited by policy makers. Some states, such as Maine and West Virginia, have based modifications to their interconnections procedures directly on IREC’s Model.

Utilizing the technical expertise of multiple partners, and its own team’s sophisticated understanding of rule development and application, allows IREC to help negotiate improvements to the rules that benefit both solar developers and the reviewing utilities.

NIPSCO files for infrastructure improvements using “trackers” allowed by SEA 560 passed by ’13 Indiana General Assemby

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   July 27, 2013  /   Posted in Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO), Uncategorized  /   No Comments

 

NIPSCO plans $1 billion in upgrades to electrical grid

Much of the improvements would consist of replacing the utility's aging infrastructure such as poles, underground wires and substation transformers in order to increase system reliability, according to two documents filed Friday with the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission.

"What we are first and foremost is a basic gas and electric utility," NIPSCO CEO Jim Stanley said at a briefing Tuesday at The Times offices in Munster. "And our customers expect us to deliver that basic service first and foremost."

Senate Bill 560, passed earlier this year by the Indiana General Assembly, allows utilities to pay for basic infrastructure improvements through what are called "trackers," which are essentially surcharges tacked on customer bills.

The legislation was fiercely opposed by consumer groups, who contended it would lead to utilities coming forward with "shopping lists" of improvements while eliminating checks and balances on what they can charge.

"We were afraid this would become a way to nickel and dime customers to death," said Jerry Polk, a utilities attorney for the Citizens Action Coalition.

Polk said the Citizens Action Coalition will soon be talking about NIPSCO's plans with other consumer groups and NIPSCO's large industrial customers.

Since NIPSCO is the first utility in the state to come forward with such a plan under Senate Bill 560, it will be precedent setting, Polk said.

Stanley said NIPSCO realizes customers will have concerns and the utility will be listening and responding to those concerns.

The entire plan will be subjected to an Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission review process. The commission could approve the plan as is, reject it, or ask for changes in the plan.

Stanley said NIPSCO does not expect an order in the case until next year, with actual work on the upgrades to commence about mid-2014 if approval is won.

NIPSCO estimates customers will only see a slight increase of about 0.5 percent in bills in 2015 and then about 1 percent annual increases after that through 2020 due to the system improvements. That means the cumulative increase would be between 5 percent and 6 percent.

NIPSCO's most recent rate case, concluded in December 2011, hiked an average residential customer's bill 4.5 percent. That case also contained provisions that had the potential for a further 1.7 percent increase.

On Tuesday, Stanley said the 2011 rate case did not contain the kind of substantial, system-wide improvement plan NIPSCO has now laid before regulators.

"It hits every county we serve," the NIPSCO chief said. "It literally touches every county."

The plan submitted to regulators Friday deals only with NIPSCO's electric service. The utility plans to submit a natural gas modernization plan to regulators later this year.

NIPSCO has 457,000 electric and 786,000 natural gas customers in northern Indiana. It is a subsidary of Merrillville-based NiSource Inc., which also owns utilities in six other states as well as a gas transmission business serving 16 states.

The improvement plan will replace 450 miles of underground electric cable, rebuild 500 miles of electric circuits and replace 75 substation transformers and 900 circuit breakers. That work alone will account for $795 million in spending.

Much of that equipment is more than 40 years old with some more than 50 years old. NIPSCO has hired international engineering firm Black & Veatch to evaluate which parts of the utilities electric system is most at risk of failure and that is where improvements will be targeted, Stanley said.

NIPSCO estimates the construction and other work involved will directly and indirectly create 1,200 jobs during the seven-year life of the project.

The modernization program will not aim to build a so-called "smart grid," Stanely said.

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

NIPSCO has big plans

Here are the major projects included in NIPSCO's $1 billion electric modernization plan that is now before state regulators:

• Replace 450 miles of underground cable that is prone to failure: $140 million

• Rebuild 500 miles of electric lines/circuits: $365 million

• Replace 75 substation transformers and 900 breakers: $290 million

Source: NIPSCO and IURC case 44370 and 44371

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

This is the value added from subscribing to the IndianaDG website. We prove the rest of the detailed information that helps to provide the technical details. We will be adding restrictions though to the website which in the future will only allow IndianaDG members to access, thereby saving them both time and money. Join IndianaDG today!

Download NIPSCO's petition in Cause 44370  44370 NIPSCO Petition_2013-07-19

Download NIPSCO's petition in Cause 44371 44371 NIPSCO Petition_2013-07-19

Copyright 2013 IndianaDG