Author Archives Laura Arnold

Additional Hearings on Indiana Net Metering Rules–Ellettsville on June 16th & South Bend on June 21st

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   June 01, 2010  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

IURC_to_Review_Existing_Net_Metering_Rules[1]

For Immediate Release

June 1, 2010

Contact Information:

Danielle McGrath

Office: (317) 232‐2297

E-mail: dmcgrath@urc.in.gov

The IURC to Review Existing Net Metering Rules

Commission seeking public comment

INDIANAPOLIS – On June 3, 2010, the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission will hold its first public meeting to hear from consumers and other interested stakeholders on the Commission’s existing net metering rules.

 With the increased emphasis on alternative energy, the Commission has experienced a rise in the number of inquiries it has received about net metering. The agency has also listened to concerns examined by legislative proposals and raised by the public about the current rules, which were established in March 2005. The Commission finds it appropriate to further engage these interested parties to better understand the needs of Hoosiers.

 Therefore, the Commission will begin collecting comments and information from the public beginning in June so that it can gauge the effectiveness of the existing rules and determine whether the state could benefit by altering the rules. While the first meeting will be held in Indianapolis (see event details below), two additional meetings will also be held outside of Indianapolis.

 Indiana’s existing net metering rules spell out the minimum requirements for customers and utilities alike. Currently, the rules only apply to investor-owned utility (IOU) companies such as Northern Indiana Public Service Company, Southern Indiana Gas and Electric, Indianapolis Power & Light, Duke Energy Indiana, and Indiana Michigan Power.

 Net metering is a service offering that allows participants to supplement their electric usage and mitigate a portion of their cost by installing renewable energy facilities such as wind turbines or solar panels. If the amount the customer receives from the utility is greater than the amount delivered to the utility, the difference is charged to the customer. If the amount the customer received from the utility is less than the amount delivered to the utility, the customer receives a credit on the next bill for the difference.

 As defined in 170 IAC 4-4.2, an eligible net metering customer means a customer in good standing who owns and operates a solar, wind, or hydroelectric generating facility with a capacity of less than or equal to 10kW on their premises. At a minimum, the five IOUs must offer net metering to residential customers and K‐12 schools that install a net metering facility. They may also offer net metering to commercial or industrial customers as well.

For more information on the annual net metering reports filed with the Commission, please visit: www.in.gov/iurc/files/2009_Net_Metering_Required_Reporting_Summary.pdf.

For more information about the Commission, please visit: www.in.gov/iurc.

Event details:

  • June 3, 2010 ‐ Indianapolis

Net Metering Public Meeting at 10:00 a.m.

National City Center

Judicial Courtroom 222

101 W. Washington Street

Indianapolis, IN, 46204

  • June 16, 2010 ‐ Ellettsville

Net Metering Public Meeting at 6:00 p.m.

Edgewood Junior High School

851 Edgewood Drive

Ellettsville, IN 47429

  • June 21, 2010 ‐ South Bend

Net Metering Public Meeting at 6:00 p.m.

County‐City Building

227 West Jefferson Blvd.

Suite 400 S

South Bend, Indiana 46601

Duke Energy’s solar effort clouding growth?

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   June 01, 2010  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   1 Comments
Original article published at:
Friday, May 28, 2010

Charlotte Business Journal - by John Downey and Susan Stabley Staff writers

Developers, contractors and renewable-energy advocates see Duke Energy Carolinas putting the squeeze on the local solar industry.

Independent solar companies say they can’t even get in the door to negotiate with the Charlotte energy giant.

“It’s not difficult to do a deal with them,” says Richard Harkrader of Carolina Solar Energy in Durham. “It’s impossible.”

Critics say that’s slowing the growth of the nascent solar industry despite major efforts by state and Charlotte economic developers to encourage it. Ultimately, fewer projects for local developers means fewer clean-energy jobs created in the region.

Duke has relied on buying power from a single, large solar farm and owning additional solar projects itself. That has often pushed local developers east or to the Asheville area, where Raleigh-based Progress Energy Carolinas has a different business model.

Progress does not plan to own and operate projects. And the projects it buys power from are much smaller than Duke’s. So a number of developers have gained agreements to sell solar power to Progress.

In Charlotte, Optima Engineering founder Keith Pehl says all 17 of the independent commercial solar projects his company brought to Duke Energy in the past two years foundered on failed power-purchase negotiations.

Pehl contends Duke’s approach is to control the local market and refuse to pay competitive prices for power from developers and building owners.

“It leaves everyone else out who is trying to make it happen,” Pehl says.

Owen Smith, Duke’s managing director of renewable energy and carbon strategy, denies that. He says Duke is simply maintaining discipline on the price it will pay for solar power.

A number of solar and other renewable companies have sprung up in North Carolina. But they cannot pursue sizable projects without an agreement from a utility to buy the power they produce, known in the industry as power-purchase agreements.

Duke wants a mix of projects it owns and power it buys through those agreements, Smith says.

Thus, it has agreed to buy power from a 16-megawatt solar farm SunEdison of Maryland is building in Davidson County. And it plans to build, own and operate 10 megawatts worth of solar panels on leased property.

There are rare exceptions. The city will soon choose a developer for a 250-kilowatt solar array near Charlotte/Douglas International Airport. Duke will pay 14 to 18 cents per kilowatt-hour for that project.

N.C. solar companies say that’s an unheard of price for Duke.

The company typically hasn’t offered more than 11 to 12 cents — a price developers and property owners say can’t justify the capital expense of installing photovoltaic panels.

Smith says Duke agreed to the airport-area project more than a year ago, before it settled on its current solar strategy. And it will honor that commitment, even though the price is higher than what Duke would be willing to pay now.

But lately Duke just isn’t doing any power-purchase agreements for solar at any price. It has already contracted for all the energy and renewable credits it needs through at least 2014. And that puts a crimp in the young industry.

“You get more private investment and more jobs if you involve more third-party developers,” says Kurt Olsen, staff counsel for the N.C. Sustainable Energy Association. “Duke is doing most of it on its own.”

Here’s how developers view the problem in a nutshell.

In 2007, the N.C. General Assembly adopted the Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard. It requires utilities to produce a specific percentage of the power they sell from solar and other alternative sources. One of the avowed aims was to encourage renewable-energy businesses in the state.

The industry’s development, however, is dependent on power-purchase agreements with utilities.

Duke did one big purchase deal with an out-of-of state solar firm and then used a few N.C. companies as installers for its company-owned distributed-energy projects. It’s buying a quarter of its renewable solar credits from outside the state. Little of Duke’s solar spending is going to N.C. companies.

“Duke is choosing to comply in a way that doesn’t happen to encourage folks outside of Duke Energy,” says Elizabeth Ouzts, Environment North Carolina state director and co-author of a new report on potential solar jobs in the state.

Progress has followed a different plan. It has no project bigger than 2.3 megawatts. And its SunSense Commercial program will pay 18 cents per kilowatt-hour for power from projects in the 100-kilowatt to 250-kilowatt range.

That is a premium price, but it’s paid only for modest-sized commercial projects. Progress spokesman Scott Sutton says the idea is to give startups and smaller developers a piece of the pie. Since starting the SunSense program last summer, Progress has agreed to buy power from eight projects already built or under construction. It hopes to sign deals for four more megawatts of capacity this year.

Solar companies have some issues with Progress’ SunSense program — Pehl is particularly critical of the company’s 250-kilowatt cap. But Carolina Solar’s Harkrader credits Progress with at least establishing a market for independent producers in the Carolinas.

And Harkrader’s company also has a purchase-power agreement with Progress for a larger, 550-kilowatt project in Pearson County.

He says he has found his dealings with Duke particularly frustrating. Carolina Solar wants to build a 2- to 4-megawatt solar farm at the proposed ReVenture eco-energy park near Mount Holly.

ReVenture offered to sell Duke the power for less than 14 cents per kilowatt-hour.

Duke said no.

ReVenture developer Tom McKittrick of Forsite Development Inc. says the site has about 25 acres set aside for a solar farm. But Forsite is too engrossed in negotiating a power-purchase agreement with Duke for its proposed biomass power plant to worry about solar right now.

“We gotta eat the elephant one bite at a time,” McKittrick says.

So Charlotte solar companies are generally looking eastward for business. Greenfield Power, based in Charlotte, has no significant commercial projects in Duke’s region. Its largest project is a 250-kilowatt rooftop solar array it’s building at the Global Transpark in Kinston — with Progress buying the power through SunSense.

And two of Progress’ three largest solar projects were developed by companies with Charlotte ties. Birds-eye Renewable Energy of Charlotte is developing a 2.3-megawatt solar farm near Laurinburg owned by MT² Capital. And Advanced Green Technologies, which is based in Florida but maintains its North Carolina office in Charlotte, developed a 1.27-megawatt project at a warehouse in Carteret County.

None of those companies have projects with Duke.

Smith says Duke supports solar development in the state. But he says it feels large farms and in-house construction of small projects offer economies of scale that cannot be matched by independent developers.

Harkrader disputes that. He says there is no evidence Duke can produce solar power for the 11 to 12 cents per kilowatt-hour it has pegged as its value, based on how much it costs Duke to generate energy by traditional means and the value of renewable-energy credits.

And he says the proper comparison would be with the cost of producing energy from new plants. Industry data indicate it’s likely to cost Duke 10 to 12 cents per kilowatt-hour to produce power from its Cliffside coal-fired plant. And Duke gets no renewable-energy credits with coal, making the equivalent price closer to closer to 15 cents.

“That is what solar power should be compared to,” Harkrader says.

Duke believes the market should set the price for solar, Smith says. In the company’s view, competition from Duke and large developers will bring down the price for solar projects and offer customers the best deal for renewable energy. Duke foresees prices going down, and that makes it even less eager to sign new purchase agreements now.

It will wait out the market and look for better deals, Smith says.

BRIGHTER FUTURE?

A green-jobs report released this week projects at least 28,000 new jobs in North Carolina could come from the solar-energy industry.

But that’s only if the state sets a benchmark of using the sun to generate 14% of the electricity consumed in the state by the year 2030. Current state mandates require power companies to produce only 0.2 % of the energy they sell in North Carolina from solar power by 2018.

Ratcheting up the requirements could boost annual wages by $1.6 billion by 2030, at an average salary of $45,000, according to the report from the Environment North Carolina Research & Policy Center. The solar industry’s annual gross investment in the state could exceed $2.5 billion by that year, the report says.

The 28,000 new-jobs figure is the low-end estimate, says Elizabeth Ouzts, the statewide nonprofit’s state director and co-author of the report, titled Working With the Sun: How Solar Power Can Protect North Carolina’s Environment and Create New Jobs.

In 2009, the green-power industry — which also includes wind, biomass and energy efficiency — employed about 10,000 workers and made more than $3.5 billion in revenue statewide, according to the report. More than 100 businesses in North Carolina either develop, build, install or sell solar energy systems.

Susan Stabley

IDEA Seeking Case Studies or Stories to Share with IURC on Net Metering

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

Dear Readers,

These are the written remarks I received from Don Mahoney following his testimony at the Senate Utilities and Technology Committee hearing earlier this year on the pending net metering legislation. IDEA is currently seeking more case studies or storied to share with the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission during their meeting on June 3rd.

Please send this information to me: Laura.Arnold@indianaDG.org.

Thank you. 

18 February 2010

Mr. Chairman, Committee Members,

We are Don and Nancy Mahoney of Argos, Marshall County, IN.

We appreciate this opportunity to share with you our personal experience as an owner/operator of a small electric generation facility in Indiana.  We applaud your efforts and we enthusiastically support net metering.  However, we believe that it must apply equally to all customers of all electric utilities, not to just the customers of investor owned utilities.  We are customers and members of a Rural Electric Membership Cooperative, which is not subject to IURC regulation and is exempt from this bill as it currently is written.

My wife and I invested in a 17.5 kWh wind turbine at our rural farm home.  Why?  Because we believe that everyone – including us – has the responsibility to manage and use our world’s resources both prudently and wisely.

During ten months of production during 2009, our turbine generated an average of 1,150 kWh per month.  Of this monthly production we used 785 kWh as it was generated and we sent 365 kWh into the grid.  Because wind generation varies, we drew an average of 390 kWh per month from the grid.  For the 390 kWh we drew from the grid, we paid the full retail charge of approximately $.11 kWh.  For the 365 kWh we sent to the grid, we received the “avoided cost” rate which is less than 1/3 the retail rate.  Incidentally, we have received notice than the 2010 “avoided cost” rate will decrease by more than 25%.  Are any of you expecting your electric bill to decrease this year?  At all – much less by 25%?

In addition to the per kWh cost of electricity, there is a monthly connection fee.  Our REMC had three connection fee categories: residential, agricultural and commercial.  Last year they created a fourth category; a producer category which monthly fee is twice the residential fee and more than 150% the commercial fee.  Although a sub-station of an investor owned utility is within 1/8 mile of our home, unfortunately we do not have a choice of who is our electric utility. 

Therefore, in order to develop a progressive and equitable uniform policy that applies to all owner/producer customers of all Indiana utilities, we ask that you address these issues during your consideration of this pending legislation.

We would be pleased to share our figures with you.  Thank you.

IURC Seeking Comment on Net Metering Rules June 3rd

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   May 25, 2010  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   1 Comments

Initial public meeting will be held in Indianapolis
 
What: The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission is seeking comment on the existing net metering rules in Indiana Administrative Code 4-4.2-1. The public, media and other stakeholders are encouraged to share their thoughts and attend the Commission’s first public meeting that will be held in Indianapolis. 
 
The format of the public meeting will include comments from interested parties and potentially follow-up questions by Commission representatives. The Commission is making itself available to listen and receive feedback from those who wish to speak about the existing rules and their experiences with them.
 
Although oral comments will be accepted by the Commission, it is recommended that participants also submit written comments so they can be logged and recorded for future reference. Forms will be made available at the meeting so that consumers can submit comments in writing.
 
When: The public meeting will be held on June 3, 2010 at 10:00 a.m.
 
*Two additional public meetings will be held outside of Indianapolis. Details will be forthcoming.
 
Where: The meeting will be held at the National City Center, 101 W. Washington Street, Indianapolis, IN, 46204 in Judicial Courtroom 222.  
 
Why: Since the establishment of the net metering rules in 2005, the Commission has reviewed their effectiveness and has monitored the annual net metering reports submitted by the utilities. The Commission would now like to elicit additional feedback from interested parties to determine whether the rules should be updated. [See excerpt below. ] 
 
 
Joseph Sutherland
Executive Director
Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission
101 West Washington Street, Suite 1500 East
Indianapolis, IN  46204
Tel:      317-233-4723
Fax:     317-232-6758
e-mail:  jsutherland@urc.IN.gov

IURC STAFF WHITE PAPER
Energy Policy Act of 2005:
 
 
 

Suggested Standards for State Consideration
 
 
 
 

April 2006
 
 
 
 

 

 From pages 3-4.

Suggested Standards for Consideration

 

Net Metering

 

Amendments to PURPA; Sec. 1251; amending 16 USC 2621(d) by adding (11) – Net Metering

 

“Each electric utility shall make available upon request net metering service to anyelectric consumer that the electric utility serves. For purposes of this paragraph, the term ‘net metering service’ means service to an electric consumer under which electric energy generated by that electric consumer from an eligible on-site generating facility and delivered to the local distribution facilities may be used to offset electric energy provided by the electric utility to the electric consumer during the applicable billing period.”1

 

Introduction

Net metering service as defined means service to an electric consumer under which electric energy generated by that electric consumer from an eligible on-site generating facility and delivered to the local distribution facilities may be used to offset electric energy provided by the electric utility to the electric consumer during the applicable billing period. Net metering serves as an incentive to the installation of eligible facilities by consumers. Without net metering a consumer with an installed generator could “stop” the metering when it was generating more electricity than it was consuming, while under net metering the same consumer can “run the meter backward” during such conditions and essentially create a savings bank of any excess energy it generates. This incentive provides an opportunity for an additional offset to the costs the specific consumer sees when they elect to become a partial generator of their own electrical needs.

 

The rules under which net metering is provided should strike a balance between providing an incentive to a specific participating consumer, protecting the legitimate financial and safety interests of the affected utility, and not creating unwarranted subsidies born by the non-participating consumers. The factors which define a net metering program are primarily any generator type and size limitations, class of customers allowed to participate, details of the billing process, interconnection costs and operation standards, and definition of the liabilities born by both the utility and the participating customer.

 The vast majority of states have created rules which allow for net metering. The terms and conditions for the specific state programs vary widely and are generally reflective of the specific electricity regulatory environment of each state.

 

 

Indiana Today

Indiana investor-owned utilities are required to offer net metering in accordance with 170 IAC 4-4.2, “Net Metering Rule”. The net metering rule was approved in October 2004 and provides an opportunity for residential customers and K-12 schools with solar, wind, or hydro-electric facilities with a nameplate capacity of 10 kW or less. A standard simplified interconnection would add no costs for utility analysis or inspections to the customer, any earned energy credits are carried forward indefinitely, and requires the customer to carry a nominal amount of insurance, $100,000, for related liability.

 

Status vs. EPAct05 Requirement

 

The EPAct05 suggested standard calls for net metering to be available to any electric utility customer. The recently completed Indiana rule making considered the full range of variables and determined through the process prescribed by IC 4-22-2 the applicable terms and conditions under which Indiana electric utilities must offer net metering to their customers.

 

Future Action Plan

None required; the recently completed rulemaking satisfies the EPAct05 requirement of considering this suggested standard.

 


 1 In the context of PURPA, the IURC, with respect to each electric utility for which it has rate making authority, undertakes the consideration of the suggested standards.

 

Kerry and Lieberman Proposal Scales Back Energy Efficiency Provisions, Raising Costs to Consumers

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   May 13, 2010  /   Posted in Emissions Trading/Cap and Trade, Federal energy legislation, Uncategorized  /   No Comments

In an effort to provide readers with different perspectives and analysis of the Kerry Lieberman Energy Bill released yesterday, please find below a news release from ACEEE.

ACEEE NEWS RELEASE

Contact: Steven Nadel, 202-507-4011 

Media Contact: Glee Murray, 202-507-4010  

Click here for the Web version

Washington, D.C. (May 12, 2010): The compromise Kerry-Lieberman proposal released today misses out on a key opportunity to address the cost of curbing climate change by including little on energy efficiency - the first, best, and least-cost carbon-reduction opportunity. The Kerry-Lieberman proposal does much less for energy efficiency than previous major climate change bills. Relative to the climate bills passed by the House and reported out by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, two major energy efficiency provisions have been dramatically reduced. These are provisions that provide emissions allowances to fund a variety of state energy efficiency programs and a requirement that gas utilities use a portion of their free emissions allowances to operate energy efficiency programs. On state programs, Kerry and Lieberman provide less than a quarter of the allowances provided in the House-passed energy and climate bill. On natural gas programs, Kerry and Lieberman have reduced the minimum share of allowances to energy efficiency from one-third to one-fifth. On the other hand, the Kerry-Lieberman proposal does include several useful transportation provisions and also a small short-term program for industrial efficiency.

 "Our analysis of the House-passed climate bill found that consumer bill savings from energy efficiency offset the costs to consumers of greenhouse gas emissions limits, making the overall package affordable to consumers," stated Steven Nadel, Executive Director for the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). "The Kerry-Lieberman proposal will result in only limited energy savings, and without these savings, costs to consumers will be higher."

 In addition to concerns about cuts to energy efficiency provisions, ACEEE also noted that by providing rebates to consumers through their energy bills, the Kerry-Lieberman proposal would also reduce the incentive for consumers to conserve energy on their own. "For the market for energy efficiency to work, consumers need to see the costs of inefficiency on their energy bills. While we support consumer rebates to offset costs, these rebates should be provided in other ways, rather than directly on energy bills," noted Nadel.

 In remarks leading up to today's introduction, Senators Kerry and Lieberman have acknowledged the positive role energy efficiency can play, and have referred to the energy efficiency provisions in an energy bill reported out by the Senate Energy Committee. However, according to a previous analysis

by ACEEE, the majority of energy savings in the Senate Energy Committee bill requires funding that was expected to come from a climate bill, but such funding is missing from the Kerry-Lieberman bill. "The bill does take important steps towards lowering transportation-sector emissions by requiring national goals for transportation reductions, as well as state and metro area targets. More federal dollars are available to help reach those targets than in previous bills, though acceptable uses for those funds could be better defined. In addition, the bill offers substantial assistance to auto manufacturers and suppliers for clean vehicle production, including plug-ins; unfortunately, vehicle efficiency performance requirements for this program are quite weak," stated ACEEE Transportation Program Director Therese Langer. 

 The previous ACEEE analysis on the House-passed energy and climate bill concluded that the energy efficiency provisions in the bill would save the average American household about $200 annually by 2020. These consumer savings would exceed the non-efficiency costs per household of the legislation, which the Congressional Budget Office estimated to be $175 in 2020. ACEEE also estimated the energy savings of the energy bill reported out by the Senate Energy Committee and found that this bill would save less than half the energy of the House-passed bill. Of the savings in the Senate Energy Committee bill, more than 60% of the savings are dependent on Congress providing funding for the provisions. Without this funding, savings from the Senate Energy Committee bill will be about one-quarter of the savings from the House-passed bill.

 "We support the intent and efforts of Senators Kerry and Lieberman. However, in order to enact their proposal, they will need to make the case that it will not have adverse effects on consumers. Unfortunately, by gutting the energy efficiency provisions in their bill, they have created a huge impediment to make this case. They have pulled the plug on the most effective carbon-reduction strategy," concluded Nadel. "We urge the Senate to build upon the meager energy efficiency provisions in the Kerry-Lieberman bill in order to reduce the costs to consumers of addressing climate change."

ACEEE's analysis of ACES: http://www.aceee.org/energy/national/houseenergyandclimate.htm

 #####

 

About ACEEE: The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy is an independent, nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing energy efficiency as a means of promoting economic prosperity, energy security, and environmental protection. 2010 marks ACEEE's 30th anniversary as an organization. For information about ACEEE and its programs, publications, and conferences, contact ACEEE, 529 14th Street N.W., Suite 600, Washington, D.C.20045 or visit aceee.org. Follow ACEEE on Facebook, Twitter and Flickr!

 

Copyright 2013 IndianaDG