Author Archives Laura Arnold

Distributing Renewable Energy | RenewablesBiz

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   December 02, 2010  /   Posted in Feed-in Tariffs (FiT), Uncategorized  /   No Comments

A report says distributed wind and solar power will triple its impact in a few years.

via Distributing Renewable Energy | RenewablesBiz.

A new report sees wider expansion of small wind and solar production

Large-scale power generating stations my rule the United States utility model, but a new report suggest distributed wind and solar will play an increasing role worldwide. The Pike Research report suggests the sector will triple in size over the next five years.

Large-scale power generation is the prevailing model for the U.S. utility industry, but distributed renewables is a market that is growing very rapidly. That's according to a new study that tracks the growth in distributed solar and wind generation.

The global electric power industry is evolving from a financial and engineering model that relies on large centralized power plants owned by the utilities to one that is more diverse - both in sources of generation and ownership of the generation assets.

According to a new report from Pike Research [3], the renewable distributed energy generation (RDEG) market will experience strong growth over the next several years, with total system revenues increasing from $50.8 billion in 2009 to $154.7 billion by 2015.

RDEG includes both distributed solar photovoltaics [4] (PV) and small wind power and is an alternative to the traditional centralized power generation plants. During this period, the cleantech market intelligence firm forecasts that annual RDEG capacity additions will increase from 5.9 gigawatts in 2009 to 15.1 gigawatts in 2015.

"The economics of sub-utility scale renewable energy continue to improve at a rapid pace," says senior analyst Peter Asmus. "This downward price curve is fueling demand for distributed solar PV and small wind systems as an alternative to centralized power generation. But the transition to a more distributed system is no small matter, and it requires the evolution of policies, technologies, and business models."

RDEG currently represents a tiny part of the global electric power generation capacity - 0.2 percent. Although Europe and the United States are the largest markets for RDEG today, China and India are huge potential markets. Pike Research anticipates that Europe will continue to be the largest market for RDEG during the 2010-2015 forecast period, but China will see the largest market growth as the cost of renewable energy approaches that of conventional energy.

Currently, the key drivers of the market for distributed solar PV and small wind technologies [5] are public price supports in the form of feed-in tariffs and tax rebates. This dependence on price supports makes the market for RDEG vulnerable to abrupt changes in both political/regulatory policy and economic conditions. Some of largest markets for rooftop solar PV including Spain, Italy, Greece and the state of California, have spiraling national (and state) deficits that could negatively impact this market, the report says.

Pike Research's report, "Renewable Distributed Energy Generation", analyzes the market potential for RDEG technologies including distributed solar PV and small wind power. It examines policy and regulatory factors in key markets around the world, market-based demand drivers and key barriers to adoption, and the competitive landscape within the two major RDEG sectors. Global forecasts, segmented by key countries and world regions, are provided for installed capacity and total system revenues through 2015.

The editorial staff at RenewablesBiz.com is passionate about exchanging ideas and dedicated to promoting ongoing conversation about renewables and sustainable energy issues. We invite you to join and contribute to our online community. If you have an idea for an article or editorial contribution, please contact me via email, bopalka@energycentral.com [6], or phone, 860.633.0090

Editor's Note: Thought you might like to see the one comment posted thus far on the original article posted above. Your thoughts and comments please! Laura Ann Arnold

Distributed Generation - Yes, Wind/Solar - Maybe

 - Dec 2, 2010 - 9:21 AM

The article is interesting as it points out the value of Distributed Generation (DG). But, its focus on wind and solar is perplexing. Why limit it to these two energy sources? In fact, there are much better options for DG.

Rudd Asset Management is a renewable electric power developer. We focus on biomass fueled generation in the 10 - 20 MWe range. We much prefer biomass generation for a number of reasons including load dispatchability, base load operation, and the ability to locate our plants anywhere there is an indigenous biomass fuel source. Another big plus for us is the ability to add Combined Heat and Power to our designs. We can get our plant efficiency to 80 % +. That is not possible with wind and difficult for solar collection.

DG yes. Solar/Wind no!

Mark Rudd

ruddassetmangement@gmail.com

Indianapolis Star Editorial: Compromised by business as usual

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   November 30, 2010  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

 http://www.indystar.com/article/20101130/OPINION08/11300305/1291/OPINION08/Compromised-by-business-as-usual

IURC and Duke Energy Ethics Scandal Continues...

Editor's Note: What amazes me is this is what they put in writing in emails.  What else did they discuss and did not leave a "paper trail"? Is this still just the tip of the iceburg? What are your thoughts? Laura Ann Arnold

5:17 PM, Nov 29, 2010  

They discussed luxury cars, vacations, Butler University basketball, Monty Python and family matters.

 Close pals in prestigious careers, David Lott Hardy and James L. Turner had lots of mutual interests to e-mail about.

Including the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, chaired by Hardy, which was considering an application for a $2.9 billion project by Duke Energy Corp., of which Turner was second in command.

Three months after the IURC and the State Ethics Commission ruled out conflict of interest in the Duke episode, a new batch of e-mails obtained by The Star adds to the embarrassment that has ensued from that since-discredited finding.

May we hope the shame has reached a point of no return to business as usual?

Last month, The Star turned up e-mails between Scott Storms and Duke from the time Storms was general counsel to the IURC and was seeking a job with Duke. Laced with joking references to the ethics commission, the messages made clear Storms was not "walled off" from Duke's coal-gasification case while at the IURC, as the ethics panel and Hardy had said.

After a re-investigation, prodded by the news media and consumer watchdogs, Gov. Mitch Daniels fired Hardy as IURC chairman and Duke fired the newly hired Storms along with its Indiana president, Michael Reed.

Still, the revelations of cozy personal connections between Duke and the IURC, which is supposed to safeguard the interests of Duke's customers, pour forth.

In addition to chitchat about sports and shopping, the Hardy-Turner e-mails included IURC internal matters. Work figured in their friendship, after all; Hardy used to be a lawyer for Duke's predecessor company and Turner is a former state utility consumer counselor. The question is: Has their friendship violated professional standards -- and perhaps the law?

The FBI, as well as the Daniels administration, is looking into this and other relationships. Among other possibilities, the validity of the Edwardsport coal-gasification plant, already far along with $2 billion invested, hangs in the balance.

Beyond the immediate mess, there is the larger issue of IURC neutrality. The commission traditionally has been compromised by the revolving door between it and those it regulates. Without systemic changes in how it operates, and how members are appointed, scandal will remain a constant threat. Perhaps the blatancy of the latest disclosures will prod the governor and lawmakers to take corrective action. Certainly, the public deserves better than having to eavesdrop on its own affairs.

New rate structure creates sticker shock for REMC customers

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   November 30, 2010  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   5 Comments
Herald-Times (Bloomington, IN) - Sunday, November 28, 2010
Author: Laura Lane, Herald-Times, Bloomington, Ind.
Nov. 28--Shelley Brim knew her electric rate was set to increase. But when the $507 June bill arrived, she unplugged night lights, unused televisions, cell phone chargers and an above-ground pool pump. She asked her husband to erect a clothes line behind their mobile home on Sadie Lane to dry laundry the old-fashioned way.

Her electric bill from the Bloomfield-based Utilities District of Western Indiana REMC the previous month, before the rate hike kicked in, was $234.

The Brim family could not afford to pay more than double what they had expected.

"Everywhere you go, the REMC bill is a topic of discussion," said Brim, secretary at Avoca Baptist Church in Lawrence County. "We are constantly receiving calls for help with electric bills. How are these people going to make it?"

She heard of one family that moved out to their camper and used a generator during the peak summer months to cut out the cost of air conditioning their house.

In March, Kim Holt bought the family business, Holt's Cafe in Judah, from her parents. She took over paying the bills, and was shocked when the June REMC bill was more than double what it had been the month before.

"It was really hard to make it through the summer because I had not expected it to go up like that. I guess I wasn't paying close enough attention," she said. "We had to let some things go to pay that, and then, when the rate went down this fall, I tried to catch up."

She said electric bills often are the talk of the restaurant these days. "And at the fair this summer, everybody was talking about it. The farmers and the older people, they get really upset," she said.

It's been suggested she could raise her meal prices to help pay the electric bill. "But I just can't do that, because my customers are facing the same increases I am, and they might stop coming if I charge more."

Why the increases?

There is a valid reason behind the rate increase and billing changes affecting UDWI REMC customers, who now pay more per kilowatt hour (kWh) during the three hottest and three coldest months of the year, when they consume more power to keep cool, then stay warm.

During more temperate months, when customers consume less, the rate dips way down, from 13.6 cents per kWh to 7.3 cents.

Here's why: Like the 17 other electric cooperatives that purchase their electric power in bulk from Bloomington-based Hoosier Energy, UDWI pays for it as the company is billed. Hoosier Energy's new rate structure charges more for power during peak-use times, and less for energy consumed when demand is lower.

That's because Hoosier Energy pays more for electricity during peaks and passes the cost along to its REMC consumers. During low-use times, those costs are greatly reduced.

Brian Sparks, chief executive officer for UDWI REMC, said he had to change the rate structure to be in line with the bills he receives from Hoosier Energy. Electric cooperatives do not have huge sums of money on hand to pay in advance, Sparks said. Instead, his REMC is customer-owned, not a private corporation or utility.

Over time, Sparks said, consumers' high and low electric bills balance out, although REMC officials admit the new rates will result in users paying about 5 percent more during the course of a year. "The biggest increase I have seen, figuring over a year, was 9 percent," Sparks said.

"We do realize it has hit people hard, especially with the economy the way it is. But this is how we are billed, and we have to balance our cash flow," he explained. "The increase to customers is revenue neutral for us. We don't make more money charging these rates. It pays for the power as we are billed for it."

Customers have known the billing changes were coming for several years, Sparks said. As the time grew near, he held eight meetings around the 11-county district, serving a meal and explaining how the new system worked. He addressed the upcoming change in the REMC newsletter each customer received. And it was a topic at the cooperative's annual meeting in April, held at Bloomfield High School and attended by 600 people.

"Yes, we were aware, but I guess everybody just didn't realize how much it would be. It did not kick in that it would be this bad," Brim said. "Then we had a really hot summer, so it was even worse."

First a drop, then a panic

Struggling families and people on fixed incomes most often receive the same amount of income every month and count on bills to remain somewhat steady. So when UDWI REMC customers such as William and Shelley Brim saw their bill increase from one month to the next by 117 percent, panic set in.

This past spring, the Brims and 19,000 or so other households and businesses benefited from a low rate UDWI REMC's board of directors initiated in April. The kWh cost was slashed to just 7.3 cents, a rate not seen for 15 years. Before that, UDWI REMC members paid a straight rate of 10.3 cents per kWh all year long.

No one complained about the low bills when the rate went down three cents.

Then came June, and the kWh rate jumped to 13.6 cents for the next three months. It was a hot summer, so increased air conditioning use plus the higher rate combined to create quite a shock for customers when they received their summer electric bills.

Many complained. Loudly.

"We heard from people, of course. It is a big change," Sparks said. "An increase like this is not something that is common in this area."

Brim, the church secretary, often fields requests from church members needing help paying utility bills. Those inquiries soared. More than 1,000 customers signed petitions "to voice our concern and confirm the hardship that this has placed on individuals in this community."

Citizens were up in arms over the summer, although the clamor died down when the 7.3-cent rate returned for the temperate fall months of September, October and November.

But come Wednesday, UDWI REMC customer's rates will jump back up to 13.7 cents per kWh. They will remain at that rate until March 1.

In a letter to news organizations asking that someone look into the rate structure, Brim outlined her concerns.

"It doesn't seem right," she wrote. "What about the many that get laid off in the winter months? What about the people that are struggling and now are hit with this? What about people on budgets or Social Security? And the elderly, who have to choose air or heat over their medications?"

Brim is not one to stir things up. But she had to do something on behalf of the REMC customers she kept hearing from. She wrote a letter and prepared a petition. "Somehow, I have ended up being the voice behind it all," she said.

The evening of Nov. 4, Sparks and two UDWI REMC board of directors met with the Brims at Gulletts Creek Baptist Church, where William Brim is the minister. "They explained why the increases happened and said this is what had to happen to keep from building more power plants and that Hoosier Energy's increases and government regulations were behind it. They talked about something called 'cap and trade,'" Shelley Brim said.

Then they asked her why she had not said much during the presentation. "I said all of that was just fine, but it would not do anything to help people who could not afford it."

The men told her about REMC's budget plan. The power company determines how much power a household likely will consume, based on past usage, then divides that amount into 12 payments.

"For now, our bill will be $315 a month," Brim said. "It would have been just $173 for October because of the lower rate, but of course it's more on the budget because it tries to even it out." She's hoping for no more $500 REMC bills.

After the meeting, Sparks sent someone to the couple's mobile home to check the insulation, windows and doors to make sure the home was sound in that regard.

"The guy said everything was fine as far as efficiency goes," Brim said.

Sparks said consumers of electricity must realize costs will continue to increase. The way to save money is to cut back usage, and high rates during peak times should encourage people to do that.

"It's hard to think about saving money and cutting back on something you never see," Sparks said.

Other customers already affected

UDWI REMC customers are not the first, or the last, to face new rate structures for electricity. South Central Indiana REMC, based in Martinsville, is ready to launch new time-of-use residential rates that will be higher during peak times.

But they haven't implemented the system yet, realizing the cooperative's 39,000 members -- many in Morgan, Monroe, Brown and Owen counties -- have not been educated in the merits of the rate change and the reasons behind it.

SCI REMC's new structure has a flat 7.5-cent-per-kWh rate during March, April, May, September, October and November. During June, July and August, though, the rate jumps to 20.17 cents during peak times, which are noon to 10 p.m. Monday through Friday. The rest of the time, the rate goes down to 7.5 cents.

And during the frigid months of December, January and February, the peak rate -- from 7 to 10 a.m. and from 6 to 9 p.m. weekdays -- is 21.97 cents. Again, it goes down to 7.5 all other times.

CEO Kevin Sump acknowledged the rate structure is complicated. But since it reflects the rates Hoosier Energy charges SCI REMC, it makes sense.

He tried the new time of use system on his own home, without changing his usage pattern, and said he would have saved $102 over a year because he and his wife are not home to use power during the day. Making a change like moving laundry to weekends could make a big difference under such a plan, he said.

Consumers of electricity can direct their usage to less-expensive times and save money for themselves and energy for the environment. And both REMCs soon will offer equipment that can ramp down a household's usage during peak times by activating a switch to turn off an air conditioner's compressor, for instance, or shut down a water heater for a period of time.

"This kind of change results in reducing usage as people become more aware of the reality of the costs of electricity and how it is charged," Sump said. "They physically reduce usage and move it to less expensive times. We need to influence consumer usage patterns away from peak times. Because the only environmentally friendly kilowatt hour is the one we do not produce."

Energy use
Average residential electricity consumption UDWI REMC customers, 2009:
13,776 kWh annually, average of 1,148 kWh per month
Source: UDWI REMC

Average electricity consumption for U.S. residential customers, 2008 (most recent year available):
11,040 kWh annually, average of 920 kWh per month

BY STATE
Highest electricity-consuming state: Tennessee (15,624 kWh annual avg.)
Lowest electricity-consuming state: Maine (6,252 kWh annual avg.)
 

Where it goes
Greatest U.S. electricity consumption, by source:
1. Cooling
2. Lighting
3. Water heating
4. Heating
5. Refrigeration
6. Televisions
7. Clothes dryers
8. Computers
9. Cooking appliances
10. Dishwashers
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration

Copyright (c) 2010, Herald-Times, Bloomington, Ind.

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

States Diverting Money From Climate Initiative

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   November 29, 2010  /   Posted in Emissions Trading/Cap and Trade  /   No Comments

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/nyregion/29greenhouse.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper
 
November 28, 2010
By MIREYA NAVARRO
 
In New York, government officials found $90 million to pay for schools by dipping into money generated by a multistate greenhouse gas initiative.
 
In New Hampshire, the state took $3.1 million from a similar environmental fund. And in New Jersey, the government diverted its whole share: $65 million.
 
At least three financially troubled states have discovered in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a cap-and-trade system, a convenient pool of money that can be drawn on to help balance state budgets.
 
In just over two years, the initiative, known as RGGI, has generated more than $729 million for the 10 states that have participated. Each state is supposed to use its share of the money raised to invest in renewable energy and to promote energy efficiency and consumer benefits, like programs that help low-income electricity customers pay their utility bills.
 
But the money is proving too much of a temptation for states not to use in other ways.
 
Critics say that diverting money from the fund for general spending, instead of using it on emissions control and energy savings, makes the initiative little more than a hidden tax on electricity.
 
Already, RGGI opponents in New Jersey have sponsored a bill to end the state’s participation.
 
“This is nothing but a new form of taxation, and environmentalists have been used,” said Steve Lonegan, New Jersey state director for Americans for Prosperity, a conservative group founded and largely financed by oil industry interests.
 
Under RGGI, which is pronounced Reggie, 10 Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states agreed to cap carbon dioxide emissions from electric power plants and charge the plants for the emissions they produce. As an incentive for power plants to pollute less, the states allow the plants that cut their emissions below the cap to sell or trade their excess carbon allowances through online auctions four times a year.
 
The agreement binds the states to spend at least 25 percent of the money on direct consumer benefits or “strategic” energy purposes.
 
The participating states have agreed to devote virtually all their RGGI money to energy-use reduction. Administrators of the system say that, even with the diversion of money by state governments, about 80 percent of the proceeds for carbon credit auctions still goes to such programs.
 
Some environmentalists who support the multistate pact agree that without the investment in programs that cut energy use and create green jobs, the initiative’s potential economic benefit becomes an expense.
 
“There’s a direct consequence for taking this money,” said Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey chapter of the Sierra Club. “Families are going to pay higher energy bills this winter if they didn’t weatherize their homes.”
 
At the national level, efforts by Democratic leaders and the Obama administration to include a cap-and-trade scheme as part of a national energy policy were contested in Congress, with opponents branding it “cap-and-tax” and Tea Party followers singling it out as a symbol of what was wrong with Washington. But the controversy over cap-and-trade has percolated down to the states, where it became fodder for some candidates in the midterm elections and sparked anti-RGGI rallies in New York and New Jersey, organized by Americans for Prosperity.
 
“We don’t need this when the federal government didn’t go forward with a national plan,” said Alison Littell McHose, a Republican assemblywoman in New Jersey who sponsored the bill to get that state out of the initiative.
 
Some opponents said they feared that the multistate system would encourage cap-and-trade to spread. “The other states are watching this program to see if they can get away with it,” Mr. Lonegan said.
 
Two agreements similar to RGGI — the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord, with six states and one Canadian province, and the Western Climate Initiative, with seven states and four Canadian provinces — envision their own cap-and-trade systems. The regional groups have their own rules and features, but the 23 states in them have discussed linking efforts.
 
The regional carbon-trading market among the states has been free of speculation, administrators for the initiative say, and so far most carbon credits have been purchased by power suppliers. The main criticism from environmental groups is that the cap on emissions is too lax — in fact, power suppliers have easily met their caps, and carbon credits are trading at bottom-level prices, because plants are taking advantage of cheap prices for natural gas, which pollutes less than fuel sources like coal.
 
But with the renewed opposition, “now we’re going to be fighting to save RGGI,” Mr. Tittel of the Sierra Club said, rather than focusing on strengthening and expanding the program.
 
Gov. David A. Paterson of New York set the precedent last year when he took $90 million from the money generated by the initiative to deal with a projected state budget deficit of nearly $50 billion through March 2013. New York has so far collected $265 million from RGGI, the most of any of the participating states.
 
Peter Iwanowicz, the governor’s environmental adviser and acting commissioner of the State Department of Environmental Conservation, called the action “a one-time deal.”
 
“New York was facing historic deficits,” he said. “It wasn’t a decision that was made lightly.”
 
In New York, much of the money in the fund has gone to investments in alternative energy technologies, training for green jobs, and energy efficiency programs like subsidized energy audits for homes and other buildings. The energy initiative has added 72 cents to the monthly electricity bill of New Yorkers, Mr. Iwanowicz said, but he noted that because of reductions in energy use and cheaper fuel prices in the last two years, customers might not have seen a rise.
 
In New Jersey, Gov. Chris Christie said that the state would use its $65.2 million in RGGI money to help offset a $10.7 billion budget deficit for fiscal year 2011. Mr. Christie has yet to add his voice to calls among fellow Republicans to withdraw from the cap-and-trade regional group. Still, some experts note that the availability of RGGI money to help states deal with their economic woes may be the very thing that saves the initiative and similar accords.
 
“The states are so broke that it’s going to be unbelievably difficult for them to stop this program,” said Leigh Raymond, the associate director of the Climate Change Research Center at Purdue University. “They’re desperate for money.”

IURC chief and Duke exec were pals, e-mails show

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   November 29, 2010  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Regulator, utility power player discussed a lot -- including Duke's hiring process

12:35 AM, Nov 28, 2010  |  

// 24Comments

 

Written by
John Russell

James L. Turner, the second-highest-paid executive at Duke Energy Corp., liked keeping in touch with Indiana regulators, even on a long holiday weekend when he was riding in a boat.

On July 2, Turner sent an e-mail to David Lott Hardy, then chairman of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, telling him he was heading out on a channel to Lake Michigan.

"Would the ethics police have a cow if you and the woman came up some weekend?" he wrote.

Hardy wrote back: "Probably -- we might 'be in the area' some afternoon, but I won't be doing this forever."

A few minutes later, he added that driving to the lake would be a fun outing in a high-performance BMW M5. "It would be a nice run in the M5 and a cheaper [Michigan] journey as usually we only go to [Michigan] so the woman can go to Nieman Marcus."

In dozens of e-mails, obtained by The Indianapolis Star under an open records request, the two men schmoozed and joked over all sorts of personal topics, sometimes trading messages eight or 10 times a day. At one point, Hardy offered advice on what kind of BMW Turner should buy. Another time, they talked about Butler University's basketball championship games. Several times, they had frank discussions on private personnel matters involving Duke officials and job candidates.

Taken together, the e-mails paint a picture of a cozy relationship that extended far beyond a professional association between a utility executive and a powerful state regulator.

They also show that the friendly relationship between Duke and Indiana regulators, which resulted in the firing of Duke's Indiana president, Mike Reed, in an ethics scandal earlier this month, extended all the way to Duke's headquarters in North Carolina.

Turner is one of Duke Energy's top executives, responsible for the company's regulated business segment, which is Duke's largest, and for legislative and regulatory strategy and rates. He oversees a vast portfolio, with responsibility for power delivery, gas distribution, customer service and several other functions.

Last year, Turner earned a salary of $650,000, plus stock awards, cash incentives and other compensation worth a total of $4.35 million. That made him second in total compensation only to Chairman and CEO James Rogers, whose package was valued at $6.93 million, according to the company's proxy filing.

That made him far better paid than Hardy, the man he spent hours cajoling by e-mail. Hardy made $109,000 as chairman of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission. He was fired in October by Gov. Mitch Daniels in what has become a major ethics scandal for the state, after the IURC's general counsel, Scott Storms, accepted a job to work for Duke as a regulatory lawyer.

Daniels' office said at the time of the firing that an internal review showed Storms continued to preside over Duke Energy matters even as he was discussing taking a job with the company. Hardy, who was Storms' boss, knew of the situation but failed to do anything about it, Daniels said.

The FBI is investigating, according to the IURC, and Daniels has ordered an investigation into all Duke cases that might have been tainted by Storms' activities.

Earlier this month, Duke fired Storms and the president of the company's Indiana division but declined to say why.

Now, with the release of hundreds of new e-mails between the company and the IURC, questions are sure to arise about who else was involved in the deception and what relationship other Duke officials had with the ousted Hardy.

Turner, once Indiana's utility consumer counselor, did not return a call made to his cell phone Friday to discuss his e-mails or his close relationship with Hardy.

A spokeswoman for Duke Energy Indiana released a brief statement: "Our internal investigation is ongoing. We continue to take this issue very seriously."

The e-mails raise questions about whether Turner had special access to Hardy that was unavailable to utility customers, grass-roots groups and everyday citizens in matters of rate increases and electricity regulation.

"It adds up to a picture of a pretty cozy relationship between the regulator and the regulated," said Kerwin Olson, program director at the Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, a watchdog group that long has been critical of Duke and the IURC. "There's a lot of schmoozing going on behind the scenes that most people would find distasteful."

Turner's relationship with Hardy appears to have been a deeply close one that gave him freedom to crack jokes that might have earned an ordinary citizen a rebuke from a state regulator.

One day in July, Hardy e-mailed Turner and several other people that he was relaxing by a pool and contemplating breakfast: "There is a blue, cloudless sky, punctuated with the brilliant color explosions of the hot air balloons arcing across my field of vision. In front of me is the reflecting pool bubbling away whilst I drink artisanally roasted coffee and try to decide when I should go in for breakfast. Thoughts appreciated. Oh, do any of you know a good breakfast wine."

Turner replied to Hardy and the group: "Does anyone know if a desire to 'bitch slap a chairman' violates any state's hate crime laws?"

In May, Hardy sent an e-mail to Turner, apparently declining a helicopter ride to an unmentioned place. "My purity cannot allow riding in the helicopter, unless, of course, I have a heart attack and you paint LIFEFLIGHT or some such on the side."

Turner joked back: "We could simply boot you out over Indy so no one would ever know how you got there."

During Butler University's basketball championship games last spring, Hardy wrote that Turner should come to Indiana to see one of the games. Turner, apparently still in North Carolina, agreed. "I know. Although the pressure of watching it on TV almost killed me. Wow. Hope they get a chance to stomp Duke."

Several times, they traded e-mails about getting together for dinner and drinks. One time, they quoted lines from Monty Python comedy skits. Another time, Turner joked that one of Hardy's written orders on a regulatory matter seemed "surprisingly lucid."

And the two frequently discussed Storms and Reed, as those two went through job interviews and were hired away from the IURC by Duke earlier this year. Hardy wanted constant reports on the hiring process.

"How real is the interest in Mike (Reed)," Hardy asked on March 13. "I think it's a marriage made in heaven. Is this decision yours and I don't need to sell Jim [Rogers, CEO of Duke], or is his buy-in pivotal?"

Reed and Hardy were friends, having worked together for several years at the IURC. Reed held the title of executive director for three years before leaving last year to become commissioner of the Indiana Department of Transportation. About a year into that job, he applied for a job as president of Duke's Indiana division, which had opened up.

Turner replied that Rogers had been in China during the past week, "so all he knows is that Mike's name is in the ring."

Turner added, "I'm supposed to talk with him tomorrow morning. At this point, he's probably leaning toward [another candidate], but I may work on that in the morning. I'll try to let you know before he gets out there whether a sell is necessary."

Whether it was proper for Turner to disclose to an outsider the decision-making process behind a high-level executive hiring remains unclear. But some human-relations experts said the whole discussion raises questions.

"This is an ethics question at its core," said Karl Ahlrichs, a human-relations consultant at Gregory & Appel in Indianapolis. "What do Duke's policies and handbooks say about a situation like this? What's appropriate conversation with outside parties? My feeling is that people in leadership posts are supposed to act professionally."

How far the cozy relationships with Duke executives extended into state government is unclear. But the subject of Storms' hiring by Duke was raised with Daniels' chief of staff, Earl Goode, nearly two months before Storms left the IURC.

The Star reported last week that Reed was concerned by comments Goode made to him about Storms during a golf game Aug. 1.

According to e-mails, Reed told Hardy he had run into Goode, who said he would be surprised if the state's ethics panel cleared Storms, because of his role in presiding over Duke's $2.9 billion coal-gasification plant in Edwardsport.

Goode said last week that his comments to Reed meant only that Storms would have to go before the state ethics panel, as would any state administrator considering a private sector job offer. He said he had no opinion on Storms at that time. Only later would Daniels' office issue findings that Storms had a conflict of interest.

Asked why he was golfing with Reed, Goode said they were playing together in an event for GTE workers. He and Reed previously worked for GTE.

Reed apparently was worried about Storms' possible difficulties with the ethics commission. Later that same day, he sent Hardy an e-mail suggesting a way to address those difficulties. He urged Hardy to have the IURC's ethics officer, Loraine Seyfried, "clearly spell out how [Storms] would be walled off from Edwardsport, and therefore meet the test."

A few weeks later, Seyfried sent a three-page memo to Storms, stating her opinion that his prospective employment with Duke would not violate the state ethics code. Storms presented that opinion to the ethics panel Sept. 9, when he asked for approval to take the Duke job. The ethics panel gave him the green light in a ruling that largely mirrored Seyfried's memo.

Storms and Hardy later joked by e-mail that they were impressed that no one laughed during the ethics hearing. Later, after Storms went to work for Duke, Hardy offered his old job as administrative law judge to Seyfried, presiding over Duke's Edwardsport project.

Daniels' office later found Storms had not walled himself off from Duke cases while discussing career options there.

E-mails between Duke and the IURC in recent months span hundreds of pages, many of them between Hardy and Turner.

In February, Turner asked Hardy to breakfast. The two had to juggle schedules to set a date. Hardy wrote: "Don't tell the utilities I'm being accommodating -- bad for my reputation."

"Don't worry," Turner wrote back. "Your reputation in this regard is unalterable."

Call Star reporter John Russell at (317) 444-6283.

Copyright 2013 IndianaDG