Author Archives Laura Arnold

NIPSCO Launches 600 MW All Source RFP; Info Session 5/16/18

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   May 14, 2018  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Northern Indiana Public Service Company (“NIPSCO”) is announcing the launch of an all-source Request for Proposals (“RFP”) process.  Through the RFP, NIPSCO seeks to acquire, construct or contract for additional capacity to satisfy a 2023 capacity need.

To view more information about the RFP, please visit the RFP Information Website at http://www.nipsco-rfp.com/.

NIPSCO has retained Charles River Associates (“CRA”) to manage the RFP process. CRA will also serve as the independent third party evaluating all Proposals.

 

On Wednesday, May 16, 2018, at 2:00 PM Central Prevailing Time, NIPSCO and the RFP Manager will host an Information Session covering the NIPSCO RFP process. The Information Session will be conducted via WebEx.  Instructions for participating in the Information Session are attached as a PDF file.

[Contact IndianaDG for Instructions to participate in the Information Session.]

If you have any questions regarding this notice, please email the RFP Manager at NIPSCO-RFPManager@crai.com.

The RFP Manager

www.nipsco-rfp.com


This RFP is a part of NIPSCO's Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) Process.

Questions or want more information contact: Laura.Arnold@IndianaDG.net or call (317) 635-1701.

Killing SC solar bill was just part of utilities’ anti-clean energy strategy

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   May 12, 2018  /   Posted in solar  /   No Comments

Killing solar bill was just part of utilities' anti-clean energy strategy

Posted 

"The way I see it, we should be doing everything we can to make sure we grow solar. Not only will it create jobs, reduce customer bills and reduce our over-reliance on one energy source, but it will also keep the utility bigwigs shaking in their suits and worried about profits."

COLUMBIA - By now, you've probably heard that Duke Energy and SCE&G launched a surprise attack in the 11th hour against solar energy in the House and killed a pro-jobs, pro-customer solar bill.

What you might not have heard is that killing the solar bill was just one part of Duke and SCE&G's multi-pronged offensive against clean energy.

On the same day that Duke Energy lobbyists were using underhanded tactics to defeat a bill that already had support of a bipartisan majority of House members, SCE&G's lawyers were over at the Public Service Commission double-teaming us.

That day, the corporate utility lawyers actually argued with a straight face that there's not enough sunshine in South Carolina in August to merit paying a fair price for solar. They also said that we don't need any more energy generation sources in South Carolina, despite saying for 10 years that we needed a 2,200-megawatt nuclear power plant.

With its laughable arguments about the lack of sunshine and energy needs, SCE&G convinced the Public Service Commission to set a rock-bottom price for solar power. And now that the commission has agreed with the utilities (as it usually does, because the utilities help get the commissioners elected), the rates will be too low for solar generation to get off the ground.

That's right. In addition to having a monopoly on electrical service, Duke Energy and SCE&G get to set the price that their would-be competitors charge.

The more I dig into these energy issues and how many perks the utilities get, the more outraged I become. Our government should be working for the ratepayers and for the citizens of South Carolina - not for the utility monopolies. Unfortunately, when I look at what all has happened, I have to ask who is in charge.

Think about it. Duke Energy and SCE&G have a guaranteed monopoly on electrical service. Duke and SCE&G got a risk-free sweetheart deal to build nuclear power plants and put the exorbitant charges on the backs of ratepayers. Duke and SCE&G got a small group of House members to kill a solar bill that would have allowed more competition. Duke and SCE&G get to set the price of solar (the closest thing they have to competition) by simply asking the folks they help put on the PSC to set a rock-bottom price for solar.

Judging from their all-out offensive against solar, Duke Energy and SCE&G must be terrified that the growth of solar might cut into their profits.

Being terrified of losing profits is not a position Duke and SCE&G are used to occupying in South Carolina. They have been quite comfortable for decades, protected from competition of any kind by the mighty shield of their monopoly status and friendly regulators.

But now, the dual threat of cost-effective rooftop solar and solar farms clearly has the high-paid lobbyists, attorneys and CEOs shaking in their expensive suits.

The utilities have had the run of this state for too long, and look at what we have to show for it: the highest power bills in the country, two nuclear-plant-sized holes in the ground in Fairfield County, more than 5,000 citizens out of work from the failed nuclear plant and now 3,000 solar workers with their jobs at risk.

The way I see it, we should be doing everything we can to make sure we grow solar. Not only will it create jobs, reduce customer bills and reduce our over-reliance on one energy source, but it will also keep the utility bigwigs shaking in their suits and worried about profits.

There is still time to move solar forward this legislative session. There are still options. I implore my colleagues in the House and members of the Senate to act to advance solar energy growth in the waning days of session. This is what we were elected to do: Protect the interests of the people of South Carolina.

Rep. Ballentine is a Columbia businessman; contact him at schouse71@aim.com.

Comments on IPL rate increase by 5/17/18 to OUCC

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   May 11, 2018  /   Posted in Office of Utility Consumer Counselor (OUCC), Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Did you miss the opportunity to testify at one of the two IURC pubic field hearings on the proposed IPL rate increase?

Those who wish to submit written comments for the case record may do so via the Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor  or OUCC’s Website at www.in.gov/oucc/2361.htm, or by mail, email, or fax:

  • Mail: Consumer Services Staff, Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor, 115 W. Washington St., Suite 1500 South Indianapolis, IN 46204
  • email: uccinfo@oucc.IN.gov
  • Fax: (317) 232-5923

The OUCC needs to receive all written consumer comments no later than May 17, 2018 so that it can:

  1. Consider them in preparing its testimony and
  2. File them with the Commission to be included in the case’s formal evidentiary record. Comments should include the consumer’s name, mailing address, and a reference to “IURC Cause No. 45029.”

Consumers with questions about submitting written comments can contact the OUCC’s consumer services staff toll-free at 1-888-441-2494.

Several additional parties have intervened in this case and are also scheduled to file testimony on May 24, 2018. They include the City of Lawrence, University of Indianapolis, IBEW Local 1395, the Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Indiana Coalition for Human Services, Indiana Community Action Association, Sierra Club Hoosier Chapter, Kroger, Wal-Mart, Sam’s East, and the following industrial customers: Allison Transmission, Cargill, Eli Lilly and Company, Indiana University Health, Ingredion, Praxair Surface Technologies, and Vertellus Integrated Pyridines.

In Michigan, more questions than answers about life after net metering

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   May 07, 2018  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

A 1.1 MW solar array is sited alongside a wind farm near Garden, Michigan.

In Michigan, more questions than answers about life after net metering

It is still unclear what the new rates will be, when they will take effect, or if they will be reversed by new legislation.

Two weeks after Michigan regulators approved a new method for compensating utility customers who send electricity back to the grid, there were more questions than answers about the future of distributed generation here.

On April 18, the Michigan Public Service Commission approved a distributed generation tariff that replaces net metering, a 10-year old program that credits customers — most often with rooftop solar panels — with retail rates for their excess electricity sent back to the grid. The new prices will vary by utility but will be lower than retail rates, feeding the ongoing debate about the net value rooftop solar customers provide to the grid.

It was still unclear what the new prices will look like, when they will take effect, or even if they will, as lawmakers mount an attempt to restore net metering.

Solar installers, therefore, haven’t had answers for customers seeking to understand the payback period of installing projects.

“It’s very confusing to the industry,” Liesl Eichler Clark, president of the Michigan Energy Innovation Business Council, said during a May 1 House committee meeting in Lansing.

Eichler Clark is telling MEIBC’s member solar companies to “talk with their clients early, sign something now if you can” to be grandfathered into net metering. Those who enroll in net metering before new rate cases are approved will be grandfathered for 10 years.

Ultimately, solar advocates see a patchwork of rates coming for those looking to self-generate electricity and send some back to the grid. The new rates take effect with the approval of rate cases filed after June 1, though regulators can’t say when those will be filed. Unlike Indiana, which began phasing out its net metering program after Dec. 31, there isn’t a certain date when the program takes effect.

Meanwhile, a legislative effort backed by multiple environmental groups has added even more uncertainty, even though its prospects are unlikely.

State Rep. Yousef Rabhi, a Democrat from Ann Arbor, proposed billsin March to restore net metering. On May 1, a bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced a package of “energy freedom” bills that would, in part, lift a 1 percent cap on customers who can participate in net metering. A similar package of bills was first introduced in 2014.

“The new (distributed generation tariff) really does not take into account the many advantages solar brings to the system,” Rabhi testified to the House Energy Policy Committee on May 1.

The committee chairman, Republican Rep. Gary Glenn of Midland, supports restoring net metering and lifting the 1 percent cap, which promotes the “principles of diversity and competition,” he said.

However, Glenn said the proposals are unlikely to gain traction in the Senate, which has been hesitant to revisit sweeping energy policy passed in 2016 that included the net metering changes.

“The attitude of the Senate Energy and Technology Committee and the Governor’s Office is to mold policy that benefits utilities,” Glenn said.

Sen. Mike Nofs, the Republican chairman of the Energy and Technology Committee, could not be reached for comment.

Anna Heaton, spokeswoman for Gov. Rick Snyder, said the MPSC has “followed the Legislature’s directives” with the new distributed generation tariff. “The Legislature asked the PSC to develop a program that reflects the need for all utility customers to pay their fair share of using the state’s electrical grid based on cost-of-service principles, which is what they did,” Heaton said.

MPSC officials also stood by the new distributed generation tariff, saying it complies with 2016 energy laws in figuring out the cost-of-service of solar customers. They say the process was transparent and involved a variety of stakeholders.

Chairwoman Sally Talberg, who was appointed to the MPSC by Snyder in 2013, said the new inflow/outflow calculation would compensate customers more than utilities initially proposed during the 2016 energy law debate. That “buy all, sell all” model would have been based on wholesale energy prices, which Talberg said is about one-third of the distributed generation tariff’s “avoided cost.”

When pressed by Glenn during the May 1 hearing, Talberg said it’s unclear what kind of economic signals the new program will send, or whether it will stifle Michigan’s rooftop solar industry.

Other factors may affect customers’ decision to install panels, such as declining costs, President Trump’s tariffs on imported panels, the availability of the federal Investment Tax Credit, which is phasing out in the coming years, and shifting utility rates, Talberg said.

Eichler Clark countered that the new program’s uncertainty is “just really challenging” for installers and customers. “At the end of the day, all of this is about economics,” she said.

Rob Rafson, president of ChartHouse Energy in western Michigan who was closely involved in the MPSC’s distributed generation stakeholder process, calculated that the average residential net metering customer in Michigan is overcharged by about $126 a year. The new inflow/outflow model would overcharge customers by roughly $300 a year, he added, suggesting the MPSC went in the opposite direction of finding a “fair and reasonable” replacement for net metering.

“The interesting thing is what happens after this,” Rafson said. A positive result may be lifting the cap on distributed generation customers. Also, the decreasing costs of energy storage may allow customers to configure their installations that result in zero outflow to the grid, keeping their generation “behind the meter.”

“The expectation is that there is going to be another significant increase in rates in the state,” Rafson said. “This is going to be great profitability for utilities, but it’s going to be very damaging to existing businesses and drawing new businesses to the state.”

A similar scenario played out at the end of 2017 when Indiana began phasing out its net metering program and grandfathered customersuntil 2047. If customers enrolled after Dec. 31, 2017, they are only grandfathered until 2032. Net metering will end after July 1, 2022, or when utilities reach 1.5 percent caps, whichever is earlier.

Indiana solar advocates actively encouraged utility customers to install solar panels, at times coming up close to the Dec. 31 deadline.

Like Michigan, though, there is still uncertainty about when and whether Indiana utilities continue to offer net metering in the future, said Kerwin Olson, executive director of the Citizens Action Coalition in Indianapolis.

“We’re in this state where we don’t really know and the regulatory commission doesn’t really seem to care,” Olson said. “In this state, utilities effectively write and carry out the policies. The commission has been incredibly hands off.”

Also, Olson said it’s unclear what compensation Indiana net metering customers will receive after 2032 because it’s based on average wholesale prices plus a 25 percent bonus.

“Homeowners, businesses, banks and financing companies all need certainty,” Olson said. “It’s difficult to get a clear picture of what the financial framework of an installation will look like.”

Eichler Clark said the MPSC’s distributed generation tariff marks a trend of removing incentives for distributed generation, something the “energy freedom” bills look to restore.

“We are putting up barriers left and right in Michigan to that type of work,” Eichler Clark said.

What is the impact on solar from IPL’s increased fixed charges?

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   May 07, 2018  /   Posted in Office of Utility Consumer Counselor (OUCC), solar, Uncategorized  /   No Comments

The question that IndianaDG wants to ask is what is or will be the impact on solar from IPL's proposed increase in monthly fixed charges? The information below is just a quick sneak preview.

This document offers many suggestions on what that impact might be the if IURC approves IPL's request.

http://www.synapse-energy.com/sites/default/files/Caught-in-a-Fix.pdf

This document discusses "Reduced Incentives for Energy Efficiency and Distributed Generation" from increasing monthly fixed charges. The report includes Figure 9 below.

roof top solar payback under fixed charges

The following information is provided by the Office of Utility Consumer Counselor (OUCC) about Indianapolis Power and Light's (IPL's) rate increase in Cause No. 45029.

The next and final field hearing is scheduled for:

DATE: Monday, May 7, 2018

TIME: 6:00 pm

PLACE: New Augusta Public Academy-North (Auditorium), 6450 Rodebaugh Rd., Indianapolis, IN

The hearing will start at 6:00 p.m. Consumers are encouraged to arrive no later than 5:45 p.m. for an overview of field hearing procedures and the rate case process.

At each IURC field hearing:

  • Consumers will be able to speak directly to the Commission, under oath and on the record, regarding the rate case.
  • Consumers will also be able to submit written comments for the case record.
  • Comments will carry equal weight whether they are oral or written.
  • Commissioners are not allowed to answer questions during the field hearing. However, OUCC staff will be available before, during, and after the hearing to address questions about the process.

IPL provides electricity to approximately 490,000 customers in Marion County and portions of nine additional counties.

Under IPL’s request, a monthly residential electric bill for 1,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) would rise from $112.95 to $124.38.

  • This would include raises to the utility’s flat monthly customer charges.
  • The monthly charge for a residential customer using more than 325 kilowatt hours (kWh) per month would rise from $17.00 to $27.00.
  • For a residential customer using less than 325 kWh, the monthly charge would rise from $11.25 to $16.00.
  • Flat monthly charges for commercial customers would rise, varying by tariff.
  • The volumetric part of the base rate would also rise.

So what are the proposed increases for IPL's residential customers?

Rate RS - RESIDENTIAL SERVICE

IPL Rate RS

 

 

 

Copyright 2013 IndianaDG