Author Archives Laura Arnold

Rep. Ryan Dvorak (D-South Bend) introduced HB 1090 regarding the climate registry.

THE CLIMATE REGISTRY is a collaboration between states, provinces and tribes aimed at developing and managing a common greenhouse gas emissions reporting system with high integrity that is capable of supporting various greenhouse gas emission reporting and reduction policies for its member states and tribes and reporting entities. It will provide an accurate, complete, consistent, transparent and verified set of greenhouse gas emissions data from reporting entities, supported by a robust accounting and verification infrastructure.

For more details see http://www.theclimateregistry.org/.

DIGEST OF HB 1090 (Updated January 28, 2008 4:37 pm - DI 84)

Climate registry. Requires the state of Indiana to become a member of and participate in the climate registry concerning greenhouse gas emissions reporting and reduction. Requires the governor or the governor's designee to sign the climate registry's statement of principles and goals to become a member of the climate registry and deliver a copy of the signed statement to the climate registry before July 1, 2008.

Reread third time: failed for lack of constitutional majority Roll Call 78: Yeas 50, Nays 47. House rules require that bills receive a constitutional majority of 51 votes to pass third reading. If a bill does not receive 51 votes againt it as it was in this case it is also not defeated and therefore, the author can try again. Rep. Dvorak tried again today (01/30/08) around 11 AM and the bill passed 53 to 43.

To see how your state representative voted the first time see:
http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2008/PDF/Hrollcal/0078.PDF.pdf

To see how your state representative voted the second time see:
http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2008/PDF/Hrollcal/0130.PDF.pdf

If you are wondering who switched their votes, Reps. Neese, Soliday and Ulmer switched their votes from "No" to "Yes". Thank you for your support of the Climate Registry Reps. Neese, Soliday and Ulmer.

Earlier this week (01/28/08) a coal bill, HB 1117, was amended by a voice vote on second reading on the House floor to add a state income tax credit for equipment used to produce energy derived from the use of wind or from the use of anaerobic digesters. The amount of the credit is equal to ten percent (10%) of the purchase price. HB 1117 passed third reading 01/29/08 by a vote of 81 to 8. Again, the votes against this bill appear to be in opposition to the original subject of the bill and not the renewable tax credit language that was added on second reading. Rep. Dale Grubb (D-Covington) offered the amendment.

See how your state representative voted visit:
http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2008/PDF/Hrollcal/0082.PDF.pdf.

HB 1117 Amended Digest: Coal gasification and substitute natural gas. Provides that a taxpayer awarded a coal gasification technology investment tax credit may agree to use less than 100% Indiana coal in the qualifying coal gasification project and qualify for the credit if the taxpayer: (1) wishes to assign the tax credit; and (2) certifies to the Indiana economic development corporation that partial use of other coal is necessary to result in lower rates for Indiana retail utility customers. Changes the definition of "substitute natural gas" to include gas: (1) produced by a facility outside Indiana; and (2) converted from coal from a location other than the Illinois basin. Changes the definition of a "customer choice program" to include customers located in the service area of an electric utility. Provides that when substitute natural gas (SNG) purchase obligations are proportionally assigned due to a customer choice program, the assignee must meet the assignment requirements in the previously approved contract for purchase of the SNG. Provides that a taxpayer that purchases from an Indiana business certain equipment used to produce energy derived from the use of wind or from the use of anaerobic digestors is entitled to a credit against state income tax liability. Provides that the amount of the credit is 10% of the purchase price of the equipment.

The language of the amendment is as follows:
Chapter 32. Credit for Purchase of Qualified Equipment Sec. 1. As used in this chapter, "pass through entity" means: (1) a corporation that is exempt from the adjusted gross income tax under IC 6-3-2-2.8(2); (2) a partnership; (3) a limited liability company; or (4) a limited liability partnership. Sec. 2. As used in this chapter, "qualified equipment" means equipment used to produce energy that is: (1) for retail or commercial use; and (2) derived from the use of wind or from the use of anaerobic digestors. Sec. 3. As used in this chapter, "state income tax liability" means a taxpayer's total tax liability that is incurred under IC 6-3-1 through IC 6-3-7, as computed after the application of the credits that under IC 6-3.1-1-2 are to be applied before the credit provided by this chapter. Sec. 4. (a) A taxpayer that purchases qualified equipment from an Indiana business (as certified by the Indiana economic development corporation) in a taxable year is entitled to a credit against state income tax liability for that taxable year. The amount of the credit is equal to ten percent (10%) of the purchase price of the qualified equipment. (b) A taxpayer may not claim a credit under this chapter for the purchase of qualified equipment if the taxpayer claims another state income tax credit or deduction for that same qualified equipment. Sec. 5. If a pass through entity is entitled to a credit under this chapter but does not have state income tax liability against which the tax credit may be applied, a shareholder, partner, or member of the pass through entity is entitled to a tax credit equal to: (1) the tax credit determined for the pass through entity for the taxable year; multiplied by (2) the percentage of the pass through entity's distributive income to which the shareholder, partner, or member is entitled. Sec. 6. (a) If the amount of the credit determined under this chapter for a taxpayer in a taxable year exceeds the taxpayer's state income tax liability for that taxable year, the taxpayer may carry the excess credit over for a period not to exceed the taxpayer's following five (5) taxable years. The amount of the credit carryover from a taxable year shall be reduced to the extent that the carryover is used by the taxpayer to obtain a credit under this chapter for any subsequent taxable year. (b) A taxpayer is not entitled to a carryback or a refund of any unused credit amount. Sec. 7. To receive the credit provided by this chapter, a taxpayer must claim the credit on the taxpayer's state tax return or returns in the manner prescribed by the department. Sec. 8. The department, with the assistance of the Indiana utility regulatory commission, shall adopt rules necessary to carry out this chapter.

To read the full text of the bill see: http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2008/PDF/HB/HB1117.2.pdf.

This bill now moves to the Indiana State Senate for further consideration and deliberation. The Senate Sponsors are Sen. Hershman and Sen. R. Young. The bill has already been assigned to the Senate Committee on Utilities and Regulatory Affairs chaired by Sen. Hershman who also introduced SB 224.

Although HB 1102 to establish a Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) and HB 1098 to revise the net metering and interconnection rules were defeated in the House Commerce, Energy and Utilities Committee last week, several other renewable energy proposals are still alive at the Indiana General Assembly. One of those bills is SB 224 introduced by Sen. Brandt Hershman (R-Monticello). SB 224 started out as a clean coal bill but was amended to add RES language in the Senate Utilities & Regulatory Affairs Committee chaired by Sen. Hershman. HB 1117 will be addressed in another post to this blog.

Last night (01/29/08) around 7:00 pm the Indiana Senate passed third reading on weaker RES language in SB 224. The bill passed 39 to 9. See the roll call at http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2008/PDF/Srollcal/0140.PDF.pdf. It appears that the votes against the bill were in opposition to the controversial utility tracker language and not the RES language.

Here is what the bill includes as renewable energy resources:

Sec. 8. (a) As used in this chapter, "renewable energy resources" means alternative sources of renewable energy, including the following: (1) Wind energy. (2) Solar energy. (3) Photovoltaic cells and panels. (4) Dedicated crops grown for energy production and used as: (A) the sole fuel; or (B) part of a co-firing application; in an energy generating facility. (5) Organic waste biomass, including any of the following organic matter that is available on a renewable basis: (A) agricultural crops. (B) Agricultural wastes and residues. (C) Wood and wood wastes (other than treated or painted lumber) including the following: (i) Wood residues. (ii) Forest thinnings. (iii) Mill residue wood. (iv) Waste from construction and demolition. (D) Animal wastes. (E) Aquatic plants. (6) Hydropower from existing dams. (7) Fuel cells. (8) Energy from waste to energy facilities that produce steam that is not used for the production of electricity. (9) Methane systems that convert waste products, including animal, food, and plant waste, into electricity. (10) Methane recovered from landfills or underground coal mines. (11) Ocean current or wave energy. (12) Any other sources that: (A) are included in any applicable federal renewable resource portfolio standard; or (B) become available through future developments in renewable energy technologies.

Here is the time table:

Two percent (2%) by December 31, 2011; four percent (4%) by December 31, 2011; and six percent (6%) of the electricity supplier's Indiana retail sales by December 31, 2020. An electricity supplier may not use an advanced energy resource to supply more than fifty percent (50%) of the electricity that the electricity supplier is required to supply.

Here’s the catch though. The definition of advanced energy resource is as follows:

Sec. 2. (a) As used in this chapter, "advanced energy resources" includes the following sources and programs for the production or conservation of electricity: (1) Combined heat and power systems that: (A) use natural gas or renewable energy resources as feedstock; and (B) achieve at least seventy percent (70%) overall efficiency. (2) Demand side management or energy efficiency programs that: (A) reduce electricity consumption; or (B) implement load management or demand response technologies that shift customers' electric load from periods of higher demand to periods of lower demand. (3) Waste coal. (4) Clean coal and energy projects (as defined in IC 8-1-8.8-2). (5) Other non carbon dioxide emitting or low carbon dioxide emitting electricity generating technologies, including integrated gasification combined cycle generation with the capability for carbon capture and sequestration through: (A) storage; or (B) enhanced oil recovery.

That means that 50% of the requirements under this proposed legislation can be met by burning more coal!

For all the full copy of SB 224 including the controversial utility tracker mechanism included in this bill see http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2008/PDF/SB/SB0224.2.pdf.

SB 224 now moves to the Indiana House. The House Sponsors include Representative Battles, Grubb, Lutz and Crooks. Watch this blog for more details as this proposed legislation moves during the second half of the 2008 session of the Indiana General Assembly.

Members of the Indiana Renewable Energy Association were deeply disappointed that on 01/24/08 members of the House Commerce, Energy and Utilities Committee voted 8 to 3 against HB 1102 to establish a Renewable Electricity Standard. The bill would have required electric utilities to obtain 10% of its power from renewable resources by 2018.

Voting in favor of HB 1102 were:
Chairman and Bill Author David Crooks (D-Washington) h63@in.gov;
Rep. Ryan Dvorak (D-South Bend) h8@in.gov; and
Rep. Sandra Blanton (D-Orleans) h62@in.gov.

We urge that you send a “thank you” to these state legislators as well as HB 1102 Co-author Rep. John Ulmer (R-Goshen) h49@in.gov.

Voting against HB 1102 were:
Rep. Kreg Battles (D-Vincennes) h64@in.gov;
Rep. Chester Dobis (D-Merrillville) h13@in.gov ;
Rep. Dan Stevenson (D-Highland) h11@in.gov;
Rep. Jack Lutz (R-Anderson) h35@in.gov;
Rep. Tim Neese (R-Elkhart) h48@in.gov;
Rep. Ed Soliday (R-Valparaiso) h4@in.gov;
Rep. Bob Behning (R-Indianapolis) h91@in.gov; and
Rep. David Frizzell (R-Indianapolis) h93@in.gov.

We urge that you express your disappointment with these state legislators for not supporting this renewable energy economic development proposal for our state.

Rep. Paul Robertson, (D-DePauw) was absent and not voting.

Members of the Indiana Renewable Energy Association presented testimony 01/24/08 before the House Commerce, Energy and Utilities Committee on HB 1098 to revise the net metering and interconnection rules. Copies of the State Scorecard from Freeing the Grid: 2007 Edition were distributed to the members of the committee. The report shows the State of Indiana earning a "D" in both net metering and interconnection.

See http://www.newenergychoices.org/bravo.php?blog_entry_id=210

------------------------------------------------------
Department of Psychology (574) 631-6650
118 Haggar Hall, Notre Dame, IN 46556 FAX: (574) 631-8883
January 24, 2008

Dear State Representative Dvorak,

I’m writing a book that deals with the greening of corporate America called “Zap” and will hit bookstores this summer. In the last six months the pace of change in alternative energy has increased dramatically. Unfortunately the complexity of the issues involved has also increased. Due to state based incentives, RPS standards and net metering regulations, some states are reaping the economic benefits while others fall behind. Unfortunately our great state of Indiana has fallen behind, but I remain optimistic that you and your colleagues will pass legislation that will propel Indiana into the future. There is more than corn in Indiana…and there is also more than coal. We have a plentiful source of wind and an abundance of solar insolation that we let slide through our hands every day.

Inovateus Development of South Bend, IN is the distributor of my latest book Stan Ovishinsky and the Hydrogen Economy and I’ve asked them to send all of the state representatives in your committee a copy. I believe Stan’s contributions to the field soon will be recognized as seminal. For example, I believe that his UNI-SOLAR photovoltaic cells are far and away the best solar cells on the market for a variety of important reasons. Inovateus is also a world-wide distributor of these cells and ships them for installations just about everywhere besides Indiana and a few other states such as Mississippi and West Virginia. T.J. Kanczuzewski, the Vice President of the firm testified before you last week and spoke about the importance of a mandate and better net metering regulations.

In my new book on the greening of corporate America, I talk about how the net metering regulations can be a very large factor for corporate and business installations. I’ve been working with Inovateus on their ventures with Proctor and Gamble, Black and Decker, Energizer Battery and even Duke Realty which is headquartered in Indianapolis. Since there are no current net metering standards for such an install, Indiana has lost a possible Duke Realty install to Illinois. Out of the $3.2 million the project costs, nearly 1 million will be going to local contractors and installers. If we intend on loosing economic opportunites such as these, we should continue to do much of the same. Please contact me for any information or renewable data. I can be reached at Notre Dame at 574-631-5423 (leave a telephone number if I’m unavailable).

Sincerely,

Dr. George Howard
University of Notre Dame
--------------------------------------------------------

Written comments submitted by Eric Cotton
ECI Wind and Solar LLC
9005 East 1125 South
Fairmount, IN 46928
888-4ECIWAS
info@eciwindandsolar.com

HB 1098 – Netmetering Rules

Before suggesting amendments to the existing net metering laws, it is important to define net metering as we see it.

Net Metering Definition:

Interconnecting a customer owned co-generation facility with the existing utility grid in order to provide electricity only for the interconnected facility, and allowing the interconnected facility to acquire one-for-one credits from the utility company for each KW hour supplied to the utility grid by the co-generation facility.

Net metering should be a tool to encourage growth in the renewable economy while not making it a burden on existing electricity service providers. It is important to distinguish that net metering is a way for companies and individuals to maximize the financial outlook of a renewable energy installation and not away to force utility companies to pay a premium for power. It is important to create a rule that has the most benefit for customers while protecting the wholesale electricity market and pricing structure. This is accomplished by limiting the “remuneration” provided to the customer by the utility company to an energy credit and not a dollar amount. This maximizes the viability of the system for users by assuring that every KW Hour of production is able to be used by the facility, and it protects the utility companies by eliminating those who might seek to exploit the netmetering rules for their own profiteering.

Our goal with netmetering is to provide all Indiana customers with renewable energy facilities of up to 250 KW to receive a full KW Hour credit for every KW Hour of power that is supplied to the local grid. This credit should be able to roll over, moth-to-month, whiled the customer has an interconnected cogeneration facility. At the end of this period, any generation provided to the utility by the customer will be granted to the utility and no further remuneration will be due. (NOTE: having a yearly reset date leaves customers open to exploitation. For example if you have a cutoff date in September for a solar system, then that doesn’t help the customer because all of the generation happens in the summer. So you would be essentially eliminating their entire excess production every year.)

This prevents customers who only need a 100 KW facility from installing a 250 KW facility expecting that the utility will pay them full retail value for excess power generation from the 150 KW that was not required for the facility.

The State of Indiana currently has netmetering rules that could be very effective in stimulating growth and creating jobs in Indiana if they were altered in the following ways:

1) Currently, only residential customers and K-12 schools with investor owned utilities as service providers can have a renewable energy facility ‘net metered’. Because of the lack of State and Federal funding for renewable energy, it is important to expand the benefits of net metering to commercial customers as well. Commercial customers are the most likely sector to have the resources to purchase and install renewable energy facilities at their location. Making them eligible for net metering would go a long way to encouraging Indiana businesses to invest capitol in their own renewable electricity generating facilities, even in the face of zero state and federal subsidies.

2) Current net-metering laws limit maximum installed capacity to 10KW. Unfortunately this is only enough to produce about 1000 KW Hours per month of power. While this is sufficient for modest homes of up to about 1200 square feet, those with the means to install renewable energy facilities at their home or business typically use 2-25 times this amount. Raising the netmetering cap to 250KW installed nameplate capacity would help encourage growth in this sector.

3) Currently, net metering laws only apply to investor owned utility companies. A significant portion of potential Indiana renewable energy customers, and a very significant portion of potential Indiana wind energy customers, are served by REMC’s. While most REMC’s have polices that are not significant burdens to customers, some engage in very unfair practices. Regardless of which extreme a particular REMC is close to, these practices result in polices that, at best, create payback scenarios for RE systems that are beyond or exceed a systems’ expected life span. In the worst cases, the polices of the REMC make it so that it is cheaper for customers to give the power away for free to the REMC rather than pay the fees that would allow the RE system even to earn even 30 cents on the dollar for excess generation.