Author Archives Laura Arnold

SB 309 Hearing on 2/9/17 at 9 AM in Room 233

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   February 02, 2017  /   Posted in 2017 Indiana General Assembly, solar, Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Brandt Hershman

Sen. Brandt Hershman (R-Buck Creek) Senator.Hershman@iga.in.gov (317) 232-9840

Jim Merritt

Sen. Jim Merritt (R-Indianapolis)  Senator.Merritt@iga.in.gov 317-232-9533

The Senate Utilities Committee Chair Sen. Jim Merritt (R-Indianapolis) has scheduled SB 309 Distributed Generation introduced by Sen. Brandt Hershman (R-Buck Creek) as `follows:

DATE: Thursday, Feb. 9, 2017

TIME:  9:00 AM EST

PLACE: Room 233, State House, Indianapolis, IN

SB 309 is the only bill listed on the Committee Agenda and furthermore, it states TESTIMONY ONLY.

For more details see https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2017/committees/utilities_3800

There is also a link on this website to watch the hearing on-line.

Here is a list of the Members of the Senate Utilities Committee:

2017-18 Indiana Senate Utilities Committee Members and LAs

Solar energy giant challenges Duke Energy on power purchase terms

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   February 01, 2017  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

A solar farm built on farmland by Cypress Creek Renewables in Catawba County.

A solar farm built on farmland by Cypress Creek Renewables in Catawba County. Cypress Creek Renewables via AP 

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/business/article130016079.html#storylink=cpy

FEBRUARY 1, 2017 9:49 AM

Solar energy giant challenges Duke Energy on power purchase terms

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/business/article130016079.html#storylink=cpy

 One of the nation’s biggest solar developers is challenging Duke Energy’s purchases of solar energy in a case before the North Carolina Utilities Commission.

Solar Sharing Could Cost More if SB 309 Passes

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   February 01, 2017  /   Posted in 2017 Indiana General Assembly, solar  /   No Comments

Solar Sharing Could Cost More if Ind. Legislation Passes

Click link above to view video.

By STUART HAMMER | shammer@tristatehomepage.com

Published 01/25 2017; Updated 01/25 2017

Utility companies hope a free ride on the power grid could be put to a stop if a proposed piece of legislation is passed in Indiana.

But solar power users are saying 'don't take away our sunshine' and only see darker days ahead.

Senate Bill 309 aims to end a utility credit while also growing renewable energy. Utility companies call the credit unfair. Advocates argue it's fixing a problem that doesn't exist.

Mark Hager has been in the solar business for more than a decade. He believes SB 309, sponsored by Republican Brandt Hershman, would dirty the clean energy push being made by Hoosiers every day.

“It's going to create serious problems for Indiana's solar industry,” he says.

But state officials and utilities say it's time to even the playing field and net metering is the key word.

It's a process that allows solar users at home to pump unused power back into the grid and earn a credit from the power company each month.

With the proposed changes, any extra power generated by solar panels wouldn't be reimbursed by the utility at an even exchange. Customers would have to sell all the power to the company at a lower rate.

“But only as much as you use,” Hager is quick to point out, “so if you throw any extra on the grid they get to keep it for free.”

State officials say they want to continue to grow the solar industry but do away with average customers subsidizing solar users by staying on the grid. Of course, if you disconnect from the grid and store power in batteries you could avoid this potential change.

According to the Indianapolis Business Journal, utilities say the change is warranted and the extra cash would help maintain the power grid and pay for other expenses.

Utilities say solar users get a free ride on their supply, but Hager just wants the sun to keep shining.

“We need to sit down and figure out a better way to make it feasible for everybody,” he adds.

Net metering bill would make Indiana an outlier on solar policy

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   January 31, 2017  /   Posted in 2017 Indiana General Assembly, solar  /   No Comments

Net metering bill would make Indiana an outlier on solar policy

As dozens of states consider adopting fees and less-favorable rates to tilt the scales against net metering, advocates say a proposal in Indiana would offer rooftop solar customers the worst deal in the country.

Senate Bill 309, authored by Republican Sen. Brandt Hershman, would end net metering by 2027 at the latest, and earlier than that for new panel installations by customers of utilities that hit caps on net metering capacity. The new rules would require customers to buy all the electricity they consume from the utility at a retail rate while selling everything they generate to the utility at a lower wholesale rate.

If the bill passes, Indiana would be the only state in the country with a “buy all, sell all” model that doesn’t credit customers at the full retail rate for the energy they consume from their own solar panels, said Autumn Proudlove, senior policy analyst at the NC Clean Energy Tech Center, which tracks net metering rules around the country.

“I don’t think that I’ve seen any other models proposed that would be less financially favorable to solar customers since most of them allow the customers to at least self-consume energy from the system,” she said.

As in other states, the reform effort is driven by utilities who say net metering unfairly forces customers without solar panels to subsidize those who have them. Environmental and solar advocates oppose the bill, citing studies from other states that show benefits of distributed solar generation outweighing costs.

Jesse Kharbanda, executive director of the Hoosier Environmental Council, says studies that quantify the upsides — like avoided costs of distribution upgrades and environmental compliance — often find the value of solar in a state is higher than the local retail energy rate. A 2015 review from Environment America and Frontier Group found that was the case in eight of 11 value of solar studies.

“There’s just no ambiguity about the fact that solar brings much more to the grid than it takes from the grid,” Kharbanda said. “And moving to a buy-all-sell-all model is completely in opposite to that.”

Approaches in other states

Though Indiana could be the first with such a buy-all, sell-all plan on the books, it’s not the first state to propose it.

Michigan lawmakers considered a similar plan before ultimately preserving net metering in sweeping energy bills that passed in late December. They also directed the Michigan Public Service Commission to design a tariff system for distributed generation, though solar advocates are concerned that process won’t account for the benefits from solar.

Other Midwestern states have also taken aim at net metering, though their approaches have been less punitive to solar customers.

Illinois considered ending net metering last year in major energy legislation that would have replaced it with a one-time $500 rebate for new solar panel owners. The plan would have compensated solar customers at a wholesale rate for generation sent to the grid, though they would still get an effective retail rate credit for the energy consumed from their own panels. The final bill retained retail-rate net metering until utilities hit a cap of 5 percent of the previous year’s peak demand.

On the other hand, Minnesota became the first state to adopt a value-of-solar tariff in 2014. The state consulted with stakeholdersand Clean Power Research to develop a method for quantifying the benefits of distributed solar.

“The legislature said utilities could run through that exercise and come up with a value of solar and offer that as the going rate instead of net metering, or they could just stick with net metering,” said Brian Lips, project coordinator at the NC Clean Energy Tech Center. “All the utilities so far have stuck with net metering.”

This option would also credit customers on a buy-all, sell-all model, though value-of-solar tariff  would likely be higher than the wholesale rate and potentially higher than the retail rate.

Kharbanda said he’d like to see net metering left in place while the design of any replacement plan is left to the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission. The state tasked the IURC with updating net metering rules in 2011, and tapping the commission’s economic and engineering experts helped avoid a needlessly contentious situation, he said.

“You had public interest groups and investor-owned utilities literally standing next to each other endorsing what came out of the process,” he said. “It makes this (legislative) effort really disappointing and isn’t really, in the end, the wise way of dealing with such a promising economic sector in Indiana”

Rules ending net metering in Nevada upended the state’s booming residential solar industry. The new plan credited customers at around the wholesale rate for energy they returned to the grid, but still credit self-consumed generation at the retail rate. The rule change took effect abruptly, though more favorable rates were later restored to existing solar customers.

‘Completely open’ to amendments

Supporters of the bill, including the Indiana Energy Association, say the 10-year buffer before the rules take place should be enough time for the industry to adapt and avoid a market shock. But Kharbanda is doubtful about the 2027 end-date the bill sets for net metering. The 1 percent of peak load cap could trigger the buy-all, sell-all model for new solar customers well before then, he said.

Indiana’s 184 solar net metering customers in October 2011 grew to 923 by October 2016, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That’s still fewer than any neighboring Midwestern state. No Indiana utility is closer than a tenth of the way to filling its 1 percent cap on net metering capacity.

Hershman’s office did not respond to interview requests. Rep. David Ober, author of an identical House version of the bill and chair of the House Utilities, Energy and Telecommunications Committee, said his office “has been rather busy with foot traffic this week talking to folks about this bill.”

“Obviously they’re looking at making amendments to the bill, which I’m completely open to,” he said.

He’ll wait for the Senate version of the bill, scheduled for a Feb. 2 hearing, to come over while he learns more about both sides of the issue and considers how other states have handled it, he said. As chair, he replaced Republican Rep. Eric Koch, whose 2015 bill to abruptly end net metering never received a floor vote after it mobilized opposition from environmental groups, the solar industry, religious leaders and the Tea Party.

Ober said he’s trying to take a data-driven, collaborative approach.

“I’m new to these this issues and I hope I’ve built up a reputation as someone in the Statehouse as someone who is a little more thoughtful in trying to find what’s good policy,” he said.

Cypress Creek accuses Duke Energy of illegally restricting NC solar power deals

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   January 30, 2017  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Developer accuses Duke Energy of illegally restricting solar power deals

Cypress Creek Renewables says Duke Energy has abruptly decided to refuse long-term power-purchase agreements for larger, utility-scale solar projects in violation federal and state law.

The California-based solar company filed a formal complaint against Duke with the N.C. Utilities Commission Friday afternoon. In it, Cypress Creek accuses Duke of suddenly refusing to make power contracts for anything more than five years for projects larger than five megawatts as a gambit to promote its own proposal to state regulators for radically changing how N.C. solar projects are developed.

Duke contends that there is no precise definition of “long-term” for the power-purchase agreements at issue in the complaint. And it says it made its decision to go to five-year contracts to protect its customers.

The complaint is the latest round in an escalating battle between Charlotte-based Duke and the solar industry over the future what has been a surprisingly robust industry in North Carolina.

Escalating battle

Duke (NYSE: DUK) wants the commission to end solar development promoted under the federal Power Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) and replace it with annual bids for projects under the control of the utilities.

This latest turn takes aim squarely at the large-scale projects. Projects that size — commonly 20 to 80 megawatts — are increasingly favored by the largest developers active in North Carolina, such as Cypress Creek and Chapel Hill’s Strata Solar.

Cypress Creek already owns and operates 767 megawatts worth of solar projects in the state. It has almost 2,200 megawatts more in development.

At issue is Duke’s refusal to negotiate power-purchase agreements (PPAs) longer than five years for six Cypress Creek projects, totaling 402 megawatts of solar capacity. They range from Cypress Creek’s proposed 80-megawatt Slender Branch Solar near Lumberton to its proposed 22-megawatt Ruff Solar in Rutherford County west of Shelby.

Negotiable contracts

Cypress Creek spokesman Jeff McKay says Duke’s practice for years had been to negotiate 10- to 15-year contracts for projects larger than five megawatts but not larger than 80.

PURPA requires utilities to negotiate long-term power-purchase agreements to projects built in that size range, but there is not a required contract length.

But Cypress Creek’s complaint notes the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has ruled that project developers are entitled to contracts “long enough to allow (developers of qualified projects) reasonable opportunities to attract capital from potential investors.”

Cypress Creek quotes N.C. law that asserts purchase agreements “shall be of sufficient length to stimulate development of solar energy.” And it notes that the commission echoes that language in its own rules and regulations that govern negotiations between utilities and developers for projects in that five- to 80-megawatt range.

Duke defense

The complaint says Cypress Creek is “unable to secure financing for construction of any of the QFs based on the five-year PPA term offered by Duke. Notwithstanding ..., Duke has rebuffed all attempts by Complainants to negotiate a term longer than five years.”

Cypress Creek argues that although there is no term length specified by PURPA or North Carolina for projects in the size range at issue, the five-year contract Duke proposes clearly does not meet the general standard set by either the state or federal government. It asks the commission to declare “that a five-year PPA term is insufficient to allow the Solar (developers) to obtain the financing necessary to construct their respective (projects).” And it calls on the commission to direct Duke to enter into contracts “of sufficient length to allow the (projects) to be financed and constructed.”

The company also asks for an expedited hearing in the matter.

Duke spokesman Randy Wheeless says the company has not had an opportunity to review the complaint, which was filed late Friday. But he generally defended Duke’s position.

“Since customers pay the cost of any solar agreement, we are negotiating in their best interest,” he says. “We have received the complaint and will make a formal response in due course.”

Policy changes

Duke has for some time complained that the accelerating growth of solar in the state is being allowed in too haphazard a fashion. It has proposed changes in state renewable-energy policies that solar developers have contended would slow the industry’s growth and increase its own control over development.

Last summer, Duke unilaterally imposed a new requirement on solar projects that seek connection to its distribution grid. Developers complain that the new requirement, called the “stiffness test,” has essentially blocked projects from connecting to any substations on the distribution grid.

This has been a particular problem for projects on the lower end of utility-scale construction, which typically seek connections to such substations. Late last year, Cornelius-based O2 EMC filed a complaint against Duke over the stiffness test on behalf of three of its projects. They were two five-megawatt projects and one 20-megawatt project.

Five-megawatt projects have for years been the bread and butter of the state’s solar industry. In North Carolina, utilities are required to offer such projects a standard contract, which in practice has been a 15-year power-purchase agreement at a specified price, called the utility’s “avoided cost,” set every two years by the commission.

Rapid rise

From 2008 to 2016, North Carolina rose quickly in the ranks of the nation’s most active solar states. Early last year, the state reached second place, behind only the massive solar market in California, in solar capacity installed on its power grid.

Now the industry here is moving to larger projects. The stiffness test does not impact those projects much since most — certainly those above 20 megawatts — are generally connected to Duke’s higher-voltage transmission grid, and developers build their own substations for those connections.

But the latest policy threatens those sorts of projects, too. Cypress Creek calls the five-year contract “a significant departure from past practice.” And the company says “no solar (project) in North Carolina has obtained financing under a five-year PPA term.”

Thus, recent policy changes from Duke appear to have put significant roadblocks up for smaller utility-scale projects with the stiffness test and larger, PURPA-qualified projects with the five-year policy.

Ultimate goal

The ultimate goal, Cypress Creek asserts, is relieving Duke of PURPA requirements to offer solar developers power-purchase agreements and grid connections.

“Duke’s unilateral and sudden refusal to enter into long-term PPAs reflects an effort to modify the current PURPA regulatory regime in North Carolina,” the complaint says.

Noting Duke’s preference for some kind of annual bidding process for new solar projects, Cypress Creek says the new policy was instituted to advance “any necessary approval of such modification and of a competitive solicitation model by this Commission, the North Carolina General Assembly (or) FERC.”

John Downey covers the energy industry and public companies for the Charlotte Business Journal.

Copyright 2013 IndianaDG