Indianapolis Star: “We can’t stand still on energy”

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   January 06, 2011  /   Posted in 2011 Indiana General Assembly, Uncategorized  /   No Comments

 

Editor's Note:  Here is the editorial from the Indianapolis Star on Jan. 4, 2011. So far, Governor Daniels and state legislative leaders have not put energy--specifically, supporting renewable energy and distributed generation--on their list of priorities for the 2011 session of the Indiana General Assembly. I urge you to call, write or visit your state legislators and tell them that advocating sound renewable energy and distributed generation development policy is good for business, good for consumers, good for jobs AND, therefore,  good for the State of Indiana.

I have also created a new page on this blog to help readers keep track of information about the Indiana General Assembly. Please visit http://indianadg.wordpress.com/indiana-general-assembly/. If you have any ideas or suggestions, please let me know how I can make this information easier for you to understand and to take action. OK?  I also need your help. Please send me information about upcoming Third House, Meet Your Legislator, Town Hall meetings and other events scheduled in your community for citizens to meet with state legislators during the session.

Laura Ann Arnold, Laura.Arnold@indianaDG.org, (317) 635-1701

Green energy -- meaning both conservation and alternative sources -- is expected to take a back seat to another green concern -- finances -- in this year's Indiana General Assembly session.

It's a false dichotomy. Substantial economic benefits, immediate as well as long term, can be realized through some relatively simple energy-related steps that many competing states already have taken.

Legislative leaders, along with Gov. Mitch Daniels, are focusing on a handful of inarguably paramount issues, especially the budget crisis, to the exclusion of concerns that have commanded considerable attention in recent sessions.

One is expansion of net metering, through which owners of wind turbines and other renewable power systems get credit from utilities for excess power they generate. That has proved a boon for green energy business development, in Indiana but more so in other states.

Right now in the Hoosier state, only homeowners and K-12 schools are eligible, and they're limited to 10 kilowatts. Efforts to allow more users and to dramatically raise the cap passed the Indiana House as recently as last year, but couldn't be reconciled with more modest Senate levels.

This year, the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission has taken up the task, drafting a proposal that tentatively expands net metering. But it doesn't go nearly far enough, in the opinion of state Rep. Ryan Dvorak, D-South Bend, the leader of the net-metering push until his party lost its House majority in November.

The legislature can tweak the proposal, which is not yet finalized. It should, particularly given the IURC's credibility problems. Dvorak is not optimistic about improvement, however; nor is he hopeful on another front.

The legislature thus far has failed to adopt a renewable energy standard -- a minimum portion of power utilities must generate from sources other than fossil fuels -- as many states, again, have done.

"We've lost out on major wind projects lately and will continue to do so," Dvorak says. "We're throwing economic development opportunities out the window."

Even if they would not go so far as Dvorak wishes, Republicans know Indiana is well placed to reap the rewards of expanded net metering and a realistic renewable energy standard. They also know they can't plausibly punt the ball to the scandal-wracked IURC. Nor can they ignore the fact that coal, while still the dominant fuel for Indiana electricity, has become too expensive to be afforded a near-monopoly while new sources generate jobs Hoosiers could be holding.

Original article: http://www.indystar.com/article/20110104/OPINION08/101040311/We-can-t-stand-still-energy?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|Opinion|s

Chris Striebeck says Governor abandons his trust in free markets

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   January 04, 2011  /   Posted in Feed-in Tariffs (FiT), Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Editor's Note:  Please find below a Letter to the Editor in the Tuesday, January 4, 2011, Indianapolis Star by Chris Striebeck with Integrated Development Services (IDS). Striebeck with IDS is a founding member of Indiana Distributed Energy Advocates (IDEA). The original article from the Indianapolis Star follows so that you can understand the full context of Striebeck's remarks.

Our friend Paul Gipe has commented, "My take is that if a fixed price contract works for the Governor on gas, then it should work on FITs for renewable energy too."

What are your thoughts?

Laura Ann Arnold

Just when it appeared that Gov. Mitch Daniels was a politician who understands the power of free markets, he apparently forgot that "The Road to Serfdom,'' a blisteringly rational criticism of governmental planned economies by 1974 Nobel laureate F.A. von Hayek, was among his top five favorite books.

His justification for supporting a 30-year ratepayer guarantee to buy synthetic natural gas produced from the proposed Rockport-Leucadia coal gasification plant is ultimately based upon his "care about the poor people of southwest Indiana.'' That is, he'll risk the financial obligation of hundreds of thousands of ratepayers for decades to pay higher than fair-market pricing for natural gas in return for the creation of 200 jobs and the potential for lower future natural gas prices.

Despite the good bet that long-term natural gas prices will indeed increase, it is not a decision for the governor to make on behalf of natural gas customers.

As has been seen with a host of other utility-engendered plans, there is nothing "rock solid" about the cost of producing energy, except that the ratepayers bear the losses.

If the governor is really looking to produce jobs in the energy sector and elsewhere, then look at ways to decentralize and de-subsidize the energy markets. At a minimum, investigate energy policies such as a legislated feed-in tariff, which is low in transactional cost, fairly and transparently allows all energy producers a small return on investment and was shown to produce over 250,000 permanent jobs in Germany in recent years.

Such programs truly tap the endless creativity and local capital of individuals to produce the most basic requirement of everything in life and society: energy.

Chris Striebeck Indianapolis

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

Daniels takes natural gas bet that others refused

Critics say his plan committing state to 30-year natural gas deal is risky for Indiana homeowners

Jan 2, 2011  

Written by Ted Evanoff

Original article: http://www.indystar.com/article/20110102/BUSINESS/101020347/Daniels-takes-natural-gas-bet-others-refused?odyssey=obinsite

The proposed $2.6 billion Rockport coal gasification plant that Gov. Mitch Daniels touts as a "rock-solid" winner for Indiana was rejected two years ago by the state's natural gas utilities as unneeded.

Gas companies backed away. Bankers declined loans.

The deal collapsed -- until Daniels stepped in and put it back on track.

Now, every household in Indiana that burns natural gas is being pulled into a venture that consumer activists call risky.

If the plant to be built at Rockport can't make gas from coal cheaply enough, household bills will increase for every home in Indiana that uses the fuel.

The reason is that the bold plan the governor announced Dec. 16 makes Indiana households the safety net for the proposed plant, which would use heat, steam, pressure and oxygen to turn coal into natural gas.

Under the plan, officials say, the plant would put 200 miners to work, open a new market for the state's coal mines, moderate spikes in natural gas prices and make Indiana a leader in gasification, a time-tested process never commercialized on a mass scale.

But it is a complex wager -- a bet, really -- that natural gas prices will rise.

Indiana would rely on the Rockport investors, a company in New York called Leucadia National Corp. It is betting that gas made from Midwestern coal will be cheaper than the natural gas flowing from the ground.

When the investors raised that very idea two years ago, utility executives balked.

In Indianapolis, Citizens Gas had just secured low-priced gas. On the open market, the utility locked in a 15-year contract at a guaranteed savings of $24 million for its 266,000 households. So the gas executives weren't excited about Rockport gas.

"We weren't in position to make another commitment for a long-term purchase of natural gas," said Citizens spokesman Dan Considine. "We simply didn't have enough volume to make the purchase offered by the synthetic gas project.''

Others feared the risk. No coal mine would offer investors 30-year coal contracts. So the long-term price of Rockport gas was unknown.

Yet bankers wouldn't touch the project unless Leucadia could secure 30-year contracts on the gas it sells. Big factories turned away, knowing they could get saddled with high gas prices from Rockport.

"The clients I represent were not interested in a portion of their gas coming from" the Rockport plant, said Indianapolis lawyer John Wickes, executive director of Indiana Industrial Energy Consumers Inc., a group of manufacturers. "Their thought was the private marketplace has an ample number of sellers."

Without a buyer for the Rockport gas, banks refused construction loans. The deal languished.

"Nobody was willing to bankroll it," said Rep. Ryan Dvorak, D-South Bend, a member of the House Utilities and Energy Committee. "They were concerned it would cost more to make gas than if they just bought it on the open market. Then the governor's folks came up with this idea."

The broad elements of Daniels' plan were approved by lawmakers in 2009. The measure unanimously passed the Senate, 48-0, and the House voted 90-8 to approve it. Early this year, the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission will rule on the plan. Approval would commit the Indiana Finance Authority to buy and resell Rockport's gas for 30 years.

That would satisfy lenders and -- just as importantly -- qualify the project for federal loan guarantees. The guarantees mean U.S. taxpayers will repay up to 80 percent of the construction loans if the investors fail to repay the money.

Once the Rockport plant is running -- the target date is 2015 -- the state would buy the gas and quickly resell it on the open market to energy traders and wholesalers. Any profits would be passed on to households in the form of lower gas bills. Losses would raise the bills.

How likely are losses? No one knows. The economics turn on the price of fuel. Experts say if natural gas prices shoot up higher than Rockport's costs, Indiana would win. If coal prices climb, and natural gas prices fall or stay flat, the state's households would lose.

State officials estimate Rockport will make gas at a cost of about $7 per million British thermal units, the standard measurement for combustible materials. That includes fixed costs of $5 per million Btu for operating the plant and repaying the construction loans. An additional $2 covers coal at current market rates.

The risk is in the $7 figure. Gas has reached $11 per million Btu in recent years, but on wholesale markets today, traders pay about $4 per million Btu.

If the plant were operating now, the state would be obligated to buy the gas at $7 but would have to sell it at the $4 level, because that's the market price for the commodity set by thousands of trades across the country. Under the deal, Indiana households -- instead of the investors, as in a more conventional deal -- would pay the $3 difference.

That's the kind of math that has critics howling.

"All of the gas utilities refused to sign these contracts after two years of negotiations because it is simply too risky," contends Kerwin Olson, executive director of Citizens Action Coalition, a consumer group based in Indianapolis. "The only way this thing can get built is if taxpayers and ratepayers are put on the hook."

Daniels bristles at the critics. He said they overlook the new jobs the plant and mines would bring to the area's distressed economy.

"You either care about the poor people of southwest Indiana or you don't," he said. "My goal from the beginning has been to bring some jobs and hope to the poorest part of the state."

He notes there is a risk for households in the event gas prices fall nationwide, or coal prices surge, but he calls it slight, saying many energy forecasts call for rising natural gas prices as the recession fades.

"As a matter of good economic and public policy, this is a rock-solid program," Daniels said. "We can turn our own coal into very clean and affordable energy that we need."

Once gas prices climb, he said, Rockport would serve as a hedge and trim the bill for Indiana consumers. Homeowners now pay about $800 per year on average for the fuel. If that price shoots to $2,000, a household would save $100 a year.

Some years, the investors note, fuel on the open market will be cheaper. In case that happens, they've pledged $150 million to cushion Indiana households. That's enough cash to cover about two years.

When it's depleted, households would get stung with rising gas rates.

Household rates would not necessarily shoot up dramatically because Rockport will account for only about 17 percent of the gas burned in households statewide. But an extra $2 or $5 per month is not out of the question.

Rockport's investors, however, downplay that risk. They say more years than not, Rockport will make gas cheaper than market, and that will save Indiana money. The investors' contract with the state guarantees $100 million in savings over 30 years for Indiana households.

"If at the end of the 30-year contract, the state hasn't gotten $100 million in savings, we have to sell the plant and use the money to make good on their savings," said William Rosenberg of E3 Gasification in Cary, N.C., a partner with the project's investors.

Despite the assurances, utilities are wary of similar projects the Leucadia investors proposed in Illinois and Louisiana.

In 2008, the company pledged $400 million in savings for consumers in Louisiana.

Even so, Entergy, a major gas utility in Louisiana, declined to enter a long-term purchase agreement with the investors at a proposed gas plant there.

Issuing a statement, the utility called the $400 million in proposed savings "not an accurate projection" and asserted in 2009 alone that the deal would have raised the tab for Louisiana customers by $13 million.

"We were unable to reach an agreement with them on terms that were beneficial to our customers," said Entergy spokeswoman Kerry Zimmerman.

Since then, Leucadia has recast its venture in Louisiana, called Lake Charles Cogeneration LLC, to supply methane for industrial plants.

In Illinois, lawmakers are considering a measure that would have the state's gas utilities buy the output from a project proposed near Chicago. It would render petroleum coke, a waste produced in oil refineries, into gas.

"We aren't opposed to the facility, but we think this is going to be expensive gas," said Richard Dobson, gas supply manager at Illinois' Citizens Gas, which serves 800,000 customers.

Leucadia has urged long-term purchase contracts, but Citizens executives in Illinois are concerned that gas prices could plunge and they would be locked in to a higher price from Leucadia.

"This is an entity we barely know that is asking us to enter into a 30-year contract," Dobson said. "No one in this business does 30-year contracts."

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

Generous Tariff Lures British Farmers Into Raising Solar Power Arrays

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   December 21, 2010  /   Posted in Feed-in Tariffs (FiT), Uncategorized  /   No Comments
Editor's note:  The success of this feed-in tariff (FIT) program appears to be in sharp contrast to Rate REP approved earlier this year for the FIT offered by Indianapolis Power and Light (IPL). Only one FIT contract has been approved so far under the IPL program. IPL, however, is requesting some minor changes to Rate REP as a part of a Demand Side Management (DSM) case pending before the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC). Indiana Distributed Energy Advocates (IDEA) has intervened in the IPL case. For more details, please contact Laura.Arnold@indianaDG.org or call (317) 635-1701.
December 15, 2010

 

 

GLASTONBURY, England -- Michael Eavis is not your average farmer, but this year he is following the herd. Spurred on by a new tariff that pays individuals to produce their own electricity and sell it to the nation's grid, Eavis has installed 1,100 solar photovoltaic panels on the roof of his dairy barn. He calls it his "Mootel."

"I have wanted to do this ever since I built the barn about 10 years ago. The feed-in tariffs just made it much easier and more profitable. Everyone is thrilled to bits with the array. It is working really well," he told ClimateWire.

"The panels will earn about £50,000 [$79,053] a year, so in 10 years we will have paid off the £500,000 [$790,398] we borrowed from the bank to build the array. Solar power is really clean -- even more so than wind -- and it is free. There is enough energy from the sun to power the whole world during the day," he added.

Eavis is just one among a throng of people, including many farmers, who have leaped at the chance the tariff scheme offers both to make money and to get "greener." In contrast to many other such schemes across Europe, the U.K. feed-in tariffs pay for all power produced, not just that exported to the grid. They also have the added attraction of being guaranteed for 25 years.

Of course, not every farmer can do this on the scale Eavis has. He is the sponsor of the 40-year-old Glastonbury Festival, a three-day music and performing arts event that draws 150,000 rock fans to his Worthy Farm, which is about 130 miles west of London.

But a lot of them are trying. Meanwhile, the new, austerity-prone British government, which inherited the scheme, is trying to maintain a stiff upper lip. Well aware of the retrospective changes being discussed in Spain to slash the cost of its runaway solar power sector, the government has pledged that, while new, lower rates could be implemented in 2013, there will be no backsliding.

"There will never be any changes made retrospectively to the feed-in tariffs," a spokeswoman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said.

Rate of applicants accelerates

Government figures show a phenomenal rate of uptake since the April 1 start of the scheme in the United Kingdom, with solar photovoltaic far and away the favorite technology. As of the middle of last month, 11,370 individual projects had been registered since the scheme started, representing a total of just under 44 megawatts of power capacity, and according to Ofgem -- the government's energy watchdog -- the rate of applications is accelerating rapidly.

Of these, 10,552 were photovoltaic, which also accounted for 60 percent of rated power capacity; 699 were wind; 114 were hydro; and five were micro combined heat and power. Close to three-quarters of the total was domestic, with most of the rest commercial.

The government didn't divulge how many of the applicants are households and how many are farmers. But Farming Futures, part of an agricultural think tank, has done a poll that found that 80 percent of farmers in the United Kingdom want to put solar photovoltaic panels on their roofs within the next three years -- before any changes can be implemented in the tariff's payout.

"We have seen a real appetite for investing in solar this year, and it is great to see so many farmers recognizing this opportunity to create an income and diversify, as well as contribute to developing a low-carbon economy in the U.K.," said Madeline Lewis of Farming Futures.

Under the scheme a solar photovoltaic array with a capacity of 4 to 10 kilowatts will earn the owner 36.1 pence (55 cents) per kilowatt-hour of power produced and consumed on-site. The rate falls to 31.4 pence (49 cents) for installations of 10 to 100 kW and 29.3 pence (46 cents) for those from 100 to 5,000 kW -- the range into which Eavis' 200 kW array fits.

Worries about melting cables

All power exported to the grid earns 3 pence (4 cents) per kilowatt-hour, and in all cases, the tariff is guaranteed for a quarter of a century.

"Traditionally, farming revenue is quite seasonal. But now we are making money by creating clean energy, we have the peace of mind of another income, and we are doing our bit reducing our carbon footprint," said farmer Michael Frankel, who installed a solar power array on his barn roof earlier this year.

There is one possible hitch. The Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government that inherited the scheme -- and a £180 billion ($238 billion) budget deficit from Labour when it took power in May -- has said it will not review the scheme before 2012 unless there is a higher-than-expected uptake.

It has not said what that would be, but a DECC spokeswoman said she expected the early review trigger level to be announced very soon "to give absolute clarity" -- although she insisted that any review would only be of future rates.

The newly formed British Photovoltaic Association industry lobby group calculates that the U.K. solar market, with the feed-in tariff scheme securely under its arm, could reach 60 MW by the end of this year and climb to 1,000 MW by 2015 and 5,000 MW by 2020.

Eavis certainly has plans to expand his array, possibly before he has even paid off the bank loan to build the original, because the future income is already known and the duration of the income stream likewise.

"Most of the electricity will go to the farm, although some will also go to the grid. Ideally, I would like to get a second batch the same size as the first one, so we would have 2,200 solar panels in total," he said. "But we have to make sure we have the right cables. Put too much down them, and they start to melt."

Copyright 2010 E&E Publishing. All Rights Reserved.

For more news on energy and the environment, visit www.climatewire.net.
ClimateWire is published by Environment & Energy Publishing. Read More »

State of Indiana reaches deal on coal gasification plant – CNBC

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   December 17, 2010  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Source for article reprinted below. State reaches deal on coal gasification plant - CNBC.

Editor's Note: There are several different versions of this story floating around. I have decided to re-print the AP version of this story published by CNBC, however, I thought readers might want to read and compare the other versions including from the front page banner story in today's Indianapolis Star. Tell me what you think? Laura Ann Arnold

http://www.indystar.com/article/201012170245/LOCAL/12170340

http://www.nwitimes.com/business/local/article_919495b7-488e-5ae9-96c3-03c1b5a45181.html
 
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2010/dec/16/state-developers-reach-agreement-rockport-ind-gasi/?partner=RSS

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

Published: Thursday, 16 Dec 2010 | 4:59 PM ET

INDIANAPOLIS - The state's finance authority said Thursday that it reached a 30-year deal to buy synthetic natural gas from a coal-gasification plant planned for southern Indiana, marking the first time the state has entered into such a venture.

Opponents called the deal an entitlement program and "socialism for corporations," but Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels said the deal will save Indiana's natural gas users money by locking in low rates and ensuring a steady supply of synthetic natural gas made from Indiana coal.

"We're out to pay Hoosiers instead of people elsewhere for the energy we need," Daniels said. "We're out to protect ratepayers against the likelihood of higher long-term gas prices. We're out to put people to work in rural Indiana. And we're out to become a leader in the high-tech field of cleaner energy. This project does all that."

Under the deal, the Indiana Finance Authority will spend an estimated $6.9 billion over 30 years to buy synthetic natural gas from Indiana Gasification LLC, a subsidiary of Leucadia National Corporation. The IFA will buy the gas once production begins — as early as 2015 — and will then sell the synthetic gas to the market, where it will be delivered to consumers through existing utilities. If contract prices are lower than market prices, the savings will be split between the company and ratepayers. If contract prices are higher than market prices, ratepayers would be protected by $150 million set aside by the company to cover higher prices.

The company will be responsible for building the $2.65 billion plant planned for the Ohio River town of Rockport in Spencer County. The state would share in profits from byproducts of the coal-gasification process such as sulfuric acid and rare gasses, and the company would give Indiana vitreous slag for free, a byproduct that can be used to build roads.

Officials said Indiana Gasification assumes all the risk for construction of the plant and its operations — so if the plant is not built or does not end up producing synthetic natural gas as planned, the state is not out anything.

"There's no risk to us," said Jennifer Alvey, the state's public finance director.

But Kerwin Olson, the program director for the Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, questioned why the state needed to get involved at all.

"Our position from the get go has been if Leucadia wants to build this plant and sell their gas into the market, go for it," he wrote in an e-mail to The Associated Press. "But the bottom line is they can't because it is too risky and Wall St. won't finance it based on its own merits."

"The state is delivering Leucadia a market to which they are not entitled," he wrote.

Alvey said the finance authority's involvement would mean all natural gas users in Indiana would benefit, not just those from one utility company who might choose to buy the synthetic natural gas. Daniels pointed out that the contract allows the state to direct the gas for use wherever it deems necessary in a state of emergency, meaning the state could still get natural gas even if supplies were interrupted elsewhere because of a hurricane, act of terrorism or other event.

The governor's office estimates that the plant — first talked about in 2006 — would create 1,000 construction jobs, 200 full-time jobs at the plan and 300 mining jobs.

The roundabout method of using the finance authority as an intermediary partner between the state's gas utilities and the coal-gasification plant was created after utilities dropped out of negotiations for the synthetic gas contracts in 2008 amid concerns the long contracts would harm their credit.

In 2009, the Indiana General Assembly passed a law that allowed the finance authority to negotiate long-term contracts with the plant, which would turn coal into synthetic natural gas, stripping it of pollutants and carbon dioxide to create a gas similar to real natural gas.

Now that the finance authority has completed negotiations, it will file a petition with the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission for approval of the project agreements. Indiana Gasification is negotiating a loan guarantee with the U.S. Department of Energy, and an environmental impact study must be done. Depending on the timing of those elements, construction of the plant could begin in early 2012.

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press.

WSJ: A Fine Clean Coal Mess; Duke Energy loses its bet on cap and trade.

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   December 15, 2010  /   Posted in Edwardsport IGCC Plant, Emissions Trading/Cap and Trade, Uncategorized  /   No Comments
By HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR,
  • DECEMBER 15, 2010, Wall Street Journal
  • So far, Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers hasn't lost his job over the other big email story of the week—the one not involving WikiLeaks. And perhaps he doesn't deserve to. Perhaps neither did the lesser executives who have gone down in the scandal. But Mr. Rogers may want to reflect on the role his clean-coal enthusiasms have played in the imbroglio.

    On Sept. 24, Scott Storms, a lawyer for the Indiana utility commission, quit and went to work for Duke after receiving an ethics waiver. That decision outraged consumer advocates. On Oct. 5, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels fired the commission's head and ordered a reopening of Mr. Storm's recent decisions involving Duke. Duke later fired Mr. Storms and also its top local executive who had hired him.

    End of story? Not by a long shot. Then came a release of emails pried loose by the Indianapolis Star, which led to the resignation last week of James Turner, Duke's executive in charge of its regulated utility businesses. The emails exposed an allegedly excessive coziness between Indiana regulators and Duke executives, who joked about cars, wine and wives. In one email, Duke's Mr. Turner wondered if the state's "ethics police would have a cow" if a top regulator visited him at his weekend home.

    Then again, you might wonder how the people involved could have helped being buddy-buddy with each other. Virtually all the players working for Duke had once worked for the Indiana government, while the main player on Indiana's side, the head of its utility commission, had once been a lawyer for a local utility now owned by Duke.

    The company in the future might be smart to hire out-of-staters to run its Indiana business. The state might be smart to subject its utility regulators to legislative confirmation or direct election by voters, as other states do to ward off cronyism. Hovering over all is Duke's Edwardsport coal-gasification plant, whose high-tech white elephanthood is a direct product of Mr. Rogers's attempt to position his company to prosper in the age of climate politics.

    bw1215

    Bloomberg

    James Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy Corp.

    Mr. Rogers here was betting on Mr. Rogers, the closest thing to a celebrity CEO in the utility business, profiled in the New York Times magazine two years ago as a "green coal baron." No executive has lobbied as noisily or consistently for a national price on carbon output. His wish seemed certain to come true after both major parties nominated climate worrywarts in the 2008 presidential contest.

    But something about a 9.8% national unemployment rate has now made politicians less keen on imposing higher utility bills. Nor did Mr. Rogers count on what we'll boldly call the public's growing sophistication about climate science. Where the public was once prepared to believe in a pending climate meltdown because "scientists" said so, now it entertains the possibility that "scientists" are human, capable of mistaking theory for fact, of confusing belief with knowledge.

    From the start, the Edwardsport plant was unpopular with certain consumer and green groups for whom clean coal is an oxymoron, but they were outvoiced by other groups that take a more realistic view of America's dependence on coal. Now the opponents are limbering up again, joined by industrial customers such as Nucor Steel, who fret about getting socked with high-priced electricity.

    Though it isn't reflected in the emails, let's just assume then a certain neuralgia on Duke's part about whether Indiana regulators will continue to let the plant's costs be passed along to consumers. Until the scandal, the state had been reasonably obliging. But 'tis the season to be charitable. The critics should also acknowledge that Duke and the rest of the industry have been in a tough position, trying to invest billions to meet future demand despite nagging uncertainty about the future of climate policy. The Edwardsport plant may be proving a wrong bet in this regard, but that does not mean that Indiana's regulatory process has been corrupted.

    Just the opposite: The plant was hugely popular with the political firmament, and continues to benefit from a gusher of federal, state and local tax subsidies worth $460 million. One could even say the regulatory process made the Edwardsport blunder possible. Without regulators around to guarantee a return on such a risky and pioneering investment, Duke likely would have sat on it hands and let rising electricity prices take care of any gap between demand and supply while waiting for the country to make up its mind about global warming.

    Editor's note: In case you missed these Indianapolis Star front page stories about Duke Energy and the IURC, please find below links to these stories.

    • Duke Energy exec Turner resigns over ethics flap

    11:32 AM, Dec 6, 2010

    http://www.indystar.com/article/20101206/BUSINESS/12060350

    • IURC chief and Duke exec were pals, e-mails show

    Regulator, utility power player discussed a lot -- including Duke's hiring process

    12:35 AM, Nov 28, 2010
    Copyright 2013 IndianaDG