The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) held a hearing on 9/19/2011 on the proposed changes to the Indianapolis Power and Light (IPL) feed-in tariff called Rate REP. The hearing was continued until Wed., Sept. 21 at 2:30 pm for cross examination of John Haselden with IPL's rebuttal testimony.
Watch for a status report on this case at the conclusion of hearings on Wednesday (9/21/2011) afternoon.
For more details on this case see http://indianadg.wordpress.com/feed-in-tariffs/44018-2/
One of the best little tidbits of information from this year'sWIndiana 2011 Conference held this year at the Indiana Convention Center July 20-21 is a simple little fact sheet prepared by a staffer from the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC).
Almost everyone I talk to is thrilled to see the wind turbines as they drive on I-65 from Indianapolis to Chicago. OK, my universe of everyone is mostly renewable energy and distributed generation advocates. But what many people fail to realize is that merely 26% or 4.86.4 MW of a total of 1,889 MW of that wind power is going to Indiana utilities. Yeah, that's right just a tad more than one-fourth is going to Indiana ratepayers.
That's not according to me but rather from George Stevens who is a Utility Analyst with the Electricity Division of the IURC. Lots of good stuff here. Thanks, George!
Download the one page fact sheet on Indiana Wind Farms. Indiana Wind Farms with Construction Authority from IURC_1Q2011
If you want more information, contact George Stevens at 317-233-5315 or gstevens@urc.in.gov.
Last Updated: August 16. 2011 10:27AM
Melissa Burden/ The Detroit News
Consumers Energy is rolling out another round of its popular program to buy renewable energy generated by solar systems owned by its customers, the Jackson-based company said Tuesday.
The utility's Experimental Advanced Renewable Program has added 2 megawatts of electricity through solar panels on roofs and in yards at 102 locations across the state. Following recent Michigan Public Service Commission approval, the program is creating an additional 3 megawatts, Consumers Energy said in a news release.
Utility customers pay for solar installations on their own and enter into 15-year contracts with Consumers Energy to sell energy created via the systems back to the utility, said Dan Bishop, a Consumers Energy spokesman. Consumers Energy provides electric service in 61 counties in the Lower Peninsula.
Through this round of the program, however, customers will be paid less per kilowatt hour of electricity generated, down from about 40 to 50 cents per kilowatt hour to a high of 25.9 kilowatt hour for the first 125 kilowatts sold, according to Bishop and Consumers Energy.
Customer applications will be accepted near the end of August. More information about the program is available at www.consumersenergy.com/EARP .
mburden@detnews.com
From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110816/BIZ/108160400/Consumers-Energy-expands-program-to-buy-back-solar-power#ixzz1VTrgXvxL
For more information about this entire case before the MPSC see: http://efile.mpsc.state.mi.us/efile/viewcase.php?casenum=16543
On July 26, 2011, the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) issued an Order in MPSC Case No. U-16543 that approved Consumers Energy Company’s plan to expand the Experimental Advanced RenewableProgram (EARP). The EARP provides for the long term purchase of renewable energy generated by customer-owned solar photovoltaic generators. Installation of EARP Phase 1 and Phase 2 generators were recently completed at 102 locations and provide approximately 2 MW of direct current (DC) solar nameplate capacity.
Consumers Energy plans to solicit applications and begin accepting applications for Phase 3 of the EARP near the end of August. Phase 3 will award approximately 250 kW of contracts for non-residential capacity in the fourth quarter of 2011. Phase 4 will award approximately 125 kW of contracts for residential capacity in the first quarter of 2012. The program expansion, occurring in 18 or more phases, will be Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the EARP and is expected to add 3 MW of additional customer-owned solar generation capacity to the Company’s renewable energy portfolio. This new program will feature a standard offer price of between $0.20 and $0.26 per kWh.
IDEA Member Noel Davis with Vela Gear posted this article to the LinkedIn Wind Energy Manufacturers Assocation (WEMA) Group News.
Discusses the recent news that renewable energy (including hydro as well) now supplies more electricity to the US grid than does nuclear power. The post then goes on to list some large solar and wind projects in advanced stages of the development pipeline as a reason for being optimistic that the solar and wind side of the renewables is rapidly growing in scale.
by Tyler Caine, Project Manager and Sustainability Adviser at Lubrano Ciavarra Architects. Tyler is the author of the blog Intercon, a forum for critique and discussion of sustainability. Follow him on Twitter @InterconGreen. Connect with Tyler on LinkedIn.
Read more: http://greeneconomypost.com/renewables-give-power-nuclear-18838.htm#ixzz1VmjpQV1h
For the first time in a while, our portfolio of renewable power sources has surpassed power production from nuclear generation. According to the latest Monthly Energy Review from the Energy Information Administration, the most sustainable forms of energy now produce more for us than the most hazardous, largely due to rises in wind, solar and hydro production.
In the first quarter, renewable energy clocked in a total of 11.73% of our total power production at 2.245 quads (quadrillion BTUs) or 5.65% more than nuclear power. From the same period last year, solar power generation was up 104.8 percent, wind generation increased 40.3 percent, and hydro expanded by 28.7 percent. Power generated from biomass decreased by 4.8 percent. By comparison, natural gas generation increased by 1.8 percent, nuclear by 0.4 percent, and coal-fired electrical generation declined by 5.7 percent.
*It is important to note that this represents total power production for the country, not only the generation of electricity, which leads to why the number for coal looks low and oil looks high. While renewables produced 12.7% of our electricity in the same period, nuclear power accounted for 22.1% of our electrical needs, meaning that there is a large portion of renewables that are producing energy (notably heat) but not electrons. Coal still reigns supreme with 47.9% of grid fodder. Oil actually produces a very small amount of our electricity (3.9%) which is good given that it is the second dirtiest form of power generation we have.
There are likely just as many people saying “How is this possible?” as “Well it’s about time,” but in either case the milestone is an important one for attributing credence to the growth of the renewable sector and the wealth of unused potential. The events of Japan’s nuclear disaster is just one more nail in the coffin of the world’s most expensive type of energy to construct, making it unlikely that nuclear power will be clawing its way back anytime soon.
Related post: “The Catastrophic Downside Risk of Nuclear, Oil, Gas, and Coal“, argues that these highly centralized fossil energy systems have catastrophic risk factors that have not traditionally been accounted for in cost/benefit analysis.
Some have pointed to the topic of renewable strength as misleading, saying that although “renewable” sources include a group of technologies such as wind, solar, biomass, geothermal and hydroelectric, they do not contribute equally and it can attribute an image of strength to parts of the marketplace that are still providing negligible amounts of energy for us. This is not untrue. Biomass was the all star, marking a resurgence to provide 48 of all renewable production. Hydro followed with 35.31 percent. Over three quarters of all “renewable” power comes from two sources that are not heralded as the cutting edge technologies that are forecast to reshape the face of the grid. Meanwhile, solar power gives the country less than one percent of its total power needs. Renewable production increased 36% from the same period in 2009, which is admirable but far from enough. If these technologies are to provide significant portions of our power, we need them to not just increase, but multiply from current levels.
That being said, I am optimistic of what the next 12-24 months will hold for advances in renewable energy production. While solar may be the ugly duckling right now, DOE loans are coming through for a new breed of solar installations, much larger than what typically exists now. Solar arrays of 100-150 MW provide only a fraction of their standard coal counterparts, but newer fields of 500+ MW start to offset meaningful amounts of energy from fossil fuels. National Solar Power is planning 400 MW of solar capacity while First Solar received DOB backing for three California projects of 230 MW, 250 MW and 550 MW. Together the four projects total roughly $6 billion of investment.
In related post: “Nine Reasons Why Solar Power Costs a Lot Less Than People Commonly Believe“, argues that more focus should be given to the many important benefits that result from increasing the use of distributed solar power, and lists nine of these measurable costable benefits.
Wind has similar prospects on the drawing board. The world’s largest land-based wind farm, Shepard’s Flat, is currently under construction in Oregon, boasting 338 GE wind turbines for a capacity of 845 MW with operation slated for the end of 2012. This next generation of clean energy projects could signal that investors and grid managers are done dipping their toes in the water and are more prepared to take the plunge. Passing nuclear was a nice stepping stone, but catching up to oil is next.
Read more: http://greeneconomypost.com/renewables-give-power-nuclear-18838.htm#ixzz1Vmj7rntB
NEWS RELEASE from Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana
For Immediate Release Contact: Kerwin Olson (317) 735-7727
August 22, 2011
Today, in a letter to Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission Chairman James Atterholt, the Citizens Action Coalition raised concerns with respect to the Commission’s apparent lack of engagement to date, at least publicly, in the proposed merger between Duke Energy and Progress Energy. CAC also submitted a public information request seeking any communications regarding the proposed merger between and among officials of both Duke Energy and Progress Energy with the IURC and other State agencies.
“We find it difficult to understand why the Commission has not already begun a public investigation into the consequences of this proposed merger on the customers of Duke Energy Indiana,” stated Kerwin Olson, Interim Executive Director of CAC. “Especially considering the recent behavior of Duke Energy not only with inappropriate communications with the Commission, but also with the gross mis-management of the problem plagued Edwardsport IGCC.”
Duke Energy and Progress Energy are positioned to become the nation’s largest electric utility later this year. Shareholders of the two companies are scheduled to vote on the deal tomorrow, August 23, 2011. The deal is worth an estimated $26 billion still requires approval from various State and Federal regulators as well as the company’s shareholders.
Mr. Olson continued: “While the IURC lacks the jurisdiction to review or approve the stock exchange effecting the merger itself, the Commission does have the authority to review the impact the proposed merger will have on Duke Energy Indiana’s retail electric customers. In addition, Indiana Code does grant the IURC authority to review and approve all affiliate transactions and agreements required to implement the merger to ensure that those agreements are in fact in the public interest.”
More specifically, Indiana Codes states:
IC 8-1-2-49
Inspection of books and records; affiliated interests; jurisdiction; annual reports
Sec. 49. . . . (2) Said commission shall have jurisdiction over affiliated interests having transactions, other than ownership of stock and receipt of dividends thereon, with utility corporations and other utility companies under the jurisdiction of the commission, to the extent of access to all accounts and records of joint or general expenses, any portion of which may be applicable to such transactions, and to the extent of authority to require such reports to be submitted by such affiliated interests, as the commission may prescribe….
No management, construction, engineering, or similar contract, made after March 8, 1933, with any affiliated interest, as defined in this section, shall be effective unless it shall first have been filed with the commission. If it be found that any such contract is not in the public interest, the commission, after investigation and a hearing, is hereby authorized to disapprove such contract.
The Commission did exercise this jurisdiction in 1995 when then PSI merged with Cinergy, and then again in 2005 when Cinergy merged with Duke Energy, both of which led to agreements that flowed back some of the merger benefits and savings and provided other important protections to Indiana electric customers. Moreover, the Commission exercised this jurisdiction before not after the prior mergers had been consummated. Of particular relevance here are the modified settlement agreement and final order approved by the IURC regarding the Duke-Cinergy merger on March 15, 2006 in Cause No. 42873.
Mr. Olson concluded: “We are hopeful that the Commission will recognize the potential negative impact to Indiana electric customers that this proposed merger presents. The benefits of a merger of this size at a minimum should be equally shared by shareholders and ratepayers. Ratepayers should not be asked to bear the costs of a transaction that may only serve to increase their electric bill and adversely affect the service they are provided. In addition, the existing affiliate agreements and regulatory commitments and conditions approved at the time of the Duke-Cinergy merger provide important protections to DEI’s Indiana customer. Those protections should not be surrendered without a fight to the new utility behemoth that would result from the proposed merger. Shareholders, executives, and the headquarters city of Charlotte, NC should not be the only winners to come out of this deal if it is ultimately approved.”
Download a copy of the news release here. CAC News Release on Duke-Progress Merger_22Aug2011