Author Archives Laura Arnold

IURC Approves IPL Feed-in Tariff or Rate REP (Renewable Energy Production)

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   February 11, 2010  /   Posted in Feed-in Tariffs (FiT), Uncategorized  /   2 Comments

At its weekly conference 02/10/2010 the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) approved orders in Cause No. 43623. The commission issued two orders for Phase I and Phase II of this docket. Below describes the Phase I order.

Phase l includes several programs of special interest to renewable energy and distributed generation advocates including:

  • creation of a new Feed-in Tariff (FiT) called Rate REP (Renewable Energy Production)
  • changes to IPL's net metering tariff; and
  • creation of funds for customer buy downs for renewable energy systems up to $4000 for a total of $100,000 for each of the next three years.

The order is now available for the next week for download on the IURC website at: http://www.in.gov/iurc/files/43623Iorder_021010.pdf

Below are excerpts from the ordering paragraphs of the order issued today:

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE INDIANA UTILITY REGULATORY COMMISSION that:
 
1. IPL's proposed Phase I DSM Program is approved as modified in Finding Paragraph 10.C. above.  

2. IPL's proposed new Rate REP (Renewable Energy Production) is approved as set forth herein.

3. IPL shall file with the Electricity Division of the Commission, prior to placing into effect, the revised and new tariff sheets of IPL's Tariff for Electric Service reflecting the approval of changes to Rider No.9 and Rider No. 13, and new Rider No. 22 and Rate REP (Renewable Energy Production).

4. IPL is hereby authorized to recover the costs incurred under Rate REP pursuant to Ind. Code § 8-1-2-42(a) and Ind. Code § 8-1-8.8 to be administered within its FAC proceedings (or successor mechanism). This recovery shall not be subject to any FAC benchmark review or the Ind. Code § 8-1-2-42( d) (1 ) test.

5. If IPL chooses to monetize RECs associated with renewable energy purchased under Rate REP, IPL shall use the revenues to first offset the costs of the purchased power and next to credit the jurisdictional ratepayers through the FAC proceeding.

6. Any long-term contracts between IPL and its customers wishing to sell renewable energy under Rate REP shall be submitted to the Commission for approval utilizing the 30-day filing process.

7. Changes to the standard rates contained in Rate REP shall be submitted to the Commission for approval utilizing the 30-day filing process.

Here is a fact sheet prepared BEFORE the order was issued describing IPL's proposed renewable energy programs. I guess the trick now is to figure out from reading the order if these programs actually go into effect as proposed.

Summary of IPL Renewable Energy Proposals Included in New DSM – IURC Cause No. 43623

Net Metering (Current Standard Contract Rider No. 9):

  1. Expanded to be available to all customers. 
  2. Capacity limits increased from 10 kW to 50 kW

 

Renewable Energy Feed-In Rate REP

  1. Available to all customers not on Net Metering Rider 9.
  2. Applicable to generating capacity of 50 kW (20 kW for solar PV) to 10 MW
  3. All production will be metered and purchased by IPL (not just net of use)
  4. IPL retains all environmental attributes (e.g. RECs) to be used for compliance with an RPS or sold to the market for the credit of all customers.
  5. Allows for multi-year contracting of production and pricing (allows for project financing)
  6. Standard pricing to be adjusted periodically using a 30-filing process and will take into account DSM incentives, tax credits and other influences so as to not create a windfall for developers.

Incentive for Small Scale Renewable Energy Projects:

  1. A $2 per watt incentive available to customers who install a small scale renewable energy project – capped at $4,000 per customer.
  2. For example – a 2 kW solar PV system costs around $20,000 – Federal Tax Credits are currently at 30%.  Federal Tax Credits, bundled with IPL’s incentives, reduce the customer cost by about one-half – not precisely correct due to interaction of incentives and taxes but representative for illustrative purposes.
  3. Available to all but the largest IPL customers – the largest customers not included in the “core” DSM proposal (largest customers are included in the AMI proposal)
  4. Net-Metered and Feed-In Tariff Customers are NOT excluded from receiving an incentive.
  5. Total incentives for all customers are capped at $100,000 per year – or approximately enough to do about 20 systems per year.

Keep checking this blog for more details and analysis of this order.

Gathering PACE

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   February 06, 2010  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Editor's Note: Although PACE legislation was not introduced during the 2010 session of the Indiana General Assembly, the concept is being discussed by state lawmakers and renewable energy advocates such as IDEA. We hope PACE legislation will be introduced during the 2011 session. Your thoughts and suggestions please.

January 27, 2010

From Solar Nation http://www.solar-nation.org/2010/01/27/gathering-pace/

 We wouldn’t normally revisit a subject as many times as this, but things are moving even faster than we thought on the subject of solar installations funded through property taxes.

 We first reported on this phenomenon a year ago in connection with the first community to activate such a program: Berkeley, CA, in November 2008.   This was, appropriately enough, the Berkeley FIRST program.  By July 2009, interest in property-assessed clean energy (PACE) programs was spreading across the country, and in November last year we wrote about the efforts of the state of New York to allow for special tax financing districts as a precursor to launching their own PACE program.

 Nothing succeeds like success, and there are now no fewer than eighteen states with PACE legislation on their books.*  Better yet, the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) is offering free technical assistance to local governments who are starting PACE programs with ARRA (stimulus) funds.

 Resources.

 You’ll find a concise introduction to the PACE concept on the Department’s Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy web site.  It makes the points that while PACE allows for secure financing over a long term and reduces the homeowner’s exposure and upfront barriers, it also involves a more tortuous legal and administrative process that can, for now at least, drag the financing and permitting process out.

 It also references, significantly, the fact that traditional lenders may be resistive to the idea of being second lien holder to the city on the financial instrument.  In some places, according to Merrian Fuller of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, banking associations have challenged state enabling legislation.  As a result, most communities are taking precautions, e.g., limiting the assessment size, notifying lenders, and in the case of commercial property requiring lender sign-off.   If this is a trend, it’s worth monitoring, for although the law has, to date, been on the side of PACE programs, it would be a tragedy if today’s banking industry were to pour cold water on tomorrow’s prospects for  affordable solar.

 The Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy web site also contains links to these webcasts that DoE has given:

 Introduction to PACE financing programs

 Legal issues re PACE financing programs

 Getting Started: legal authority & administering PACE financing programs

 Another valuable tool is the University of California at Berkeley’s Guide to Establishing a PACE Program, a “how-to” for municipalities and regions.

 Why are we providing all this information?  Because if you’re a local government official, you may want to jump on this accelerating bandwagon that’s such an obvious crowd-pleaser (and here’s how to ask for DoE’s help:  FinancingRapidResponse@ee.doe.gov. )  If you’re a solar citizen who thinks (rightly) that this is the best thing since sliced silicon, you can present all this information to officials at your next public meeting and ask if they plan to get on board.

 And don’t take no for an answer!

 *California, Colorado, Florida (under existing law), Hawaii (under existing law), Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin

Energy-Inc. wants to make Elkhart County the Green capital of the U.S.

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   February 04, 2010  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Energy-Inc. is still working with potential business partners to plan a $100 million proposed facility, but already has high expectations.

Published: 2/4/2010 12:00:00 AM  Last Updated: 2/4/2010 12:03:09 AM

By: Tim Vandenack 

This story appeared in the Elkhart Truth. See http://www.etruth.com/Know/Business/Story.aspx?ID=504781

GOSHEN -- Energy-Inc. can't be accused of setting its sights low.

"We want to make Elkhart County the greenest county in the United States," Patrick Hogan, business development manager for the the company, said Wednesday.

Still, there's no firm timeline for construction of the company's proposed plant north of Middlebury that would manufacture green energy-generating equipment, employing up to 500. The timing, he told a group in Goshen, depends on finalization of negotiations with several would-be users of the equipment Energy-Inc. plans to make.

Though contract talks in connection with five potential projects are pending, the firm can't start operating if it doesn't have enough equipment to build. "It just depends on when the contracts get done," Hogan said.

At the same time, talks continue with county leaders over Energy-Inc.'s $100 million proposal to develop a facility at the Elkhart County Landfill that would convert the waste there into energy. The county picked Energy-Inc. last December over two other firms to build and operate the waste-to-energy plant, setting a March 31 deadline for negotiation of a formal agreement.

"Literally it's just working out the fine details on that," he said. A final accord, which would require no county investment, could be coming "soon."

'WAVE OF THE FUTURE'

Energy-Inc.'s plans to build the manufacturing facility near Middlebury at a cost of up to $96 million came to light last August. The Las Vegas-based firm plans to build equipment at the plant that customers would buy or lease to convert the waste they generate into usable energy via pyrolysis or gasification.

Its landfill proposal is a separate project. However, the facility there would use the same technology Energy-Inc. plans to manufacture to convert incoming garbage into energy for use at the adjacent Elkhart County jail.

Delays in the Middlebury plans aside -- a company official initially said production could start as early as last October, later moving the date to December -- Hogan sounded an optimistic message Wednesday. He was addressing the monthly meeting of Sound of the Environment, a discussion group that focuses on sustainability issues.

GOSHEN -- Energy-Inc. can't be accused of setting its sights low.
"We want to make Elkhart County the greenest county in the United States," Patrick Hogan, business development manager for the the company, said Wednesday.

Still, there's no firm timeline for construction of the company's proposed plant north of Middlebury that would manufacture green energy-generating equipment, employing up to 500. The timing, he told a group in Goshen, depends on finalization of negotiations with several would-be users of the equipment Energy-Inc. plans to make.

Though contract talks in connection with five potential projects are pending, the firm can't start operating if it doesn't have enough equipment to build. "It just depends on when the contracts get done," Hogan said.

At the same time, talks continue with county leaders over Energy-Inc.'s $100 million proposal to develop a facility at the Elkhart County Landfill that would convert the waste there into energy. The county picked Energy-Inc. last December over two other firms to build and operate the waste-to-energy plant, setting a March 31 deadline for negotiation of a formal agreement.

"Literally it's just working out the fine details on that," he said. A final accord, which would require no county investment, could be coming "soon."

'WAVE OF THE FUTURE'

Energy-Inc.'s plans to build the manufacturing facility near Middlebury at a cost of up to $96 million came to light last August. The Las Vegas-based firm plans to build equipment at the plant that customers would buy or lease to convert the waste they generate into usable energy via pyrolysis or gasification.

Its landfill proposal is a separate project. However, the facility there would use the same technology Energy-Inc. plans to manufacture to convert incoming garbage into energy for use at the adjacent Elkhart County jail.

Delays in the Middlebury plans aside -- a company official initially said production could start as early as last October, later moving the date to December -- Hogan sounded an optimistic message Wednesday. He was addressing the monthly meeting of Sound of the Environment, a discussion group that focuses on sustainability issues.

"We obviously see this as great technology and the wave of the future," he said.

Pyrolysis and gasification, by superheating the waste to be handled, leave behind only trace emissions, he said. The processes produce a synthetic gas that can be used to power generators or be converted into liquified form and shipped.

Moreover, by being the home base to operations like Energy-Inc. and electric auto manufacturer Think North America, Elkhart County bolsters its environmental credentials.

"To be honest, I think it's a great marketing piece, not only for the county but for everybody," Hogan said.

Here are some other highlights from Hogan's presentation:

* Other firms are developing the same sort of technology as Energy-Inc. and it has been in use for eight years at a handful of facilities abroad. More and more firms tapping the potential of pyrolysis and gasification will probably pop up in the next two to five years, he thinks.

* No large-scale facility currently converts municipal garbage into energy, as Energy-Inc. proposes at the county landfill. One in the United Kingdom processes medical waste, though, and company officials are confident the process with plain old trash is viable. "That's why we're putting our money on it," Hogan said, alluding to the proposed $100 million investment.

* The number of workers at the plant north of Middlebury wouldn't start at 500, but would gradually ramp up toward the level as orders for Energy-Inc. equipment increase.

* Though the equipment from the plant near Middlebury would be geared to entities and operations that generate large quantities of waste, Hogan envisions a day when homeowners could use smaller units to convert their household waste into power.

Click here for more information about Energy-Inc.

NREL: Feed-in Tariffs Legal in USA When Certain Conditions Met; Report Charts Path through Regulatory Minefield

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   February 04, 2010  /   Posted in Feed-in Tariffs (FiT), Uncategorized  /   No Comments

February 4, 2010

By Paul Gipe
661 325 9590, 661 472 1657 mobile
pgipe@igc.org, www.wind-works.org

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has issued a long-awaited legal analysis of how states could implement feed-in tariffs and still comply with federal law.

The January 2010 report, Renewable Energy Prices in State-Level Feed-in Tariffs: Federal Law Constraints and Possible Solutions, was written principally by Scott Hempling with the National Regulatory Research Institute (NRRI) under contract to NREL.

Hempling treads ground that others have tread before him, including California's Attorney General, Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown. The Attorney General filed comments on who has jurisdiction to set feed-in tariffs with California's Public Utility Commission in August of 2009 . Brown concluded that the state could set feed-in tariffs sufficient to pay for renewable energy development while complying with federal law.

NRRI's Hempling, like Brown, concludes that states can offer feed-in tariffs, but the programs creating the feed-in tariffs must be structured in a way that meets federal requirements.

There's ample ammunition in the Hempling report to stoke either side in the feed-in tariff debate.

Opponents have long argued that feed-in tariffs are illegal in the US. They will find ample solace in the report that the European or Canadian approach of setting specific tariffs directly won't comply with current federal law or its interpretation. Hempling says, in essence, that states can't set specific tariffs above "avoided cost" under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) of 1978.

However, Hempling goes on to chart a path to implementing feed-in tariffs that avoids the regulatory minefield under PURPA and the Federal Power Act. Hempling describes how states can set total payments, or equivalent feed-in tariffs, above avoided cost in compliance with federal law. The path may appear more circuitous, in comparison to that in other countries, but it is, nevertheless, clear.

Feed-in tariff programs work best, that is, they quickly develop a significant amount of renewable energy, when the tariffs are based on the cost of generation plus a reasonable profit. In these programs, there are a suite of tariffs for solar PV, another set for wind energy, and so on. The tariffs for solar PV in these programs are much higher than the "avoided cost" of a conventional natural gas-fired power plant in the US.

California's largely ineffective feed-in tariff introduced at the end of 2008 pays $0.096 USD/kWh for projects installed in 2010. The tariff, there is only one tariff, is based on the Market Price Referent, California's term of art for the avoided cost of a natural gas-fired plant. By mid 2009 the tariff had resulted in only 17 MW of generation. Even with generous federal subsidies, this tariff is insufficient for most technologies, but especially for solar PV, the most expensive of the new renewable energy technologies.

There are two paths to lawful feed-in tariffs argues Hempling: the PURPA path, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) path.

The PURPA Path

Feed-in tariffs can be lawful under PURPA if the feed-in tariffs are "voluntarily" offered by the utility, or if the tariffs are based on "avoided cost" and any additional payments necessary to make workable tariffs are derived from

  • Renewable Energy Credits (or certificates),
  • Subsidies (cash grants), or
  • Utility tax credits equivalent to the amount of the additional payment (as in Washington State).

These "supplemental" forms of payment fall outside FERC's jurisdiction.

Voluntary Tariffs

Feed-in tariffs, whether above avoided cost or not, are permissible if a utility proposes them "voluntarily" as in Indiana where Indianapolis Power & Light (IP&L) has a suite of proposed tariffs before the state's Utility Regulatory Commission. IP&L has proposed a solar PV tariff for systems from 20 kW to 100 kW of $0.24 USD/kWh-a tariff clearly above the current avoided cost of gas-fired plants.

This provision is less useful than it first appears. In states where earnings are not decoupled from investments in generation, it is not in the self-interest of utilities to offer functional feed-in tariffs that supplant their own generation with non-utility generation.

Additional Payments

Both Hempling's report and Brown's PUC filing argue PURPA stipulates the payment of "avoided cost". This restriction doesn't preclude other forms of payment that "tops up" or adds to the avoided cost. Thus, the total payment, or total tariff, can be based on the cost of generation. These top up payments can come from many sources: Renewable Energy Credits, subsidies or other payments, and state tax credits.

Renewable Energy Credits

In states with Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), or renewable energy mandates, utilities are required to produce a certain portion of their generation with renewable energy. Regulators track the amount of renewable energy generated by issuing "credits" for units of renewable energy. These credits can be traded, and the trades establish a value that can be added to the avoided cost. However, it is not necessary to trade the credits to establish their value.

The value of the credits can be established administratively for any of a host of reasons: environmental values, climate change avoidance, distributed benefits, and so on. Thus, the total tariff can include a Renewable Energy Credit designed to reach the total cost of generation plus a reasonable profit when added to the "avoided cost".

Other Payments

Similarly, other forms of payments can be added to the avoided cost. Hempling suggests subsidies or cash grants as the top up payment, but it need not be limited to taxpayer subsidies.

Swiss feed-in tariffs, for example, pay a tariff that is comprised of two parts: the wholesale cost, and a top up payment. In the Swiss system, the top up payment is paid out of a Systems Benefit Charge, a pool of money collected from ratepayers for a public good, in this case the development of renewable energy.

Creating a pool of funds to pay for the portion of tariffs that exceed the avoided cost through a Systems Benefit Charge can work, but the policy must be designed with care. Such charges create a defined and, therefore potentially limited, pool of funds. These pools can, depending upon design, effectively place a monetary cap on renewable energy programs separate from the physical targets in RPS programs. While this defined pool of funds might be appealing to timid politicians wanting to limit the perceived cost of renewable energy, it often leads to a boom and bust cycle so characteristic of US renewable energy policy.

However, successful feed-in tariff programs, such as in Germany, use what is in essence a Systems Benefit Charge. The charge, and hence the size of the pool, is "flexible" and is applied to ratepayers after-the-fact, that is, the pool is sized to pay for the renewables on the system. Unlike pools where the charge is fixed and the pool of funds to pay for renewable generation is limited, Germany's pool adjusts annually to pay for the actual amount of renewable generation. The pool expands as more renewables are added and the charge to ratepayers adjusts accordingly.

The German strategy of flexible or annually adjusted charges make sense because it is not inconceivable that as more renewables are added to the system, and as fossil fuels become more expensive, the charges, or "overcost" as the French call them, will actually decrease.

French bank Caisse des Dépôts examined the overcost of French feed-in tariffs in late 2008. Their findings flew in the face of conventional wisdom: as more renewables were added to the system, especially wind, the overcost declined.

State Utility Tax Credits

Washington State's net-metering policy was built around a top up payment that utilities could offset with state tax credits. The total payments, while attractive, have only been modestly successful because of numerous restrictions on the program to limit the program's cost to the state treasury.

FERC Path

Feed-in tariffs can also be lawful under the Federal Power Act if the tariffs are

  • Cost-based, or
  • Market-based.

If the tariffs are cost-based, each contract must be reviewed by FERC, says Hempling. Thus, if a homeowner installs a 5 kW solar system and signs a contract with a utility, it must have the contract reviewed by FERC. This is a nightmare scenario for small power producers.

If the tariffs are market-based, such as through an "auction", the "seller" must issue a "market-power" report to FERC every three years. Again, compliance through this route is too cumbersome for widespread adoption.

Less than 20 MW Exemption

However, Hempling notes that these onerous conditions could be superseded if FERC took one of several actions. Most importantly, FERC has granted "exemptions" from PURPA for generators less than 20 MW. These generators can sell at any price without seeking FERC approval. Hempling suggests that state regulatory commissions could ask FERC for a "clarification" that above avoided-cost tariffs would qualify automatically for the less than 20 MW exemptions if they met certain conditions. This is a promising near-term fix that would allow compliance with PURPA and the Federal Power Act without relying on a two-tiered tariff made up of avoided cost and some form of additional payment.

The California Energy Commission in its 2009 Integrated Energy Policy Report recommends that the state seek "clarification of federal law to ensure that states can implement cost-based feed-in tariffs".

Other Exemptions

Hempling notes that Hawaii, Alaska, and most of Texas are exempt from the Federal Power Act.

Long-Term Solutions

While the use of RECs or SBC funds to pay for the portion of feed-in tariffs above avoided cost is administratively more complex and consequently more costly than simply setting a tariff and putting the cost in the rate base, it can be done. Regulatory commissions and the utilities themselves are fully capable of and in fact do administer such funds in several states.

While such a system can work, and in the US legal system since the Civil War, it may be necessary, such an approach treats renewable energy differently than utility-owned conventional generation that is put into the rate base. It treats renewables as a cost to the system and to ratepayers not as an integral part of the utility system as in Ontario and Germany.

That the principle federal law governing renewable energy, PURPA, treats renewable energy in this second-class way shouldn't be surprising, considering that the law passed more than three decades ago. Even then the first major wind farms were not erected in California until several years later when the PUC created the world's first feed-in tariff, California's famous Interim Standard Offer Contract No. 4.

The bigger question of whether US law will continue to treat renewable energy as a burdensome addition to the existing utility system remains. Unless these legal precedents in the US are clarified or revised, the US' competitive position will continue to erode in comparison to such states as China, India, Germany, and Japan that look at renewable energy differently.

Germany confronted just such a question of how to treat renewable energy in the late 1990s and the Bundestag, Germany's parliament, acted. The result is the now famous Renewable Energy Sources Act, also known as the law on granting renewable energy priority access to the grid. In the Act, renewable energy is treated not only as a necessary and integral part of the electricity system, it was given preference and the payments needed to profitably develop renewable energy, even costly solar PV, were deemed desirable and the costs put in the rate base.

While every German consumer pays out of pocket for renewable energy development on their utility bill, study after study has consistently shown that the benefits to both German consumers and German citizens as a whole outweigh the monetary costs. In fact, the monetary benefits of offsetting conventional generation from plants on the margin, the so-called merit-order effect, alone outweighs the full cost of the tariffs, including the payments to Germany's massive development of solar PV.

Congressmen Jay Inslee and his co-sponsors have proposed fixes to PURPA in the Waxman-Markey climate change bill. This may be the best that can be hoped for from the currently dysfunctional US Congress. But even this well-meaning effort falls short of the re-orientation of US renewable policy that is called for.

For now, the Hempling report clarifies for states that want to act how to do so. For those that want to act, it points them in the direction they need to go to meet FERC's constraints. For those states that don't want to act or are afraid of doing so, the report gives them sufficient legal cover to avoid taking the steps necessary.

To paraphrase a 68-page legal opinion: "Yes, we can implement feed-in tariffs in the US under existing law, we just have to do it differently than everywhere else in the world".

The path forward is clear for those states that want to aggressively develop renewable energy in an equitable manner. The choice is theirs to make.

-End-

Net Metering Bills Pass Senate and House

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   February 03, 2010  /   Posted in 2010 Indiana General Assembly, Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Both net metering bills in the 2010 session of the Indiana General Assembly passed third reading or final passage in their House of Origin.

SB 313 introduced by Sen. Jim Merritt, Jr. (R-Indianapolis) called down his net metering in the Indiana Senate around 5:20 pm. Sen. Merritt presented a summary of the bill emphasizing that the bill expands net metering to all customer classes. During his comments at the microphone, Merritt said the bill allows utility customers to “produce what you use, use what you produce”.

Sen. Merritt addressed questions from Sen. Phil Boots (R-Crawfordsville) about whether there was a 1:1 reduction in a customer’s bill. Sen. Merritt responded that customers buy at retail and put electricity back into the grid at wholesale. Thank goodness the bill as currently drafted doesn’t do that since that is not REAL net metering but rather what some refer to as “net billing”. Sen. Boots also wanted to know “How does the utility recovery its costs?”

Sen. Sue Errington (D-Muncie) and a co-author of SB 313 as well as the author of another net metering bill, SB 97, that never received a committee hearing, spoke in favor of SB 313. Sen. Errington also introduced SB 94 to establish a Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) for Indiana which was also denied a committee hearing this session. Unfortunately, this is a common occurrence in the Republican controlled Indiana Senate. The Senate Republicans hold a 33 member majority compared to the meager 17 Senate Democrats.

“I think we are making progress,” said Sen. Errington. “I am glad we are back at it after last session.”

Sen. Errington referred to a Wall Street Journal article about a recent report entitled Freeing the Grid that evaluates states including Indiana against “best practices” in net metering. Sen. Errington noted that “Indiana got an F”.

She stated that SB 313 was setting the floor for net metering and that it gave the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) the ability to construct the ceiling.

She expressed dismay that there were still some pieces in the bill and that the second reading amendments offered but not adopted would have made the bill even better.

Sen. Errington offered the following reasons to support SB 313:

  1. Net metering has no cost to the state.
  2. Consumers who invest in energy systems that net meter will be winners.
  3. Net metering is good for the economy in terms of manufacturing and installation jobs creation.
  4. We are all winners with net metering because it lowers the state’s carbon footprint.

 

SB 313 passed by a vote of 49-0. Sen. Merritt announced that the House sponsors of SB 313 were Reps. Dvorak and Lutz.

Since the House started at the end of their calendar numerically, HB 1094 was handed down for third reading or final passage in the House around 9:26 pm.

Rep. Ryan Dvorak (D-South Bend) who introduced HB 1094 gave a brief description of the bill and stated that of the 42 states that have net metering Indiana was the most restrictive.

Rep. Wes Culver (R-Goshen) who is a co-author of HB 1094 spoke in favor of the bill. Culver emphasized that net metering was only giving customers credit not a check for excess power they generated. He said there is no RES in this bill. This bill is clean. There are no tax incentives.

Rep. Jack Lutz (R-Anderson) spoke against the bill and explained that he was not afforded an opportunity to offer an amendment to the bill in committee.

“I don’t know why we are exempting those utilities” said Lutz referring to the fact that Rep. Kreg Battles (D-Vincennes) offered amendments in committee to remove both REMC’s and municipal electric utilities from the bill.

The total House floor debate lasted at most 5 minutes. The bill passed by a vote of 78 to 21.

The roll call vote for HB 1094 showing how state representatives voted may be found at http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2010/PDF/Hrollcal/0150.PDF.pdf.

Rep. Dvorak announced that the Senate sponsors for HB 1094 are Sens. Merritt and Errington.

Bills must pass the second house by March 3rd. The 2010 session must adjourn by March 14th.

To better understand the lingo and the state legislative process in Indiana please see this document prepared by the Indiana Chamber of Commerce entitled, How a Bill Becomes a Law.

Copyright 2013 IndianaDG