For Vectren, new 20-year energy plan a balancing act

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   November 13, 2016  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

vectren-logo

For Vectren, new 20-year energy plan a balancing act

Vectren Corp. this month will present a 20-year plan that will go a long way toward determining how much you’ll pay for power in the future, as well as how that power is produced.

It remains to be seen how Tuesday’s election of Donald Trump as president, and Trump’s possible loosening of current Environmental Protection Agency regulations on coal, might impact the utility's outlook.

Vectren must rewrite its integrated resource plan every two years. Utility officials said the process involves modeling dozens of scenarios which consider national economic factors, the cost of energy sources, the advanced age of Vectren’s coal-fired plants, federal government rules and consumer cost.

The plan is to be presented Nov. 29. It will be subject to Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission approval, following a public comment period

“Affordability is a big concern,” said Chase Kelley, vice president for marketing and communications. “We’re very sensitive to where our rates are now.”

Vectren’s residential electric rates are Indiana’s highest. Vectren also operates in an Ohio River valley region which, because of a preponderance of coal plants operated by multiple companies, has some of the dirtiest air in the United States, according to a September report by the Center for Public Integrity.

The Evansville metropolitan area currently meets federal requirements for ozone and fine particulate pollution, and Vectren is in compliance with its state air pollution permit.

Athough Vectren also is now in attainment of the federal Mercury Air & Toxics Standards Act (MATS), ratepayers have not yet felt the cost of meeting those requirements. Vectren has deferred passing on to consumers the about $70 million to $90 million cost to implement some of its pollution controls.

However, the region continues to walk a fine line in terms of air quality.

The American Lung Association, in its most recent State of the Air report issued in May 2015, gave Vanderburgh, Warrick and Henderson (Kentucky) an "F" grade for ozone pollution, although the area got passing grades on other air pollution.

The new 20-year-plan, according to Vectren, will evaluate if retirement dates are established for coal-fired plants in Posey and Warrick counties.

The oldest of those plants, Culley 2 in Warrick, was built in 1966. The newest, Brown 2, came online in 1986.

A reminder of that age occurred in late July. At the Culley 3 plant in Warrick (built in 1973), part of a silo filled with coal broke loose, falling through cables and electrical equipment before crashing on a concrete floor. Vectren still doesn’t know what caused the mishap. An investigation is going.

Vectren says its plan will evaluate the costs of continuing to run those plants, as well as the cost to use more natural gas and renewable energy sources.

EPA regulations on coal also are a factor.

In July, Vectren officials said complying with one EPA rule would cost $240 million, and they had not decided yet whether to make the investment. That rule has to do with how bottom ash, which settles in the bottom of a filter and is not burned, is handled.

“We slurry that into our ash pond,” Kelley said. “New rules say you can’t do that. It has to be dry. So it’s the handling system, where do we put it. … it must be in compliance in future years.”

Kelley said in an interview several days before Tuesday’s presidential election that the entire power generation industry “is in a state of transformation. The question is how long does that change take to occur and actually transition our portfolio, and that’s what this IRP will speak to.”

“I can’t tell you exactly what it’s going to say,” Kelley said of Vectren’s new IRP. “It feels like coal retirement is imminent. Is it tomorrow? No, but this is a 20-year study and exercise. You’ve got to think that’s what it’s going to lead to. It’s a just a matter of what (new types of energy) units, and what’s the right time.”

Trump, though, has signaled major change could be coming to national energy policy.

Trump’s campaign website states that as president, he will seek to” unleash $50 trillion in untapped shale, oil, and natural gas reserves, plus hundreds of years in ‘clean coal’ reserves.”

The website attacked Hillary Clinton for saying she would “defend and build on” President Barack Obama’s coal regulations, had she won the presidency.

Wendy Bredhold, campaign representative for the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal effort, said much of Indiana and the nation already are moving toward renewable power-generating sources, and Trump’s election should not change that.

Bredhold said there is concern over the direction Trump will take EPA rules, but “I don’t think it’s going to be as easy as him just going in and upending current rules. There will have to be a process.”

Kelley, asked for an updated statement following last week’s election, said Vectren continues to weigh options for energy production.

“Like all stakeholders in the energy industry, especially those that operate coal-fired generation units, we are in the process of assessing the next administration’s ability to implement their energy and environmental policies, including the possibility that those actions may impact existing and/or planned Environmental Protection Agency regulations,” Kelley said in an email to the Courier & Press.

“Resource planning represents an effort to assess how alternatives fare under a wide range of potential future conditions, including policies that may be implemented under future administrations beyond the newly elected president,” Kelley continued. “We are modeling multiple scenarios for meeting our customers’ future energy requirements, including scenarios that include high and low regulatory environments, to ensure we arrive at a preferred generation portfolio that provides a reasonably priced, reliable and sustainable portfolio option for our customers in southwestern Indiana.”

Vectren says continuing to run the coal-fired plants would carry a cost, but so would a shift to more renewables.

“Renewable prices are still a little bit too high,” Kelley said. “One thing we are looking at in this IRP is, is there some sort of a bridge that helps us get to more affordable renewables 10 years out.  Because right now solar is going to have to have some sort of backup generation for when it’s cloudy, when the sun doesn’t shine. You have to have some sort of battery storage. You could see gas coupled with solar, so gas can kick on when the solar isn’t there. But the challenge is affordability. If you fast forward 10-15 years, it’s a different ballgame."

Citizens with interest in the environment have attended Vectren’s stakeholder meetings on the IRP, pushing for a transition to more renewables. They urge Vectren to move away from coal and also not build a natural gas plant to replace the Brown and Culley facilities.

They plant to be present again Nov. 29 when Vectren's updated 20-year plan is presented.

“I certainly hope they will do the right thing and not continue to burn coal with all the repercussions for our health in this region, and instead look at solar, wind, and innovations in battery storage,” Bredhold said. “Vectren likes to think of themselves as a progressive company even though they continue to invest in coal, which is why our rates are some of the highest in the state. I’m hopeful they have listened to people and will make a significant investment in renewable energy.”

Local environmental advocates took great interest in the September Center for Public Integrity report, which categorized this region as a super polluter. The report drew correlations between the presence of coal-fired plants run by a number of local companies, in communities from Owensville to Rockport, and poor community health data.

“I want to see them do at least up to 30 percent renewables,” Jean Webb, an Evansville resident, said of Vectren. “They should be able to absorb that without too much change. I think that’s a reasonable goal to get to. I don’t want to see them spend any of that $240 million that they are proposing to spend on coal plants. And I don’t consider it a win for them to switch from coal to gas, fossil fuel to fossil fuel.”

Nicole Pollard has lived in the area 17 years, and her second child has suffered from chronic asthma. The 8-year-old girl does regular breathing treatments and has had multiple hospital stays.

Pollard believes the region’s air quality could be the culprit.

“We never really understood where it came from or why she has it,” Pollard said. “But one thing that struck my husband and I is that when we leave this area, her chronic colds and wheezing go away.”

Jane Leingang, who has lived in Evansville 30 years, also suffers from asthma. She quoted the statement by Pope Francis that pollution harms the world’s marginalized people.

“I understand that there are going to be consequences from going away from coal-fired power plants, that there are going to be people who will be dislocated from their jobs,” Leingang said. “I have great confidence this country has a way of figuring that problem out and finding employment for people in other aspects of the energy industry, the kinds of energy that won’t make us suffer. We just have to do. It’s imperative we find a way to do a better job.

Vanderburgh County, according to the Center for Public Integrity, had higher levels of fine particles than nearly 90 percent of the U.S. counties with air monitors from 2013 to 2015. The report said Vanderbrugh was nearly on par with Manhattan in central New York City.

There is some positive trending, however. Local concentrations of fine particles dropped nearly 30 percent over the past decade, as EPA regulations have tightened. There were significant drops in power plants’ sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and carbon dioxide emissions.

Vectren says it has played a role in that, citing its heavy investment to control those pollutants.

As far as what comes next under a new presidential administration, Vectren says the integrated resource plan pegged for release on Nov. 29 will be a guidepost.

“We’re still running things through the risk model,” Kelley said. “We do have to reveal our preferred plan in this meeting and say that’s what we expect the future to entail.”

_____________

Courier & Press reporter Mark Wilson contributed to this report.


 

To learn more and/or to participate in Vectren's IRP Stakeholder process see

Vectren IRP Stakeholder Meeting 11/29/16 in Evansville

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   November 13, 2016  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Image result for vectren

Next Vectren IRP Stakeholder Meeting 11/29/16 in Evansville

Every two years, Vectren is required to submit its Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) to the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC). The Integrated Resource Plan is a 20-year forecast that outlines how Vectren could serve existing and future electric customers in a reliable and economic manner.

Vectren has established a stakeholder engagement process to provide an opportunity for interested parties to participate in the IRP process. Please note this is not a forum in which rates, nor customer service issues will be discussed. If you wish to participate in our third 2016 IRP stakeholder meeting, details are below.

 

Date:             Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Location:       1st Floor of Vectren’s headquarters building located at 211 NW Riverside Dr., Evansville, Indiana 47708

Time:             1:30 p.m. until 4:30 p.m. (CST) with registration and refreshments starting at 1:00 p.m.

Agenda:        An agenda will be sent to registered attendees in advance of the meeting

Registration for the November 29th public stakeholder meeting is now open. Please register by Tuesday, November 22, 2016.  Registration, presentation materials from the current stakeholder process, Vectren’s 2014 IRP/stakeholder process materials, and IRP education materials are available at:

www.vectren.com/irp

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding the stakeholder meeting.

Thank you,

Matt Rice

Director of Research & Energy Technologies

irp@vectren.com

Vectren Energy Delivery

Sweeping energy overhaul passes Michigan Senate

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   November 11, 2016  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

michigan_featured_img_mich_law_101-1038x576

Sweeping energy overhaul passes Michigan Senate

Jonathan Oosting | Detroit News Lansing Bureau

Lansing – The Michigan Senate approved Thursday a sweeping package to overhaul state energy policy and rules for electric providers, changes a sponsor said will “keep us in control of our own energy future” amid federal regulatory uncertainty.

The legislation, supported by major utilities, continues to face criticism. It has divided the business community because of proposal regulations for alternative suppliers that offer lower electricity rates to some companies and schools.

The package will “ensure the continued availability of clean, reliable and affordable energy for our citizens and businesses,” sponsoring Sen. Mike Nofs, R-Battle Creek said between the 26-10 and 26-11 votes.

Gov. Rick Snyder backed the amended Senate legislation.

“These policies have the potential to save Michiganders billions of dollars and make our state’s energy future much brighter,” Snyder said in a statement. “I look forward to working with our partners in the House to complete this work before the end of the year.”

Now headed to the House, the legislation would create an “integrated resource planning” process for rate-regulated utilities like DTE and Consumer’s Energy as they seek state approval to build new load facilities while retiring aging coal-fired power plants.

Under a change made Thursday, utilities would be required to produce 12.5 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2019 and 15 percent by 2021, up from the current 10 percent mandate. Earlier versions would have eliminated the mandate.

Most Democrats, who pushed for the 15 percent renewable requirement, joined a majority of Republicans in approving the bills.

Supporters say reliability concerns have fueled a push to change the existing electric choice program, which allows alternative and out-of-state suppliers to provide 10 percent of Michigan’s electricity at unregulated and typically less expensive rates.

The legislation would maintain that cap, but the bills or a separate proposal awaiting federal approval would require alternative suppliers to secure capacity to serve customers for three years or pay an undetermined “capacity charge” to utilities.

The influential Michigan Chamber of Commerce endorsed the bills last month, with CEO Rich Studley arguing it would preserve electric choice, ensure reliability and “move the state forward.” The Small Business Association of Michigan also supports the plan.

But critics fear the proposals could “kill” the electric choice market, costing participating businesses and schools significant savings. A coalition including major Michigan employers like Amway and Pfizer opposes the bills.

Terri Reid, president of the conservative Michigan Freedom Fund, said the bills put “massive electric utilities profits” above the needs of residents, schools and employers.

“Senate Bill 437 kills electric choice, abandons free market principles, will raise prices on schools and job creators, and sticks Michiganders with hundreds of millions in higher rates on their electricity,” she said in a statement.

The legislation would create 21 full-time positions at the Michigan Public Service Commission and Michigan Agency for Energy to process rate cases, costing taxpayers roughly $3 million a year, according to a Senate analysis.

Renewable mandate

The long-discussed legislation now heads to the House, where it faces an uncertain future with nine more meeting days scheduled this year. Any bills not passed by the end of 2016 would need to be reintroduced in the next two-year session.

House Energy Committee Chairman Aric Nesbitt said he is confident that the House will approve the package this year, but Rep. Gary Glenn predicted the bills will be “dead on arrival” in the Republican caucus.

“If we want to have long-term, reliable, affordable energy in this state, we need to make sure we pass a robust energy package,” said Nesbitt, R-Lawton.

Glenn said concerns over electric choice, combined with a philosophical opposition to the proposed renewable energy mandate, will turn off many conservative colleagues. He also suggested caution following Tuesday’s win by President-elect Donald Trump.

“Why would we rush to lock Michigan into a policy until we let the Trump administration make clear what their intentions are,” said Glenn, R-Midland. “We’ve been operating under a certain set of expectations from the federal government, and they may dramatically change.”

Removing the mandate could lose Democratic votes in the House.

“I want to see us build on the past successes of our renewable policies and see the investments come into Michigan,” said Sen. Hoon Yung Hopgood, D-Taylor.

Nesbitt said House Republicans will look at the Senate’s “compromise package” and said he was disappointed that Glenn “thinks he can speak for the caucus like that.”

Utilities said they are fine with the 15 percent renewable energy mandate.

“We’re going toward that number anyway,” DTE Energy spokesman John Austerberry said Wednesday. “Additional renewables are part of our long-term plan. Wind power, especially, has become a lot more cost-effective, and it’s already a big part of our portfolio.”

The Michigan Environmental Council called the Senate package a small step forward but said more should be done to reduce costs for consumers and protect public health.

“Further expanding renewable energy will lower electricity costs, create jobs and improve public health. Michigan should be a leader on clean, renewable energy, and our energy policy has a long way to go before that happens,” said James Clift, policy director for the Michigan Environmental Council.

joosting@detroitnews.com

Minnesota tax plan could clear the way for more solar

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   November 11, 2016  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Robert A. Olson, an attorney who is the president of Olson Energy Corporation, is photographed at his company's office in downtown Minneapolis, Minnesota on November 9, 2016.

Robert A. Olson, an attorney who is the president of Olson Energy Corporation, is photographed at his company's office in downtown Minneapolis, Minnesota on November 9, 2016.

Minneapolis attorney’s tax plan could clear the way for more solar

PHOTO BY: Angela Jimenez for Midwest Energy News

Minneapolis tax attorney and former bank president Bob Olson has an idea he believes could transform renewable energy financing by using a mix of tax breaks that result in nonprofits or even government agencies eventually owning projects.

The first project that could happen involves a proposed Red Lake Nation solar installation that would be financed by a Fortune 500 bank based in Minneapolis, as well as at least one other investor.

The bank, or collection of investors, would then “make a charitable contribution” of the solar project to the tribe after five years and walk away debt free and with a total outlay, after tax breaks, of near nothing – and with a 15 to 20 percent return on their money.

The chief goal is more renewable energy. “I hope this expands solar and wind energy across the United States,” he said. “It allows tax exempt non-profit entities to create solar and wind projects of unlimited size, with investors and contributors making very good returns on their investments.”

The attorney dubs his approach “The Olson Plan” and said he has attracted interest from the Red Lake Nation, the University of Minnesota, a regional development agency, several Fortune 500 companies and one national bank.

Many deals will begin to reach fruition in the spring of next year, he believes. The sales’ cycle is long, said Olson, because the idea of projects ending in charitable donations is a relatively new concept and requires a new way of thinking.

The founder of Olson Energy Corporation has signed confidential non-disclosure agreements with five solar developers and several Fortune 500s. The tax law involving every aspect of the deals has been vetted over a number of years.

The devil is in the details. “These deals are complex and take months for all the parties to understand,” he said. “It’s complicated but it works.”

The approach is not without precedent, Olson said. Business magnate James Cargill built $38 million worth of student housing at the University of Minnesota and then donated it in 2008 through the school’s foundation.

Ralph Jacobson, founder of Innovative Power Systems, is working with Olson on the Red Lake Nation project. He believes once the first deal is done more will follow as investors warm up to what is a novel approach involving a contribution.

“It’s a little outside the box,” he said.

Region Five Development Commission in north central Minnesota is working on a solar project with Olson. Executive director Cheryal Lee Hills sees great promise in the Olson Plan moving forward on a big effort to add solar to eight area schools.

“When you’re trying to achieve public good this is a really interesting approach to maximizing the benefits in that space,” she said. “If this would be used only for private sector gain there would be less of an appetite on behalf of organizations like mine, which is looking for ways to stabilize energy costs for organizations which are struggling, like our school districts. It’s a public good.”

Norm Jones, a well-known tax attorney with Winthrop & Weinstine, has analyzed the Olson Plan and sees no reason why it cannot work. The one caveat is that the tax bill after the donation is deferred to the nonprofit recipients, though if they never sell the solar installations they will never pay taxes on it.

The challenge will be to secure secondary investors who are “okay doing this charitable contribution and okay with taking just tax losses and no credits,” he said. “It’s not a perfect market out there – not every good idea that has value is instantly successful because not every financial product has a ready and willing audience – even if it’s a good financial product.”

Olson will have to create a charitable contribution market that does not exist, but once he lands one or two clients he should be able to put together a portfolio of projects, Jones said.

“I think he’s a great advocate for it,” said Jones. “I think (solar) developers who have heard about it see it as a value add. Developers seem to be liking it, and willing to incorporate it…No one else knows how to explain the program well enough to do that job for Bob. It’s up to him to be the advocate and I think he will be successful.”

The art of the deal

So how does a typical deal work and how does Olson ingeniously use the tax code to give investors a free ride?

Keep in mind the financing is no different than for any other solar project except for the charitable contribution portion.

Now let’s consider a $10 million solar project for, say, the eventual benefit of a university. A corporation first will be formed to finance the solar facility. A power purchase agreement would be created to sell power to the university.

Then the Olson Plan would enlist two investors, one to take the 30 percent tax credit and a portion of the depreciation; the other to take the rest of the depreciation and the charitable contribution deduction.

They are two different kinds of investors and one rarely ventures into the other’s territory. And the second investor needs to be a major company or a financier, one with a large enough tax bill to be looking for millions of dollars of deductions.

The primary investor receives a 30 percent “investment tax credit” worth $3 million, said Olson. After two years the secondary investor could take more than 70 percent of the depreciation available.

The depreciation eventually brings in another $4 million in tax savings. “In the first three years of this project you can have $7 million in tax savings,” Olson said.

In the sixth year of operation the investor, through the corporation, would “sell” the project to the university. The stock from the corporation would transfer to the university after it paid a share of the project’s fair market value.

If the solar installation was still worth $10 million, the tax code allows a nonprofit to take ownership for a little as five percent, or $500,000. The university would then own the solar facility and the power it generates.

This last act of kindness results in an additional slice of pie for the investors – a $4 million tax benefit for the donation. That means the tax benefits are, in effect, greater than the cost of the original project.

And during those first five years of service the solar panels offer the investor cash flow and a solid return, he said.

Under the tax code there are a variety of entities that can accept such a donation. Universities, tribes, governments and even municipally owned power agencies could conceivably become owners of solar and wind projects, Olson said.

The question of donating something to the government is unusual. “Generally speaking people don’t give charitable contributions to the government,” he said with a laugh. “I’ve spent my professional life making sure that clients don’t accidentally give the government more money than they need to. But the Olson Plan allows for this kind of donation.”

As to the criticism that the plan is simply a tax dodge, Olson reluctantly agrees but points out fossil fuel interests have used the tax code to allow for many more tax credits and subsidies than the renewable energy sector.

A recent report by Oil Change International and Overseas Development Institute pointed out that despite a clarion call by President Obama to end fossil fuel subsidies, they still total $20 billion in the U.S. annually.

Potential projects

Red Lake Nation has realized the problem of mercury polluting their tribal water bodies is a direct result of electricity purchased from coal-based power sources, said Jacobson. The recognition led tribal leaders to consider renewable energy to power its three casinos and other infrastructure, he noted.

It’s a significant endeavor, with 10 to 15 megawatts (MW) planned on land owned by the tribe and on the casino and tribally owned building rooftops. The effort includes at least 2 MW of electric storage.

A major bank is close to underwriting part of the project involving the depreciation and donation part of the deal, Jacobson said, and the search is on for a tax credit partner.

He thinks that if major financiers with an interest in green energy – Warren Buffett, Bill Gates and T. Boone Pickens come to mind – were to get involved, the number of deals would skyrocket.

Region Five was selected for an Xcel Energy Renewable Development Fund grant of nearly $2 million for a 1.5 MW project that would collect solar energy for distribution to seven K-12 schools and Leech Lake Tribal College.

Some solar would be on rooftops while the rest would be located at two major sites, and would offset roughly 15 percent of the schools’ energy use, said Hill, of Region Five. It’s a complex project because four school districts are involved, in addition to the college.

The schools and the college “fully appreciate this is a high risk, high reward approach to our project, given that the model has not been proven in the field,” she said. “That creates some anxiety on our part but it also creates quite a bit of excitement around trying to figure out new ways to benefit organizations using tax dollars.”

It’s not just about saving money on energy bills, either. STEM students at the college and schools can see how solar works and learn about how it is financed, Hill said. She hopes apprentices and interns from local programs may get a chance to help with installing the panels.

“We hope to utilize projects like this to advance a qualified workforce,” Hill said. “That’s the added benefit to workforce development.”

Olson, 70, has had a storied career. The former Bethel University football coach chaired the St. Stephen State Bank in St. Cloud from 1986 to 2001. He ran as the endorsed Democrat for Congress in the state’s third congressional district in 1994. In 2008 he vied twice and failed to win endorsement for federal Senate and House races.

For five years, from 2002 to 2007, Olson served as chairman of the American Sustainable Energy Council. He sees the Olson Plan as his legacy.

“I believe this has the opportunity of spreading clean energy across the United States using accepted, well defined tax law,” he said. “This is so important for our children and our children’s children. We need to stop our dependency on fossil fuels.”

‘Eyesore’ solar farm gets approval by Kentucky PSC

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   November 07, 2016  /   Posted in solar  /   No Comments

635966668122472765-solar-facility-construction-2-new

'Eyesore' solar farm gets state approval

The company plans to erect 12,000 solar panels in phases about two miles west of Simpsonville along Interstate 64

The Kentucky Public Service Commission has rejected complaints about LG&E and KU Energy's first "community solar" farm, granting the utility's request to offer a new sun-powered option to electricity customers.

People living near the proposed 35-acre, 4-megawatt solar farm in Shelby County objected to its location. But PSC Executive Director Talina Matthews wrote that the commission does not have jurisdiction over its location because the facility will produce less than 10 megawatts of power.

The other key issue is whether the parent of Louisville Gas & Electric and Kentucky Utilities had structured its new, voluntary subscription-based Solar Share program's finances so that customers who don't participate won't pay for it.

Solar Share "allows for cost recovery and a return on invested capital by participants so that there is minimal cost sharing by non-participants," Matthews wrote in the order posted on the PSC website Friday.

Solar power advocates also complained that customers are to be charged up to four times the market rate of solar power in Kentucky.

Customers will pay a $40 subscription fee and then a monthly fee of $6.29, per 250-watt increment. That's enough to generate between 17- and 37-kilowatt hours per month, compared to a typical customer's home use of about 1,000-kilowatt hours a month, officials have said. Customers will also get a credit on their bills for electricity generated from those solar panels.

The company plans to erect 12,000 solar panels in phases about two miles west of Simpsonville along Interstate 64 in a pasture near the corner of Wooded Lake Drive and Conner Station Road. The area is a mix of residential homes and farms.

"I'm just really disappointed," said Gerald Karem, who lives on a farm near the planned solar installation. He and his neighbors described the facility as an industrial eyesore that will lower property values.

The project is exempt from local zoning laws.

 

Karem on Thursday requested a hearing before the commission. But the commission determined the rules do not allow for that. So Karem said he and some of his neighbors plan to explore their legal options. "I should have gone out and gotten an attorney from day one," he said.

LG&E and KU spokeswoman Liz Pratt said the company is "excited to offer this new service to our customers interested in supporting more local solar in Kentucky."

She also said the company has plans to add to the landscaping at the property. "We want to be a good neighbor," she added.

All eight sections of the solar farm could support enough electricity to power about 450 typical homes, she said. Based on anticipated subscription levels, the company expects to serve about 1,400 customers when fully built out, Pratt added.

Reach reporter James Bruggers at (502) 582-4645 or jbruggers@courier-journal.com.

Interested?

Customers who want to sign up should let LG&E and KU Energy know by filling out a form on the company's website, https://lge-ku.com. Search for Solar Share. 

Copyright 2013 IndianaDG