CORRECTION: Sen. Beverly Gard Proposes Amendment #6 to SB 251 to strip “true” renewables from definition of clean energy

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   February 17, 2011  /   Posted in 2011 Indiana General Assembly  /   2 Comments

Editor's Note: Please accept my deepest apology. I jumped the gun and rendered an interpretation of Sen. Gard's proposed amendment #6 to SB 251 in haste. Amendment #6 did delete the current definition of renewable energy BUT it also replaced it with another new definition of renewable energy in another section of the bill. In order to understand this it required looking at both the 6-page amendment and matching up the proposed changes to the 21-page February 8, 2011.

I suppose my only excuse is that I have been conditioned to expect the worse this session. An amended SB 251 will be on the Third Reading calendar in the Indiana State Senate this week.

To read the version of SB 251 the Indiana Senate will address can be found at Latest Printing (PDF) 

If you received or downloaded an earlier version of SB 251, you need to make sure you are now reading the Reprinted February 18, 2011 version of SB 251.

 To continue to watch the progress of this bill, please visit http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2011&request=getBill&docno=251

The saga goes on. Laura Ann Arnold

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An amendment was filed this morning (2/17/2011) on SB 251, the so-called Clean Energy Bill, authored by Sen. Beverly Gard,  Sen. Jim Merritt and Sen. Brandt Hershman, that would strip  "true" renewable energy resources such as wind, solar, biomass, hydro, etc. from the definition of "renewable energy resources". It is hard to understand what the reason or rationale would be for this proposed change. I have not had a chance to read and really digest the rest of this 6-page proposed amendment.

It is possible I am not reading this correctly but I don't think so. If I am correct then a really bad bill just became worse. I will try to continue to read and understand but I tought this was too important not to share with my blog readers right now.

The Indiana Senate is scheduled to go into session this afternoon at 1:30 pm EST, however, since both Senate Republicans and Senate Democrats were caucusing immediately prior to going into session it is doubtful they will start promptly at 1:30 pm.

Watch video from the Senate

Here is the text of the proposed amendment by Sen. Gard.

MADAM PRESIDENT:

    I move

that Senate Bill 251 be amended to read as follows:

<!-- WP Comment

SOURCE: Page 2, line 6; (11)MO025106.2. -->     Page 2, line 6, delete "safety." and insert " safety, including integrity, additions, enhancements, and replacement projects related to safe and reliable operation.".
    Page 4, line 9, after "from" insert " or increase the efficiency of".
    Page 5, line 33, after "energy" insert " production or".
    Page 5, line 33, strike "or coal gasification".
    Page 7, delete lines 1 through 33, begin a new paragraph and insert:
<!-- WP Comment
SOURCE: IC 8-1-8.8-10; (11)MO025106.11. -->     "SECTION 11. IC 8-1-8.8-10, AS AMENDED BY P.L.95-2010, SECTION 1, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2011]: Sec. 10. (a) As used in this chapter "renewable energy resources" means alternative sources of renewable energy, including the following:
        (1) Energy from wind.
        (2) Solar energy.
        (3) Photovoltaic cells and panels.
        (4) Dedicated crops grown for energy production.
        (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, including the following:
                (i) Wood residues.
                (ii) Forest thinnings.
                (iii) Mill residue wood.
            (D) Animal wastes.
            (E) Animal byproducts.
            (F) Aquatic plants.
            (G) Algae.
        (6) Hydropower from existing dams.
        (7) Fuel cells.

        (8) Energy from waste to energy facilities.
        (9) Energy storage systems. a clean energy resource listed in IC 8-1-37-4(1) through (13).
    (b) Except for energy described in subsection (a)(8), from waste to energy facilities, the term does not include energy from the incinerations, burning, or heating of any of the following:
        (1) Tires.
        (2) General household, institutional, commercial, industrial lunchroom, office, or landscape waste.
    (c) The term excludes treated or painted lumber.".
<!-- WP Comment

SOURCE: Page 8, line 36; (11)MO025106.8. -->     Page 8, line 36, delete "financial incentives".
    Page 11, line 11, after "37." insert " Voluntary".
    Page 11, delete lines 18 through 25, begin a new line single block indented and insert:
        " (1) represents one (1) megawatt hour of clean energy that satisfies the applicable conditions set forth in section 12(c)(2) of this chapter;".
    Page 11, line 28, after "4." insert " (a)".
    Page 12, delete lines 13 through 35, begin a new line block indented and insert:
        " (12) Coal bed methane.
        (13) A source, technology, or program approved by the commission and designated as a clean energy resource by a rule adopted by the commission under IC 4-22-2.
        (14) Demand side management or energy efficiency initiatives that:
            (A) reduce electricity consumption; or
            (B) implement load management, demand response, or energy efficiency measures designed to shift customers' electric loads from periods of higher demand to periods of lower demand;
        as a result of equipment installed, or customers enrolled, after January 1, 2010.
        (15) A clean energy project described in IC 8-1-8.8-2(1).
        (16) Nuclear energy.
        (17) Electricity that is:
            (A) generated by a customer owned distributed generation facility that is interconnected to the electricity supplier's distribution system in accordance with the commission's interconnection standards set forth in 170 IAC 4-4.3; and
            (B) supplied back to the electricity supplier for use in meeting the electricity supplier's electricity demand requirements in accordance with the commission's net metering rules set forth in 170 IAC 4-4.2.
        (18) Combined heat and power systems.
        (19) Electricity that is generated from natural gas at a facilityconstructed in Indiana after July 1, 2011, which displaces electricity generation from an existing coal fired generation facility.

during the base year.
        (2) CPS Goal Period II: For the six (6) calendar years beginning January 1, 2019, and ending December 31, 2024, an average of at least seven percent (7%) of the total electricity obtained by the participating electricity supplier to meet the energy requirements of its Indiana retail electric customers during the base year.
        (3) CPS Goal Period III: In the calendar year ending December 31, 2025, at least ten percent (10%) of the total electricity obtained by the participating electricity supplier to meet the energy requirements of its Indiana retail electric customers during the base year.


    Page 16, line 31, delete "(f)" and insert " (g)".
    Page 16, line 32, delete "4(18)" and insert " 4(15) through 4(20)".
    Page 16, line 35, delete "shall" and insert " may".
    Page 16, line 35, delete "the following".
    Page 16, delete line 36.
    Page 16, line 37, delete "(1) A" and insert " a".
    Page 16, run in lines 35 through 37.
    Page 17, delete lines 1 through 9, begin a new line blocked left and insert:
" authorized by the commission under this subsection may:
        (1) be different for each of the CPS goal periods identified in section 12(a) of this chapter, as the commission determines is appropriate; and
        (2) in the case of a particular participating electricity supplier, be based on the extent to which the participating electricity supplier met a particular CPS goal using clean energy resources listed in section 4(1) through 4(13) of this chapter.
".
    Page 17, line 10, beginning with "The" begin a new line blocked left.
    Page 17, line 11, delete "subdivision" and insert " subsection".
    Page 17, line 12, delete "cumulative." and insert " cumulative and may not be authorized for a clean energy resource for which the commission has authorized an incentive under IC 8-1-8.8-11(a)(2).".
    Page 17, delete lines 20 through 42, begin a new paragraph and insert:
    " (b) If the commission approves an electricity supplier's application under section 11(c) of this chapter, the commission shall permit the recovery, by means of a periodic rate adjustment mechanism, of incentives based on the following:
        (1) The sharing of achieved savings or as a percentage of costs.
        (2) Avoided costs resulting from achieving demand side management or energy efficiency targets.
".
    Page 18, delete lines 1 through 3.
    Page 18, line 4, delete "(4)" and insert " (3)".
    Page 18, line 7, delete "(5)" and insert " (4)".
    Page 18, between lines 13 and 14, begin a new paragraph and insert:
    "

(c) If the commission approved an electricity supplier's application under section 11(c) of this chapter, the commission shall permit the recovery, by means of a periodic rate adjustment mechanism of all reasonable and necessary program costs incurred by a participating electricity supplier in:
        (1) constructing, operating, or maintaining facilities that generate clean energy that:
            (A) is used by the participating electricity supplier in itsefforts to meet a CPS goal set forth in section 12(a) of this chapter; and
            (B) meets the requirements set forth in section 12(c) of this chapter; or
        (2) otherwise generating or purchasing clean energy that is used by the participating electricity supplier in its efforts to meet a CPS goal set forth in section 12(a) of this chapter.
For purposes of this subsection and subsection (h)(1), "program costs" includes administrative costs, ancillary costs, capacity costs, costs associated with CECs, capital costs, depreciation costs, tax costs, and financing costs incurred in connection with an activity described in subdivision (1) or (2).

________________________________________
Senator GARD

".
    Page 18, line 14, delete "(b)" and insert " (d)".
    Page 18, line 15, after "(a)" insert " or periodic rate adjustment mechanisms established by the commission under subsection (b) or (c)".
    Page 18, line 21, after "incentives" insert " or periodic rate adjustment mechanisms".
    Page 18, line 22, delete "(c)" and insert " (e)".
    Page 18, line 26, delete "(d)" and insert " (f)".
    Page 18, line 28, after "incentives" insert " or periodic rate adjustment mechanisms".
    Page 18, line 33, delete "(e)" and insert " (g)".
    Page 18, line 37, delete "(a)(1)" and insert " (a)".
    Page 19, line 2, delete "(f)" and insert " (h)".
    Page 19, line 6, delete "(a)(2)" and insert " (c)".
    Page 19, line 13, delete "Subject to subsection (c), beginning" and insert " Beginning".
    Page 20, line 22, delete "12(e)" and insert " 12(f)".
    Page 20, line 37, delete "Subject to subsection (c), beginning" and insert " Beginning".
    Page 21, delete lines 5 through 10.
    (Reference is to SB 251 as printed February 14, 2011.)
".
    Page 12, line 36, delete "(19)" and insert " (20)".
    Page 12, between lines 37 and 38, begin a new paragraph and insert:
    " (b) Except for energy described in subsection (a)(9), the term does not include energy from the incineration, burning, or heating of any of the following:
        (1) Tires.
        (2) General household, institutional, commercial, industrial, lunchroom, office, or landscape waste.
    (c) The term excludes treated or painted lumber.
".
    Page 13, line 15, after "Indiana " insert " voluntary".
    Page 13, line 25, after "Indiana" insert " voluntary".
    Page 13, line 38, after "incentives" insert " and periodic rate adjustment mechanisms".
    Page 14, line 24, delete "The commission shall approve an application submitted".
    Page 14, line 25, delete "under subsection (a) if" and insert " If".
    Page 14, delete line 26, begin a new line single block indented and insert:
        " (1) an application submitted under subsection (a) is complete and reasonably complies with the purpose of this chapter; and".
    Page 14, line 29, delete "supplying" and insert " obtaining".
    Page 14, line 29, after "to" insert " meet the energy requirements of".
    Page 14, line 34, delete "chapter." and insert " chapter;
the commission shall approve the application. If, however, the commission determines that the application does not meet the requirements set forth in this subsection, the commission shall reject the application. The electricity supplier that submitted the application under subsection (a) bears the burden of proving to the commission that the application meets the requirements set forth in this subsection.
".
    Page 14, line 35, delete "(b)," and insert " (c),".
    Page 14, line 37, delete "supply" and insert " obtain".
    Page 14, line 37, after "to" insert " meet the energy requirements of".
    Page 14, delete lines 40 through 42, begin a new line single block indented and insert:
        " (1) CPS Goal Period I: For the six (6) calendar years beginning January 1, 2013, and ending December 31, 2018, an average of at least four percent (4%) of the total electricity obtained by the participating electricity supplier to meet the energy requirements of its Indiana retail electric customers ".
    Page 15, delete lines 1 through 19.
    Page 15, line 20, before "For" begin a new paragraph and insert " (b)".
    Page 15, line 20, delete "this subsection," and insert " subsection (a),".
    Page 15, line 23, after "energy" insert " as follows:
        (1) Subject to subdivision (2), for clean energy
".
    Page 15, between lines 25 and 26, begin a new line single block indented and insert:
        " (2) For clean energy that is generated by a facility located in Indiana from a clean energy resource listed in section 4(1) through 4(13) of this chapter by a factor of one and five tenths (1.5).".
    Page 15, line 26, delete "(b)" and insert " (c)".
    Page 15, line 29, delete "(e)," and insert " (f),".
    Page 15, line 29, delete "supplied" and insert " obtained".
    Page 15, line 30, after "to" insert " meet the energy requirements of".
    Page 15, delete lines 33 through 42, begin a new line single block indented and insert:
        " (2) is generated by a facility located in a control area that is part of a regional transmission organization of which an electricity supplier is a member.".
    Page 16, delete lines 1 through 18, begin a new paragraph and insert:
    " (d) An electricity supplier is not required to obtain clean energy to meet a particular CPS goal if the commission determines that the cost of clean energy resources available to the electricity supplier would result in an increase in the rates and charges of the electricity supplier that would not be just and reasonable.".
    Page 16, line 19, delete "(d)" and insert " (e)".
    Page 16, line 22, delete "one (1) of".
    Page 16, line 22, delete "(b)(2)." and insert " (c)(2).".
    Page 16, line 23, delete "(e)" and insert " (f)".

Indiana PACE Bill, HB 1457 to create clean energy improvement financing districts, to be Turned into Study Committee

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   February 17, 2011  /   Posted in 2011 Indiana General Assembly, Uncategorized  /   2 Comments

Word came from renewable energy advocates early this morning that Rep. Tim Neese (R-Elkhart), Chairman of the House Local Government Committee and author of HB 1457 regarding creation of clean energy improvement financing districts, is planning to offer a strip and insert amendment to turn his Indiana PACE bill into a study committee.

Watch here for details!

2/17/11 Indiana House Panel to Hear HB 1457 to create clean energy improvement financing districts (aka PACE)

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   February 16, 2011  /   Posted in 2011 Indiana General Assembly  /   No Comments

Posting Time: 02/15/2011 05:30 PM

Agenda for : House Local Government Committee

DATE: Thursday, February 17, 2011

TIME: 8:00 AM EST

PLACE: Room 156-B, State House, Indianapolis, IN

Chairman : Rep. Tim Neese (R-Elkhart) h48@in.gov or (317) 232-9677

Vice-Chair : Rep. Kathy Heuer (R-Columbia City) h83@in.gov or (317) 232-9647

Members :

Rep. Bruce Borders (R-Jasonville) h54@in.gov or (317) 232-9678

Rep. Sean Eberhart (R-Shelbyville) h57@in.gov or (317) 234-9499

Rep. Phil Hinkle (R-Indianapolis) h92@in.gov or (317) 234-3827 

Rep. Rhonda Rhoads (R-Corydon) h70@in.gov or (317) 232-9619

Rep. Tom Saunders (R-Lewisville) h54@in.gov or (317) 232-9677 

Rep. Heath VanNatter (R-Kokomo) h38@in.gov or (317) 232-9647

Rep. Vernon Smith R.M.M. (D-Gary)  h14@in.gov or (317) 232-9875

Rep. John Day (D-Indianapolis) h100@in.gov or (317) 232-9976

Rep. Nancy Dembowski (D-Knox) h17@in.gov or (317) 234-9012

Rep. Win Moses, Jr. (D-Ft. Wayne) h81@in.gov or (317) 232-9999

Rep. Cherrish Pryor (D-Indianapolis) h94@in.gov or (317) 234-9047

HB 1507 - Reconsideration

HB 1275 - Has been added to bill list

Hearing : (Authors 1st, Co-Author)

HB 1507 Floyd County park district. (Clere)

HB 1457 Clean energy improvement financing district.( Neese, Sullivan)

DIGEST OF INTRODUCED BILL: Clean energy improvement financing district. Allows the legislative body of a political subdivision (other than a township) to establish a clean energy improvement financing district for the purpose of issuing bonds to fund clean energy improvements for voluntary participants in the program. Provides that the bond proceeds are used to pay all costs associated with the improvements and that assessments are imposed only on participating property owners to repay the bonds. Establishes a 20 year period for bond repayment and for the payment of assessments on each property. Provides that assessments are billed, collected, and enforced in the same manner as property taxes.

HB 1543 Regulation of residential leases.(Speedy Turner)

HB 1252 CEDIT for Perry County jail. (Ellspermann Davisson)

HB 1275 Local transfers between funds. (Saunders)

A similar bill, SB 260, was introduced in the Indiana State Senate and heard in the Senate Utilities and Technology Committee earlier this month. SB 260 was amended to prohibit municipal bonds to finance this proposed program. SB 260 is currently on the Second Reading calendar in the Indiana Senate tomorrow (2/17/2011) and therefore, is available for amendments to be offered on the floor of the Senate. The Senate goes into session 2/17/2011 at 1:30 pm.

Indy Star: Gas plant backed by Governor Daniels hits snag

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   February 14, 2011  /   Posted in 2011 Indiana General Assembly  /   No Comments

Editor's Note: For more information about this bill visit: SB 72.

To see how your State Senator voted on SB 72: Roll Call 0089.PDF_SB 72 defeated 21-28

Original story: http://www.indystar.com/article/20110214/BUSINESS/102140332/Senate-vote-crimps-pipeline-plan-gas-plant-backed-by-governor?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|IndyStar.com

7:10 AM, Feb. 14, 2011  

Without pipeline's OK, $2.6B Rockport project could be doomed

Written by Ted Evanoff

Indiana's Senate has handed Gov. Mitch Daniels a setback on the big coal gasification plant he wants to see built at Rockport.

Senators rejected a measure that would have cleared the way for a special pipeline sought by investors to move carbon dioxide away from the southwestern Indiana plant to buyers on the Gulf Coast.

The vote last week marked an unusual defeat for the Republican governor, whose party dominates the Senate.

The bill's Republican sponsor, Sen. Beverly Gard of Greenfield, said some lawmakers who voted against the bill didn't understand its significance.

Without legislation allowing eminent domain for such pipelines, lead investor Leucadia National Corp. doubts it could secure the federal guarantees on construction loans for the $2.6 billion gasification plant it has proposed at Rockport.

This week, the top Leucadia official in Indiana, Mark Lubbers, once a chief adviser to Daniels, is expected to confer with company and legislative leaders about bringing the eminent domain measure back to the General Assembly.

Backers were stunned when the bill failed Tuesday on a vote of 28-21, with 16 of the chamber's 37 Republicans opposed.

The defeat is considered a setback for investors and a coal industry counting on a grand energy strategy backed by some of the wealthiest names in American finance, including Goldman Sachs and General Electric Financial.

Plans call for rendering millions of tons of sulfurous Midwestern coal into natural gas, using GE gasifiers in some of the proposed plants in Indiana, Illinois and Kentucky.

Linking those gasification plants would be a seamless pipeline. The resulting carbon dioxide waste would flow across half a dozen states to the Mississippi storage caverns of Denbury Resources.

The Texas-based company sells tons of C02, as the waste is called, to gas drillers probing under the Gulf of Mexico.

Indiana would be a key part of the circuit. Carbon dioxide from Tenaska Corp.'s proposed plant in Taylorville, Ill., would run to Rockport and then to Erora Group's proposed Cash Creek plant in western Kentucky, reports the trade journal Midwest Energy News.

The Illinois and Kentucky pipelines have not been built. The Rockport project is further along. But the absence of a pipeline could scuttle it.

"If the governor's office wants this, it's going to have to figure out what to do next," said Gard, sponsor of defeated Senate Bill 72.

"I had no warning 72 was going to go down," Gard said. "This whole deal was brokered by the governor. The Democrats have a problem with that. And the ultra-conservatives don't like anything that says eminent domain."

The term refers to an entity such as the state taking away private land, for a price, for use in what it deems to be a larger good, such as roadways.

"Eminent domain, that's the part that bothered me," said Sen. Allen Paul, R-Richmond. "I don't think it's right you go on someone's property and take it."

Democrats contend the measure was poorly explained, particularly by Denbury representatives.

"I felt like we were being sold a bill of goods without an explanation of why they wanted it," said Sen. Karen Tallian, D-Portage.

A member of the Energy and Environmental Affairs Committee, where Senate Bill 72 originated, Tallian said Denbury, a pipeline operator, wanted eminent domain asserted almost anywhere in the state it chose to run a pipeline.

But the company never gave her a satisfactory reason for why it had no specific route or needed statewide rights, she said.

Nor was there a reason the bill would have handed Indiana's Department of Natural Resources responsibility for eminent domain involving carbon dioxide pipelines, Tallian said. Present laws rest that responsibility with the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission.

"There is an authority in the state who oversees pipelines. That's IURC. This bill went around that and gave it to DNR," Tallian said. "Why we needed all these strange, out-of-the-normal patterns, I don't know."

With the measure killed in the Senate, Leucadia consultant William Rosenberg said Lubbers and officials from Denbury and Leucadia will have to find a way to bring the matter up again.

Lubbers could not immediately be reached for comment.

Rosenberg, of E3 Gasification in Cary, N.C., called the measure essential. Loan guarantees from federal officials are unlikely if no plan is in place for keeping the carbon dioxide -- a greenhouse gas -- out of the air.

"I think this is the cleanest and most environmentally sound project ever proposed" using coal, said Rosenberg, a former energy adviser to President George H.W. Bush. "But the project cannot be built without this pipeline. We're going to have to go back to the legislature and discuss this with the people."

Although Daniels is widely considered a key supporter of the Rockport project, an aide to the governor declined to weigh in on the bill's defeat.

"We don't have a position on this bill," said Jane Jankowski, Daniels' spokeswoman.

In defeating the measure, the Senate handed Leucadia its second setback since the Rockport plant was proposed in 2006.

Back then, Indiana gas utilities and industrial users of gas refused to buy any of the Rockport gas, saying ample supplies were available on the open market.

When the project was collapsing, Daniels shored it up in 2008. His initiative would put the state in the natural gas business. That controversial plan is now being considered by the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission.

Under the plan, the Indiana Finance Authority, a state agency, would buy almost all the Rockport gas at a wholesale price of about $6 per million BTU and resell it on the open market.

If the market price is below $6, the loss would be passed to Indiana's 1 million gas-burning households in the form of higher natural gas bills. If the gas sells for more than $6, the finance authority would split the profits with Leucadia's subsidiary, Indiana Gasification LLC.

The state's share of the profits would be used to lower the residential gas bills across Indiana. Estimates place the household savings at about $100 per year in the event gas prices, now about $800 per year for the typical home, rise to $2,000.

Daniels favors the plan, saying gas prices are destined to rise nationwide, and the 3.2 million tons of coal consumed by Rockport each year would support about 200 mining jobs, which in turn could help revitalize southwest Indiana.

Federal incentives have encouraged plants that gasify coal into liquid fuel. Across the nation, investors and utilities proposed 31 such projects in the past few years. Of those, 12 are under discussion by regulators in various states, eight are producing or under construction, and 11 have been canceled, chiefly because of costs, according to a Sierra Club review of federal reports.

Leucadia, run by two of America's wealthiest men, Ian Cumming and Joseph Steinberg, brought in Rosenberg as a consultant to look at the gasification proposal for Indiana. He had worked with Lubbers in the late 1980s in Indiana as a consultant for another company.

At that time, Lubbers advised then-Gov. Robert Orr on scrapping the Marble Hill nuclear plant. This time around, Rosenberg figured Indiana was ready to proceed on Rockport and the eminent domain measure.

"It was assumed the votes were there," Rosenberg said. "It was a surprise to us when it wasn't."

Call Star reporter Ted Evanoff at (317) 444-6019

Leucadia National Corp.

What: New York-based diversified holding company engaged in various businesses, including manufacturing, telecommunications and land-based contract oil and gas drilling.

2009 revenues: $1.1.billion.

President: Joseph S. Steinberg.

Employees: More than 3,000.

Indiana Gasification

What: Formed by Leucadia to run the Indiana coal-gasification plant at Rockport.

Developers: E3 Gasification and Johnston Development Co.

Leadership: William Rosenberg is president of Cary, N.C.-based E3 Gasification and a former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Federal Energy Administration administrator, as well as former chairman of the Michigan Public Service Commission. Bennett Johnston of Louisiana is chairman of Johnston Development. He is a former U.S. senator and former chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

Sources: Company report, Evansville Courier & Press

Indy Star: Utility-friendly measure gets green light

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   February 11, 2011  /   Posted in 2011 Indiana General Assembly, Uncategorized  /   1 Comments

Over an outcry, Senate panel passes bill encouraging coal-fired and nuclear power plants

Written by John Russell 

Despite strong opposition from environmentalists, senior citizens and consumer groups, an Indiana Senate committee on Thursday endorsed legislation that encourages the construction of coal-fired and nuclear power plants in Indiana and would allow utilities to quickly recover certain costs from customers.

The wide-ranging measure, supported by major utilities across Indiana, passed the Senate Utilities and Technology Committee along party lines after three hours of heated discussion. Six Republicans, including Chairman Jim Merritt of Indianapolis, voted in favor, and two Democrats voted against. The bill now moves to the full Senate for consideration.

"Our energy needs are growing," said Sen. Brandt Hershman, R-Lafayette, one of the bill's authors. "We need to develop a comprehensive policy to address this challenge."

More than a dozen organizations showed up to oppose the measure, including environmentalists, large industrial customers, wind power advocates, the AARP and consumer groups.

Many said the bill would raise the cost of electricity to customers and would shift the risk of building traditional power plants from the utility companies to customers. They also said Senate Bill 251 would give incentives to utilities to do what they are already doing: investing in coal plants at the expense of renewable-energy projects such as wind, solar, biomass and water.

"You are rolling out the red carpet for nuclear power and coal and telling real renewable-energy resources to use the back door," said Laura Ann Arnold of Indiana Distributed Energy Advocates, a promoter of renewable energy.

The Indiana Cast Metals Association, which represents foundries across the state, said the bill allows too many "trackers," or mechanisms that allow utilities to automatically pass along the cost of federal mandates without sufficient oversight from the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission.

"Energy costs are a top concern of our members," said Blake Jeffery, the association's executive director.

But some Republicans said the bill would help provide reliable electricity for all Hoosiers.

"You want power. It's not going to fall out of the sky for free," responded Sen. Beverly Gard, R-Greenfield, one of the bill's authors.

Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, a grass-roots consumer group with 40,000 members, denounced the bill, saying it would reduce financial risk for utilities while increasing their profits. A section of the bill would provide up to 3.5 percent more return on investment to utilities that meet certain renewable-energy requirements.

"When are we going to talk about the consumer, and about protecting the public?" said Kerwin Olson, program director at Citizens Action.

"You are merely shifting the risk to ratepayers," said Jack Wickes, an attorney at Lewis & Kappes, which represents dozens of large industrial consumers of electricity.

The Sierra Club's Hoosier chapter said the bill would take Indiana's energy policy in the wrong direction, encouraging traditional power plants at the expense of cleaner, renewable options.

"What you are doing is incentivizing business as usual," said Mike Mullet with the Sierra Club.

The bill also would provide incentives to build nuclear power plants in Indiana. There are no nuclear plants in the state, and the last one that was approved, Marble Hill in Southern Indiana, was abandoned during construction in the 1980s after running into huge cost overruns.

The Indiana Energy Association, which represents about a dozen utility companies, said none of its members is planning to build a nuclear plant in Indiana.

But some legislators, including Hershman, said they wanted to make the state attractive for a nuclear plant in the future by offering more incentives, such as ratepayer financing of new plants as they are constructed.

"Without the change in law provided in SB 251, it would be very difficult for such a plant to be constructed here," Stan Pinegar, president of the Indiana Energy Association, said in an e-mail afterward.

The bill would also direct the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission to "exercise all necessary caution" to avoid disclosing confidential information it receives from utilities to the public during rate cases or capital projects.

In recent months, several organizations, including The Indianapolis Star and Citizens Action Coalition, separately have filed open-records requests with the IURC, asking to see inspection reports on the construction of Duke Energy Corp.'s new power plant in Edwardsport, which has been plagued with cost overruns and delayed by accidents.

The IURC has denied the requests, citing state privacy laws on such reports. The new bill underscores the state's efforts to keep such information private.

Some consumer and environmental advocates on Wednesday urged the Senate to drop that requirement from the bill, but the committee kept it in.

"When you deal with regulated utility monopolies, transparency in the process is critical," said the Sierra Club's Mullet.

Call Star reporter John Russell at (317) 444-6283.

Original story:  http://www.indystar.com/article/20110211/BUSINESS/102110348/Utility-friendly-measure-gets-green-light?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|IndyStar.com

Editor's Note: I distributed a handout of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ's) on SB 251 to provide a summary of SB 251. Although I plan to revise this document to add suggestions on how to amend and hence improve SB 251, please find a link to the document I distributed yesterday.

I encourage this blog's readers to read SB 251 for themselves and to contact their State Senators this weekend to express their views about this proposed legislation.

Laura Ann Arnold

FAQ_SB 251_10Feb2011

Copyright 2013 IndianaDG