Indiana Renewable Energy Association

IURC Denies Petition for Clarification in Generic DSM Investigation

2010-02-03T14:18:00.000-08:00

For a little background on this story, please see this earlier blog post. http://blog.indianarenew.org/2009/12/jolted-into-efficiency-we-all-must-do.html.

The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) issued the following order in Cause No. 42693 on Demand Side Management. In denying the requested clarification it looks to me that the IURC basically told the affected utilities to just read the order. PERIOD. END OF STORY. Here is the order issued today in its entirety.

On July 28, 2004, the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission ("Commission") initiated an investigation to review Demand Side Management ("DSM") issues and programs in the State of Indiana. The Commission issued its Phase I Order in this proceeding on April 23, 2008. In its Phase I Order, the Commission outlined a series of issues to be addressed in Phase II of this proceeding. Pursuant to notice, duly published as required by law, an Evidentiary Hearing was held in Phase II of this proceeding on August 25, 2009, at 9:30 a.m. EDT, in Room 222, National City Center, 101 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana. Following the Evidentiary Hearing and the submission of proposed orders, the Commission issued a Phase II Order in this Proceeding on December 9, 2009.

On December 29, 2009, Anderson Municipal Light & Power ("Anderson"); City of Auburn, Indiana ("Auburn"); Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. ("Duke Energy Indiana"); Harrison County Rural Electric Membership Corporation; Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Indiana Michigan Power Company; Indiana Municipal Power Agency; Indianapolis Power & Light Company; Jackson County Rural Electric Membership Corporation; Marshall County Rural Electric Membership Corporation; Mishawaka Utilities; Northern Indiana Public Service Company; Northeastern Rural Electric Membership Corporation; Richmond Power & Light; Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Company, d/b/a Vectren Energy Delivery of Indiana, Inc.; and Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc. (all of the foregoing referred to herein as the "Utility Group") filed a Petition for Reconsideration in the Nature of Clarification ("Motion for Clarification" or "Motion") of the Phase II Order.

In its Motion for Clarification, the Utility Group indicated that the Motion "identifies some, but not all, of the questions and issues arising from the Commission's Phase II Order." Notwithstanding this caveat, the Motion for Clarification specifically identifies certain issues that the Utility Group contends are in need of clarification and intersperses additional arguments with respect to additional issues.

With respect to specific issues identified in the Motion for Clarification, the Utility Group presents the following matters for consideration by the Commission: (1) whether the percentages by year of annual savings goals in the Phase II Order are intended to be annual savings or incremental annual savings targets; (2) whether core and non-core programs count toward the energy efficiency targets; (3) whether historical utility-sponsored DSM program savings count toward the saving targets; (4) whether the current economic downturn in electricity sales will be considered vis-a-vis achievement of the interim or overall goals; (5) how the load from customers that are allowed to opt out of programs will be addressed with respect to measuring savings; (6) how fluctuations in large customer load will impact goal achievement and whether issues regarding the harmonization of the target savings with other state policies such as economic development will be considered; (7) how state and federal codes/standards may be counted toward the achievement of the established goals and if utility advocacy with respect to participation in the establishment of increased codes and standards will be recognized in determining compliance with the energy savings goals; (8) whether, additional evidence related to any of these issues may be presented in the Implementation Subdocket; (9) whether the requirements contained in the Phase II Order will be adjusted to reflect decisions made
throughout the Implementation Subdocket.

The Commission has reviewed the Motion for Clarification and finds that the Phase II Order is clear on its face with respect to its specific conclusions as well as the specific limited issues to be considered by the Commission in the Implementation Subdocket. Therefore, the Motion for Clarification is hereby denied. In reaching this conclusion, the Commission notes that it conducted an Attorneys' Conference on January 26, 2010 in an effort to facilitate implementation of the Phase II Order and that Commission staff will continue to work with the parties in the Implementation Subdocket to ensure that the provisions of the Phase II Order are effectuated in a timely manner.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE INDIANA UTILITY REGULATORY COMMISSION that:

1. The Motion for Reconsideration in the Nature of Clarification filed in this matter on December 29, 2009, is hereby denied in its entirety by the Commission.

2. This Order shall be effective on and after the date of its approval.

HARDY, ATTERHOLT, GOLC AND ZIEGNER CONCUR; LANDIS ABSENT:

APPROVED: Feb. 3, 2010

House Committee Approves Energy Efficiency Buildings Bill

2010-01-13T14:04:00.000-08:00

Today (01/13/10) the Indiana House Environmental Affairs Committee approved HB 1063 concerning energy efficient buildings by a vote of 8 to 3. The three members of the committee voting against the bill were Rep. David Wolkins (R-Winona Lake), Rep. Jack Lutz (R-Anderson and Rep. Sean Eberhart (R-Shelbyville). For more details on the bill and members of the committee see http://blog.indianarenew.org/2010/01/hb-1063-energy-efficient-buildings-bill.html

Since Rep. Matt Pierce (D-Bloomington) has introduced a similar bill the past two sessions that passed the House, there was a brief committee hearing and public testimony. After Rep. Pierce explained the bill, Miriam Dant representing the Indiana Association of Cities and Towns (IACT) testified against the bill. The remainder of the testimony was in support of the bill and included:

Donald Abel, American Institute of Architects Indiana Chapter (AIA Indiana);

Mark Flint, Indianapolis Power & Light (IPL);

Lynn Dennis, The Nature Conservancy (TNC);

Tim Maloney, Hoosier Environmental Council (HEC);

Kerwin Olson, Citizens Action Coalition (CAC); and

Glenn Pratt, Hoosier Chapter of the Sierra Club.

HB 1063 now moves to the floor for further action.

Indianapolis Power and Light (IPL) is a member of the Indiana Renewable Energy Association.

IURC Approves Muny Electric Net Metering Tariffs

2010-01-13T10:53:00.000-08:00

Today (01/13/10) during the weekly meeting of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC), the Commission approved its Weekly Utility Articles that included approval for four (4) municipal electric utilities that requested to adopt net metering tariffs. The utilities are as follows:

Anderson Municpal Light and Power,
Lebanon Utilities,
Crawfordsville Electric Light and Power, and
Columbia City Municpal Electric Utility.

The 30-Day Utility Articles approved today can be found at http://www.in.gov/iurc/files/u011310s.pdf

These four municipal electric utilities needed IURC approval to create a net metering tariff since they have choosen to remain under IURC rate regulation rather than to opt out of IURC jurisdiction as many other municipal electric utilities have. See http://www.in.gov/iurc/2340.htm for a list of utilities that have opted out, etc.

Each of the four utilities proposed identical proposed net metering tariffs that reflect the current IURC rules for Investor Owned Utilities (IOU's) with one exception, they proposed that their net metering tariffs be available for all classes of customers not just residential and K-12 schools. Hence, the system size limit is 10 kW and is proposed to be .1% of their most recent summer peak load of the utility.

Eric Cotton, a partner in ECI Wind and Solar, VP of the Indiana Renewable Energy Association and Treasurer of the newly formed Indiana Distributed Energy Advocates (IDEA), commended the action taken today by the IURC.

"These four municipal electric utilities should be commended for their leadership in promoting renewable energy development in their service territories by proposing these net metering tariffs." said Cotton. "We look forward to working with these utilities and their customers to install renewable energy systems."

This article brought to you by the Indiana Renewable Energy Association and Indiana Distributed Energy Advocates.

HB 1063 Energy Efficient Buildings Bill Introduced by Rep. Pierce Scheduled for Hearing Wed., Jan. 13th

2010-01-12T15:04:00.000-08:00

ACTION ALERT!

HOUSE BILL No. 1063 Energy Efficient Buildings Scheduled for Public Hearing as follows:

AGENDA FOR: House Environmental Affairs Committee

MEETING: January 13, 1:30PM, 156C, State House, Indianapolis

CHAIR: Dvorak

VICE-CHAIR: Stevenson

MEMBERS:

Candelaria Reardon, L. Lawson, Moses, Pearson, Pierce.
Wolkins R.M.M., Eberhart, Lutz, Neese, Ruppel.

AGENDA: HB 1063 Energy Efficient Buildings

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

A BILL FOR AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning state and local administration.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:

SOURCE: IC 4-13-20; (10)IN1063.1.1. -->

SECTION 1. IC 4-13-20 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW CHAPTER TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2010]:

Chapter 20. Government Building Design Standards for Energy Efficiency
Sec. 1. (a) This chapter applies to a design plan that is:
(1) for the major renovation or construction of a government building consisting of at least five thousand (5,000) square feet of floor space;
(2) for a project costing the owner of the government building at least five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000); and
(3) approved by the owner of the government building after June 30, 2010.
(b) This chapter does not apply to a design plan for the major renovation or construction of a building that does not consume energy for heating, ventilating, or air conditioning.
Sec. 2. As used in this chapter, "government building" means a
building owned, occupied, and used by any of the following:
(1) A state agency (as defined in IC 4-13-1-1(b)).
(2) Any other authority, board, branch, commission, committee, department, division, or instrumentality of the executive branch of state government, including the following:
(A) A license branch operated or administered under IC 9-16.
(B) The state police department created by IC 10-11-2-4.
(3) A state educational institution (as defined in IC 21-7-13-32).
(4) A body corporate and politic created by statute.
(5) The judicial department of state government.
(6) The legislative department of state government.
(7) A political subdivision (as defined in IC 36-1-2-13).
(8) A school corporation (as defined in IC 36-1-2-17).
Sec. 3. As used in this chapter, "LEED rating system" refers to the United States Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design rating system.
Sec. 4. As used in this chapter, "major renovation" refers to a renovation of a government building in which:
(1) the building shell is used to contain new construction;
(2) the heating, air conditioning, ventilation, electrical, and plumbing systems of the building are replaced; and
(3) at least seven thousand five hundred (7,500) square feet are renovated.
Sec. 5. (a) A newly constructed government building must be designed and constructed to achieve or exceed the performance criteria determined under any of the following:
(1) The silver rating under the LEED rating system.
(2) The Two Globes rating under the Green Building Initiative's Green Globes rating system.
(3) An equivalent rating under a rating system that is accredited by the American National Standards Institute.
(b) This subsection does not apply to contracts for the reconstruction, repair, alteration, or retrofitting of a building or structure that is listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. A major renovation of a government building must be designed, renovated, or reconstructed to achieve or exceed the performance criteria determined under any of the following:
(1) The silver rating under the LEED rating system.
(2) The Two Globes rating under the Green Building

Initiative's Green Globes rating system.
(3) The Environmental Protection Agency's Energy Star rating system.
(4) An equivalent rating under a rating system that is accredited by the American National Standards Institute.
Sec. 6. The owner of a government building shall consider the historic or aesthetic qualities of the building and the availability of local materials when determining performance criteria required of the design, construction, renovation, or reconstruction of the government building by section 5 of this chapter.
Sec. 7. (a) As used in this section, "Indiana hardwood lumber" means hardwood lumber harvested from real property located in Indiana.
(b) The owner of a government building may consider Indiana hardwood lumber for use as a local source material in any project in which the use of Indiana hardwood lumber is practicable.

SECTION 2. [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2010] The general assembly recognizes that the 2006 study:
(1) conducted by the department of natural resources division of forestry; and
(2) entitled "The Sustainability of Indiana's Forest Resources";
indicates Indiana timberland acreage and volume has steadily increased since 1967.

This article brought to you by the Indiana Renewable Energy Association and Indiana Distributed Energy Advocates.

Aggregate net metering issue in Florida

2010-01-11T04:50:00.000-08:00

Triple J Ranch owners Mary Clark, center, and Rhonda and James Holmes stand atop one of two barns that house solar panels at the 300-acre facility. Because the ranch has multiple power meters, it has to buy the power it generates back from FPL.

Editor's Note: Could this problem in Flordia happen in Indiana if the issue of aggregate metering is not addressed in proposed net metering legislation? Do we need assurances that this will not hapen in Indiana?

A big solar array, but little savings

Rancher generates a lot of power,

but is still paying to use most of it

By Zac Anderson

Published: Sunday, June 7, 2009 at 1:00 a.m.
Last Modified: Saturday, June 6, 2009 at 9:02 p.m.

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20090607/ARTICLE/906071047/-1/NEWSSITEMAP#

A Sarasota County rancher and environmentalist spent $500,000 for one of the largest private solar projects in Florida, expecting big savings on energy costs while setting an example for others to follow.

But instead of cutting her monthly energy bills from roughly $5,000 to $1,000, Mary Clark's 300-panel solar array has saved little. Florida Power & Light buys the excess energy from Clark's ranch and sells it back to her for twice as much.

Though legal, the charges reveal flaws in a new state law designed to promote solar power by reimbursing private producers for their excess energy.

Clark's experience underscores the influence big utilities wield in Florida, as the state moves tentatively to diversify from fossil fuels into more renewable energy sources.

It could also discourage the grass-roots investment in alternative sources that advocates say is crucial to adoption of emerging sources and energy independence.

Clark's difficulties have implications for farmers, homeowners' associations, condominium and motel complexes and anyone else seeking to share solar energy between multiple buildings, electric meters and accounts.

"Instead of looking at this thing with pride, I get sick to my stomach," said the 88-year-old Clark. "I stepped up. I put up the biggest rig of anybody and I had visions of being a model that people could learn from. But that isn't the case at all."

Clark is fighting with the power company and writing state legislators for help. But power company officials blame Clark's solar contractor for a flawed design in her system and say there is nothing they can do. State regulators side with FPL.

"These aren't rules that we made up," said FPL spokeswoman Jackie Anderson. "We're just following the law."

10 barns, 11 wells

Ranches and farms have extensive roof space and open land that could help boost solar energy production around the state. But, as in Clark's case, many have more than one meter to measure power use.

A 2008 solar law fails to account for homes, farms and businesses with multiple electric meters. And that creates a potential barrier for people to profit from installing panels.

"If we're going to get where we need to be with solar we've got to make it as easy as possible for people like this," said Rep. Keith Fitzgerald, D-Sarasota.

The problem stems in part from the fact that energy consumption on ranches such as Clark's cover a large area, while the solar panels are more concentrated.

The 300-acre Triple J Ranch has 11 wells with electric pumps to distribute water. A big free-standing feed grinder uses electricity to ration food for 130 horses and 120 cows.

Ten barns, three show arenas, two bunk houses, a chow house and RVs also need power. Many of the buildings have separate electric meters.

But instead of spreading Triple J's solar panels across the ranch so they would feed into each of nine electric meters, Greenlaw Solar Group installed the panels in clusters of 150 on two horse stables with low-pitched roofs, feeding into two meters.

Simple and efficient, thought Greenlaw owner Doug Greenlaw.

He and Clark thought FPL could combine her nine meter bills into one and deduct from her total power bill the solar energy she produced at the retail rate of 12 cents per kilowatt hour.

'It has to be easier'

However, an archaic 1969 law generally prohibits combining multiple electric meters under one bill. That skews how rates are calculated and hurts other ratepayers, according to state regulators with the Public Service Commission.

Clark could save more if the solar panels were tied into meters for facilities that use a lot of power, instead of the low-consumption horse barns. The only way she can directly tap the energy is to run expensive wiring across the whole ranch.

Instead, all of the excess energy Clark is generating -- in just the last month alone, the two meters her panels are tied into have racked up enough extra power to run an average house for a year -- is sent to FPL.

But rather than crediting her at a rate of 12 cents per kilowatt hour, FPL buys her energy back for just 6 cents per kilowatt hour. It gives her a check at the end of the year, instead of deducting the amount from her monthly bills.

Greenlaw faults FPL, saying the power company opposes solar energy and is "doing everything they can to stop it."

"The design of the system is not the problem, it's the way FPL does billing," the solar contractor said.

Rex James of Solar Direct in Bradenton said the problem could have been avoided, but said the law makes it tougher to implement smaller-scale solar projects.

"It's a logistics problem," James said. "I've anticipated it and avoided it in projects but it shouldn't be such an issue. They need to change the law."

But FPL contends it is simply following the 2008 law regulating "net metering" of solar operations.

"The key is to put the renewable energy generation on a meter that's using a significant load," said FPL's Anderson.

Private solar producers can get only 6 cents for their energy because that is the "fuel" price FPL charges if the cost of providing transmission lines and other infrastructure is factored out, regulators say.

If Clark got the 12-cent rate, she essentially would be using FPL's transmission lines to spread the energy around her property for free, said Public Service Commission spokeswoman Cindy Muir.

Adding insult to injury is the different treatment given to farmers generating excess energy from anaerobic digesters, which burn methane from cows. These farmers are allowed to combine their bills under the 2008 law, and deduct excess energy from one bill.

The irony for Clark is that some utilities actually pay solar producers a premium for their energy. Gainesville pays 32 cents per kilowatt hour because solar power is considered a public benefit that should be encouraged and subsidized.

"When you look at it that way, I'm taking a real licking. But I don't regret it for a minute," said Clark, an ardent environmental advocate who spent five years in Newfoundland tagging humpback whales before moving to Florida. "No matter how you slice it, it's the right thing to do. But if they want more people to get involved, it has to be a lot easier."

House Hearing on Net Metering Bill Monday afternoon, Jan. 11th

2010-01-10T04:53:00.000-08:00

Editor's Note: A new organization has been formed named, Indiana Distributed Energy Advocates (IDEA) as a 501(c)(6) or trade association. The mission of this new group is to lobby for renewable energy policies in the State of Indiana including net metering. Therefore, IDEA will take positions on issues such as net metering and lobby members of the Indiana General Assembly NOT the Indiana Renewable Energy Association. More details on IDEA forthcoming soon!

For more information on net metering, please see Net Metering: Policy Recommendations for Indiana, prepared by Eric Cotton, ECI Wind and Solar and Laura Ann Arnold, The Arnold Group; prepared for Indiana Distributed Energy Advocates, Inc. (IDEA).

AGENDA FOR: House Commerce, Energy, Technology and Utilities

MEETING: January 11, Upon Adjournment, 156B, State House, Indianapolis,

CHAIR: Rep. Win Moses, Jr., Chair (D-Fort Wayne)h81@in.gov

VICE-CHAIR: Rep. Matt Pierce, Vice Chair (D-Bloomington)h61@in.gov

MEMBERS:
Rep. Kreg Battles (D-Vincennes) h64@in.gov
Rep. Sandy Blanton (D-Orleans) h62@in.gov
Rep. Ryan Dvorak (D-South Bend) h8@in.gov
Rep. Scott Reske (D-Pendleton) h37@in.gov
Rep. Dan Stevenson (D-Highland) h11@in.gov
Rep. Jack Lutz, RMM (R-Anderson) h35@in.gov
Rep. Eric Koch (R-Bedford) h65@in.gov
Rep. Robert Behning (R-Indianapolis) h91@in.gov
Rep. David Frizzell (R-Indianapolis) h93@in.gov
Rep. Ed Soliday (R-Valparaiso) h4@in.gov

AGENDA: HB 1094

The Indiana House of Representatives is scheduled to go into session at 1:30 pm on Monday, January 11, 2010. Therefore, the House Commerce, Energy, Technology and Utilities Committee hearing could be as early as 2:00 pm but most likely it will begin at 2:30-3:00 pm.

To call Representatives while the Legislature is in session telephone:
(317) 232-9600 or (317) 232-9700;
Toll free 1-800-382-9841 or 1-800-382-9842.

To determine your state legislators, please visit the Indiana General Assembly District Look-up Service. Please enter your zipcode + four with your street address and city.

Here is a quick summary of HB 1094:

The bill directs the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) to adopt new net metering rules as follows:

(1) Require an electric utility to offer net metering to all customer classes.

(2) Allow a net metering customer to interconnect to an electric utility's distribution facility a generating facility with a nameplate capacity of:

(A) twenty (20) kilowatts or less, in the case of a residential customer;

(B) two hundred (200) kilowatts or less, in the case of a commercial customer other than an industrial customer;

(D) five (5) megawatts or less, in the case of any of the following customers: (i) The state. (ii) A unit (as defined in IC 36-1-2-23). (iii) An elementary or a secondary school attended by students in kindergarten or grades 1 through 12. (iv) A school corporation (as defined in IC 20-43-1-23). (v) A postsecondary educational institution (as described in IC 6-3-3-5).

(3) Allow a net metering customer to interconnect a facility that generates electricity through any of the following technologies:

(A) Solar.

(B) Wind.

(D) Hydroelectric facilities at dams existing before January 1, 2010.

(E) Microturbines using renewable fuels.

(F) Fuel cells using renewable fuels.

(G) Biogas, including anaerobic digestion.

(H) Methane from landfills.

This information brought to you by the Indiana Renewable Energy Association.

Indiana Legislator Introduces Feed-in Tariff Bill; First Comprehensive Proposal of 2010 in US

2010-01-08T13:40:00.000-08:00

Adapts Rates from Ontario for a "Made In Indiana" Policy

January 8, 2010

By Paul Gipe

Representative Matt Pierce (D-61st, Bloomington) introduced HB 1190 into the Indiana General Assembly January 7, 2010. The bill is the first comprehensive proposal for a system of feed-in tariffs in the current legislative sessions that have begun in states across the US.

The bill to create a system of what Representative Pierce calls Advanced Renewable Energy Contracts was referred to the House Committee on Commerce, Energy, Technology and Utilities. Representative Pierce is vice chair of the committee.

Representative Pierce had introduced a previous bill on feed-in tariffs in the 2009 session. HB 1190 has been extensively rewritten and has incorporated the feed-in tariffs, or renewable energy rates as they will be called in Indiana, recently introduced in the Canadian province of Ontario.

The proposed rates in HB 1190 have been adapted to the Indiana context by incorporating two tracks: one track with US federal subsidies, one track without. Unlike Ontario, where there are no federal subsidies for renewable energy, some Indiana projects could qualify for US federal subsidies. However, not all potential renewable energy generators in Indiana may be able to use the federal subsidies. For those who may not be able to use the federal subsidies, Representative Pierce has proposed the second track where the feed-in rates are proportionally higher.

Republican Governor Mitch Daniels and the legislature have liked to characterize Indiana as a potential renewable energy hub of the Midwest.

HB 1190 tries to go Ontario one better as competition for renewable energy heats up in North America's heartland. Representative Pierce has proposed a sophisticated system of rates for wind energy that is based on the intensity of the wind resource. Both Germany and France successfully use a similar policy and the concept has been raised frequently in Ontario. However, the Canadian province has yet to adopt such a program.

Differentiating the rates for wind energy based on the wind resource is used by Germany and France both to spread development opportunity to more farmers and rural landowners than one, single rate for wind energy, but also to avoid the concentration of wind turbines in only the windiest regions. Such a proposal in Indiana would give farmers in central Indiana as much opportunity to develop their wind resource as farmers in northern Indiana where it is windier.

And in another departure from Ontario, Representative Pierce has proposed specific tariffs for small wind turbines like those that would be used by individual households. While HB 1190's proposed rates for small wind turbines are less than those that will likely go into effect this April in Great Britain, they are the first of their kind in North America.

In other provisions, the bill requires the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) to review the renewable energy rates paid to new generators beginning in 2012. HB 1190 directs the IURC's review to ensure the rates are sufficient for the rapid development of renewable energy without resulting in excessive profits for generators or excessive costs to ratepayers.

The bill establishes an equalization program to spread the costs of the policy across all ratepayers so that no one utility or its ratepayers absorb more than their fair share of the costs of the program.

HB 1190 creates a statewide registry of generators and requires the IURC to issue annual reports on the robustness of the program in meeting the bill's objective of encouraging the rapid and sustainable development of renewable energy in Indiana.

Before it becomes law, the bill must pass the House, controlled by Democrats, and the Senate, controlled by Republicans, and be signed by Republican Governor Daniels.

Summary of HB 1190's renewable energy "rates".

Project size cap: None, 10 MW for solar PV only
Contract terms: 20 years, 40 years for hydro
Technologies: most, excluding biomass from forestry, excluding coal-bed methane
Inflation indexing: 60%

Wind without and with tax credits:

Small <50>
Small <500>
Offshore: $0.180,$0.126
Onshore low wind: $0.140,$0.098
Onshore high wind: $0.104,$0.073

Solar PV without and with tax credits:

Any Type <10>
Rooftop >10 kW<250>
Rooftop >250 kW<500>
Rooftop >500 kW: $0.500,$0.350,
Groundmounted <10 MW: $0.400,$0.280

Interestingly, Indianapolis Power & Light (IPL) has proposed a pilot feed-in tariff program to the IURC. The IURC has yet to rule on IPL's proposal, yet IPL's proposed wind enegy tariff is quite similar to that in Representative Pierce's HB 1190.

At a site with an average yield of 1,200 kWh/m²/yr, the average or equivalent 20-year tariff for onshore wind energy in HB 1190 is $0.104/kWh without tax credits and $0.073/kWh with federal tax credits. The latter "rate" is nearly identical with that proposed by to the IURC for wind turbines larger than 1 MW by IPL of $0.075/kWh.

HB 1190 Status

HB 1190 Latest version

HB 1190 Fiscal Impact

This article brought to you by the Indiana Renewable Energy Association.

Put energy into smart legislation

2010-01-04T07:06:00.000-08:00

http://www.indystar.com/article/20100104/OPINION08/1040309/1291/OPINION08/Put-energy-into-smart-legislation

January 4, 2010

Our Opinion

The waning days of 2009 are not likely to be remembered for good financial news when it comes to Indiana's public school districts. A state mandate to make nearly $300 million in spending cuts makes for indelible headlines.

There may be hope for making up some of that loss, however, thanks to statements by key members of the Indiana General Assembly regarding an obscure phenomenon known as net metering.

Schools will not be the only beneficiaries if legislation talked up a few days ago by state Sen. James Merritt and Rep. Ryan Dvorak sees the light of day.

Exploited in neighboring states far more than here, net metering allows utilities customers who generate some of their own power through wind, sun or other means to send the excess back to the grid and get charged only for what they use.

The potential savings are immense, as are the benefits in reduced reliance on high-polluting coal and promotion of an already burgeoning renewable energy industry.

Right now, Indiana allows only homeowners and schools to use net metering, and limits them to a nominal take of 10 kilowatts.

Dvorak, D-South Bend, wants to boost that figure to 1,000 kilowatts. Merritt, R-Indianapolis, is not inclined to go nearly that high; but he does want to extend net metering to businesses and municipalities.

In the 2009 session, both men got their bills passed; but differences over the numbers proved irreconcilable in conference committee. Net metering became one of several sensible energy bills for which lofty hopes died.

Now, compromise is in the air. The utilities, obstinate opponents in the past, have seen that federal taxes on coal are imminent and have endorsed modest net metering. Proponents may well have to settle for a 100-kilowatt limit to get a law onto the books; but as a tenfold increase over the status quo, that is a most encouraging starting point. Building upon it in the future should come easily as its payoff asserts itself.

Like renewable energy itself, net metering offers a win-win to producers and consumers by converting waste into value, with cleaner air and tax relief as part of the bargain.

Again, surrounding states have gotten the message and are running with it. If, as Gov. Mitch Daniels is fond of saying, we are the smart ones when it comes to fighting through hard economic times, this is an easy opportunity for lawmakers to prove it.

This article brought to you by the Indiana Renewable Energy Association.

Michigan City News Dispatch Editorial Supports Net Metering in Indiana

2010-01-03T14:05:00.000-08:00

http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=50&SubSectionID=72&ArticleID=27911

Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Net-metering
Renewable energy ready for boost

Editorial

Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Our Opinion:

The Issue:

The Indiana General Assembly appears likely to relax limits on selling power back to utilities.

Our Opinion:

The Legislature should increase the amount of electricity utilities must buy from renewable sources.

It's heartening to hear that Indiana lawmakers think a new "net-metering" law will pass in the 2010 session of the General Assembly. It's especially good to know that power companies seem to be willing to accept expansion of the amount of power that utilities would have to accept.

Under net-metering, utility customers who generate some of their electricity from renewable sources are allowed to sell their excess capacity to the power companies, offsetting their electric bills.

Indiana law now applies only to homeowners and schools, and limits the amount of electricity a utility has to accept to 10 kilowatts. Legislation that is expected to be given serious consideration next year would up that figure to 100 kilowatts and expand it to businesses and municipalities. Meanwhile other lawmakers favor an even higher level of 1,000 kilowatts.

In an age when the nation desperately needs to encourage the development of power from renewable sources, the Indiana Legislature should change the law and expand net-metering. Similar legislation stalled in the previous session because lawmakers couldn't find a ceiling they could agree upon - 100 kilowatts favored by some, and 1,000 by others.

It's important that both Republican and Democratic legislators favor expanding net-metering, and as long as the power companies don't fight it, certainly the lawmakers can find a compromise figure, and Indiana can move a small step forward in encouraging the production of electricity from wind and solar generators.

Indiana lags behind its neighboring states in net-metering policy, according to an advocacy group for renewable energy. Lawmakers should move quickly on this change when the legislative session begins Jan. 5.

Brought to you by the Indiana Renewable Energy Association.

Indianapolis Star Editorial Lists Net Metering in 5 Top Priorities for Our State

2010-01-03T13:18:00.000-08:00

January 3, 2010

http://www.indystar.com/article/20100103/OPINION08/1030330/1291/OPINION08/5-top-priorities-for-our-state

Our opinion

5 top priorities for our state

Short on money, legislators can still accomplish much during abbreviated session.

The Indiana General Assembly opens its 2010 session this week with virtually no money to spend and little time to act before lawmakers stop work in March. Yet, even while operating under such restrictions, legislators have an opportunity to adopt several important proposals, including ethics reform.

Here is The Star Editorial Board's legislative agenda for 2010:

More ethical government: Even House Speaker Pat Bauer, a longtime opponent of restrictions on lobbyists' influence over legislators, now acknowledges that the Statehouse has been compromised.

"It was apparent the level of pressure exerted by special interests put a cloud over the legislature's ability to respond to the concerns of Hoosiers,'' Bauer wrote concerning last year's session in an op-ed published in The Star in November.

The General Assembly should adopt five common-sense reforms to reduce the level of influence that special interests hold over lawmakers:

Legislators may not accept any gift worth more than $50 in value from registered lobbyists.

Lobbyists must disclose the value of goods and services offered to individual legislators or groups of lawmakers, including meals, tickets to sporting and entertainment events, or other gifts.

Legislators may not accept gifts, including payment of travel-related expenses, from businesses, organizations or individuals that do business with the state.

Legislators may not accept meals, tickets to athletic games or other events, or any other gift valued at more than $50 from state universities or colleges.

Former legislators may not work as registered lobbyists until one year after they leave office.

Better representation for voters: Lawmakers have a prime opportunity to end the discredited practice of gerrymandering ahead of redistricting in 2011. The best means to ensure fairness and impartiality in drawing district maps is to assign the job to an independent commission. It may be possible, according to research by the Brennan Center for Justice, to create such a commission without having to pursue a constitutional amendment. Legislators should create a system for drawing district maps that fosters competitive elections, encourages qualified candidates to seek elected office and protects voters' ability to make a difference on Election Day.

More efficient local government: Indiana taxpayers continue to pay for far more government than they need. In a year when state and local budgets are squeezed tight, townships are still sitting on more than $200 million in reserves. If they were ready to put the public's best interests ahead of their political allies' concerns, lawmakers would finally eliminate township government this year. That's not likely to happen, however.

Instead, legislators at least need to trim around the edges by adopting three modest reforms:

Township advisory boards should be abolished. It's a step that would save taxpayers money without sacrificing oversight or transparency.

Poor relief, now dispensed inefficiently and unevenly by 1,008 township trustees, should be consolidated on the county level, a move that likely would improve service and reduce costs.

School board elections should be shifted from the May primary to the general election in November to assure better voter turnout and raise the profile of these important races.

A cleaner environment: In a state where air and water quality rank among the worst in the nation, environmental initiatives deserve far more attention than they have received from the General Assembly and the governor. One measure that could help promote use of wind and solar power involves so-called net metering, which allows consumers to send excess power that they generate back onto the electrical grid. Legislators should increase the current 10-kilowatt cap on net metering to 1,000 kilowatts.

Better schools: Modest steps are again the most likely avenues for progress, in this instance because of a lack of money. One proposal that deserves strong bipartisan support centers on closing loopholes that allow abusive teachers to escape accountability. Lawmakers should ensure that school districts have access to all the information they need about a prospective employee's background before they make a hire. The legislature also should eliminate off-the-record agreements that allow districts to remove substantiated reports of misconduct from employees' files without conducting a formal hearing.

Safer children: The General Assembly achieved a welcome advancement last year when it set up an office of ombudsman to make the Department of Child Services more accountable to the public. Now, legislators should give the ombudsman the necessary resources, including sufficient legal authority, to make a real difference.

This article brought to you by the Indiana Renewable Energy Association.

Indiana Lawmakers Hopeful About Renewable Energy Bill

2009-12-28T15:57:00.000-08:00

Lawmakers hopeful Indiana Legislature can
pass bill to boost renewable energy adoption

By RICK CALLAHAN, The Associated Press
INDIANAPOLIS December 28, 2009 (AP)

Legislation that could bring more wind turbines and solar power projects to Indiana has a good chance of passing in the upcoming legislative session after failing in the last session's closing hours, two state lawmakers say.

While the General Assembly seems unlikely to require Indiana utilities to generate a specific amount of electricity from renewable energy sources, it may expand the state's so-called net-metering policy.

That rule allows some customers of investor-owned utilities to send excess electricity produced by wind turbines, solar panels and other renewable sources back into the electric grid and to be charged only for the net amount of power they actually use.

Because those customers get credit on future bills for excess power they produce, it can help offset the cost of installing renewable energy systems and make doing so more attractive.

State Sen. James Merritt, R-Indianapolis, said last week he's optimistic lawmakers will increase the amount of power that can be sent back into the grid and extend that option to businesses, industries and municipalities.

The state's current net-metering policy applies only to homeowners and schools and sets a limit of 10 kilowatts per customer.

Indiana lags well behind neighboring states in its net-metering policy, according to "Freeing the Grid," a report released in November by the renewable energy advocacy group Network for New Energy Choices.

Illinois, Michigan, Ohio and Kentucky received grades of "B" in that report, but Indiana got an "F."

"They've been making changes and they've improved, but we've remained the same," said Laura Arnold, president of the Indiana Renewable Energy Association's board of the directors.

An expansion of Indiana's metering rules would make investing in wind turbines, solar panels, hydroelectric systems or biomass energy generators more attractive, she said.

Merritt, who chairs the Senate Utilities and Technology Committee, said net metering should be his panel's main issue during the legislative session that starts Jan. 5.

The sticking point in negotiations is expected to be what power limit to set under a revised policy.

That issue scuttled an agreement last session, when Merritt sponsored a bill that would have boosted the net-metering limit to 100 kilowatts and expanded the policy to include businesses and municipalities.

State Rep. Ryan Dvorak, D-South Bend, sponsored a House bill that would have raised the limit to 1,000 kilowatts — about the amount produced by a large wind turbine.

Although those bills passed both chambers, the legislation died in conference committee.

"It really just came down to the numbers," Dvorak said last week. "The Senate didn't want to budge up from 100 kilowatt and we hit an impasse."

He hasn't decided what power level he will propose this season, but Dvorak said he's optimistic about passage because power utilities that once fought net-metering now seem willing to accept its expansion and at least a 100-kilowatt cutoff.

"We're a lot closer and that's why I'm hopeful this year we're going to get an actual meaningful bill through that's comparable to the rest of the country," Dvorak said.

The Indianapolis-based Hoosier Environmental Council favors boosting the state's net-metering limit to 1,000 kilowatts, a level that Jesse Kharbanda, the group's executive director, said would help bring new jobs and development to the state.

A 1,000 kilowatt level also would help the state respond to federal climate change legislation expected to lead to higher energy costs in states like Indiana that get most of their power from coal-fired power plants, he said.

"Net metering helps lay the foundation for a different energy economy for Indiana," Kharbanda said. "It helps Indiana better prepare for climate legislation and can provide new income for struggling corporations."

While moving it the policy's power limit to 100 kilowatts might help individual homeowners and small retail stores install small-scale wind or solar power systems, he said that's well below the level needed to help industries and large businesses with far larger energy demands.

Click here to request updates on proposed net metering legislation in Indiana.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9433459

Also appeared in Forbes http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/12/28/business-financial-impact-us-renewable-energy-indiana_7240335.html

Attend Green Energy Town Hall Meeting Thursday, January 7th

2009-12-23T13:20:00.000-08:00

Faith-based Town Hall Meeting Jan. 7th to Explore Indiana Energy Future

State Senators Jim Merritt (left) and Jean Breaux (right) to Discuss Indiana's Energy Issues

INDIANAPOLIS - Energy experts and Indiana Senate leaders on utility issues will explore Indiana's energy future at a town hall-style meeting on

Thursday, Jan. 7, 2010
6:00 to 9:00 pm
Epworth United Methodist Church
6450 Allisonville Road
Indianapolis, IN 46220-4548
Click here for map.

The Indiana Renewable Energy Association (InREA) is one of the group's sponsoring the meeting. Eric Cotton with ECI Wind and Solar and VP of the InREA Board of Directors will discuss the need for changes in net metering regulations in Indiana.

All are invited to attend Green Energy-Green Jobs: A Legislative Town Hall Meeting and Information Fair at 6450 Allisonville Road from 6-9 p.m. In particular, people of faith are invited to learn about energy issues in Indiana and how to get involved in shaping our energy future.

The town hall meeting will be held from 7:30 to 9:00 and will feature a panel of experts talking about Indiana's current energy environment, followed by a town hall discussion with Sen. James Merritt, R-Indianapolis, and Sen. Jean Breaux, D-Indianapolis. The discussion will be moderated by Jon Schwantes of WFYI's Indiana Lawmakers.

Senator Merritt chairs the Indiana Senate's Utilities and Technology Committee and Senator Breaux is its ranking minority member. In 2009, close to 50 bills and resolutions were introduced in the Indiana General Assembly related to energy, utilities, coal, renewable energy, net metering and other energy-related issues. This public forum will provide a preview of energy issues in the 2010 General Assembly and how citizens can get involved in the debate.

Audience members are encouraged to submit questions in advance for Senators Merritt and Breaux to Epworthgreenteam@gmail.com .

The event also will include an information fair from 6 to 7:30 p.m., featuring exhibits on renewable energy, faith-based environmental stewardship and how to get involved in legislative issues. Light refreshments will also be available.

The event is co-sponsored by Epworth United Methodist Green Team, Indianapolis Green Congregations, Hoosier Environmental Council, Indiana Renewable Energy Association and the Indianapolis Business Alliance for Local Living Economies.

If you have questions about this event, call 251-1481 or email Epworthgreenteam@gmail.com .

Jolted into efficiency: We all must do our part

2009-12-23T05:05:00.000-08:00

December 22,2009

Our View

By Bev Gard & James Merritt

Whether you believe in the need to reduce greenhouse gases or not, one painful truth is inescapable: Virtually every recent proposal to reform our nation's energy policy will mean sharply higher electric rates for Indiana.

That's the bad news.

The good news is that Indiana's major electric utilities have been ordered to reduce electricity consumption by 2 percent through energy efficiency programs. We believe these are among the most effective and cost-efficient ways to deal with our energy problems.

Energy efficiency isn't a silver bullet. But a coordinated, statewide energy efficiency effort is a significant and realistic step in the right direction and we applaud the Daniels administration for taking it. To be successful, however, everyone must take part.

How will we use less energy? Largely through "demand-side management,'' which is utility industry shorthand for programs that encourage everyone to use less electricity.

You may already be familiar with some programs, such as those that offer incentives to use energy-saving light bulbs and Energy Star appliances. These programs are effective, but they aren't enough. To meet the administration's 10-year goal, we'll likely have to address the "price signals" of electricity and consumers' ability to manage energy costs.

What if utilities offered time-of-day pricing through the use of a "smart meter" able to monitor and control the usage of individual appliances in your home and relay real-time price information? We consumers would quickly discover that using electricity at times of peak demand is an expensive proposition. We'd also discover that the old refrigerator in the garage is a costly energy hog, and that big screen plasma TV in the living room is no bargain to operate either. We might be motivated to change our consuming habits.

When we use less, utilities have to produce less, which means lower electric bills and fewer air emissions.

Energy efficiency involves up-front costs to produce long-term savings. Installing millions of smart meters in Indiana would be expensive, and while they would likely save consumers money in the long-run, utilities would have to recover the installation costs up front in the form of higher rates.

Second, everyone must change habits, especially electric utilities. For decades, utilities have operated under a business model that rewarded them for selling more power. We'll now want to reward them for encouraging lower usage. And, if we change the way we regulate them, we must ensure that we don't encourage utilities to reduce consumption at the expense of economic development.

Consumers will have to change our ways, too. The more we're willing to reduce consumption, the better we'll be able to manage our monthly bill. That may be especially true for businesses such as manufacturers that may find enormous energy savings by operating late at night, when electricity is generally cheap.

According to the Rand Corporation, the utility industry nationally could save between $50 billion and $100 billion over the next two decades if demand response programs become the norm. That not only translates into better prices for consumers, but it also would diminish stresses on power plants, along with the subsequent emissions.

A concerted effort to increase the state's level of energy efficiency may take some getting used to, but we believe the effort is well worth it.

Gard, R-Greenfield, is chairman of the Indiana Senate Energy and Environmental Affairs Committee. Merritt, R-Indianapolis, is chairman of the Utilities and Technology Committee.

This article reprinted from http://www.indystar.com/article/20091222/OPINION01/912220312/1002/OPINION/Jolted-into-efficiency-We-all-must-do-our-part

and brought to you by the Indiana Renewable Energy Association.

Editor's note: Here are the ordering paragraphs from the Commission Order:

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE INDIANA UTILITY REGULATORY
COMMISSION that:

1. The Commission hereby establishes an overall annual energy savings goal of 2% to be achieved by jurisdictional electric utilities in the State of Indiana within 10 years, with interim savings goals established in this Order to be achieved in years one through nine.

2. The Commission hereby establishes initial DSM Core Programs that shall be offered by jurisdictional electric utilities throughout the State of Indiana. The Core Programs shall be overseen and coordinated by an Independent Third Party Administrator in a manner consistent with the findings set forth in this Order.

3. The Commission hereby requires the formation of a DSM Coordination Committee comprised of the entities described in this Order. An initial objective of the DSM Coordination Committee shall be the issuance of two requests for proposals ("RFPs"). The first RFP shall be issued for the selection of an Independent Third Party Administrator to oversee and coordinate the Core Programs established in this Order. The second RFP shall be issued for the selection and utilization of an evaluation administrator(s) to undertake Evaluation, Measurement & Verification of DSM program offerings.

4. The Commission hereby finds that in order to ensure that the objectives of this Order are being fully satisfied, compliance filings shall be submitted as ordered in this proceeding to provide a means for Commission review of the following matters: (i) the proposed organizational and operational structure of the DSM Coordination Committee; (ii) the three-year DSM Plans and the annual supplemental updates; (iii) the proposed RFPs required by this Order; and, (iv) any additional compliance filings required under this Order. For this purpose, the Commission hereby establishes an Implementation Subdocket in this proceeding under Cause No. 42693 S-1.

5. The Commission finds that with respect to issues other than compliance with the terms of this Order, that will be overseen by the Commission in the Implementation Subdocket, this proceeding is hereby concluded.

6. This Order shall be effective on and after the date of its approval.

ATTERHOLT, GOLC, LANDIS AND ZIEGNER CONCUR; HARDY ABSENT:
APPROVED: DEC 0 9 2009

Click here to request a copy of the order.

Sunstainable energy continues to pick up steam

2009-12-19T05:02:00.000-08:00

By Jesse Davis
THE GOSHEN NEWS

http://www.goshennews.com/local/local_story_352181759.html

MIDDLEBURY, Ind — There may be momentum building, but we’re still at the back of the pack.

The monthly meeting of the Sustainable Business Resource Network became a mini-referendum on Indiana’s place in the growing push for clean, renewable energy. Held at Middlebury’s Home Energy LLC and featuring guest speaker David Eberhardt of the Citizen’s Action Coalition, the meeting even drew two local leaders — County Commissioner Mike Yoder and state Rep. Wes Culver.

Culver, who has been outspoken in his support of wind and solar energy and in pointing out the influence of the coal industry on the statehouse, said major change in Indiana’s energy policies will more than likely have to start at a grass roots level.

“I think it’s pretty much lip service when they talk about green jobs (in the statehouse),” Culver said. “They want coal plants. I don’t see it starting from the top down.”

Culver explained several bills have been started in the house regarding energy issues such as net metering, but have all been shot down in the Senate. At a speaking engagement in June honoring local companies that took steps toward energy conservation, Culver said Indiana allows consumers who generate their own energy to sell up to 100 kilowatt-hours back to the grid for retail credit, putting the state in a tie for lowest in the nation. He said the defeated bills suggested new limits of up to five megawatt-hours.

“It’s a really weak movement,” Culver said. “There’s not much strength in Indiana to get it done.”

Eberhardt shared state statistics gathered by the CAC during the meeting, mainly regarding coal, which he said makes up 96 percent of the state’s energy use, just behind national leader West Virginia. According to Eberhardt, another major issue is that the coal mined in the state can’t be burned here.

“Our coal is really dirty,” Eberhardt said. “We can’t burn it in Indiana, it has to be burned in plants grandfathered under the Clean Air Act.”

He said dirty coal is an issue throughout the Ohio River Valley, not just in Indiana.

Stepping back from the state level and getting into green efforts in Elkhart County, Yoder was optimistic.

Along with the entrance of Electric Motors Corp. and Energy-Inc., the front-runner in the county’s plan to generate fuel and energy from waste at the county landfill, Yoder said another announcement of a green technology company in the automotive field is scheduled for Tuesday. He said other companies are also looking at locating in the county.

“This last year, because we achieved such notoriety,” Yoder said, “a large percentage of the companies looking here are in the green energy field.”

He sees immense potential in particular from Energy-Inc. and the possibility of effectively eliminating a major portion of the county’s waste stream.

“If we can do that,” Yoder said, “I would challenge any town in Indiana to be as green as we are.” As discussion turned to energy efficiency on a household level, attendees shared a pragmatic if not unpopular view. They agreed that the biggest deterrent to change in people’s personal energy use habits was the availability of cheap energy.

SBN steering committee member Joel Barrett, an employee of WVPE public radio, said he tells people he would have no problem paying higher utility costs if more of the energy was coming from clean and renewable sources.

“They don’t understand why I’m okay with that,” Barrett said.

He said it was a symptom of a larger problem.

“Americans don’t tend to change,” Barrett said, “unless we’re forced to.”

Home Energy LLC in Middlebury is a Business Member of the Indiana Renewable Energy Association.

Blown Away: Wind Power Keeps Growing in Texas

2009-12-18T05:57:00.000-08:00

November 17, 2009, 12:59 PM ET.

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/11/17/blown-away-wind-power-keeps-growing-in-texas/

By Russell Gold, Wall Street Journal Blogs

Can the U.S. produce 20% of its electricity from wind? The U.S. Department of Energy thinks it can get there by 2030.

That doesn’t sound so far fetched anymore. A couple weeks ago – October 28th to be exact – wind turbines provided about 25% of Texas’ power consumption. (See the second page of the Texas electric authority ERCOT CEO’s update here.)

Of course, that could have been in the middle of the night when the good people of Flatonia, Amarillo and Gun Barrel City – not to mention Houston and Dallas – were asleep. (Update: It was in the middle of the night. Three a.m. to be exact.) Spain topped out at 53% of grid electricity from the wind earlier this month, but that occurred at about 5 a.m. while most Spaniards were asleep.

But back in Texas, a little before 8:30 p.m. on Wednesday October 28th, the Lone Star State got about 6,223 megawatts from the wind. That’s a record. At the time, the total load was about 35,000 megawatts. That’s 17.8% of its power from the wind. (That’s not sleepy-time power usage. Texas power consumption peaked in October at 49,100 megawatts.)

What does this mean for Texans electric bills? They could be headed down. A recent report finds that wind power is replacing more expensive forms of power generation.

This article brought to you by the Indiana Renewable Energy Association.

Manufacturing Tax Credit Will Accelerate Solar Job Creation

2009-12-16T14:40:00.000-08:00

For Immediate Release
December 16, 2009

Administration announcement means more solar jobs, faster deployment of clean energy

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) released the following statement on today’s announcement by Vice President Joe Biden of an expansion of the Section 48C Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit:

“The Administration is taking action to meet our most pressing economic need - job creation – by expanding the manufacturing tax credit for renewable energy equipment like solar,” said Rhone Resch, president and CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association.

“This incentive improves our nation’s competitiveness with other solar industry market leaders like China and creates high-quality jobs with good benefits. We’re bringing back a sense of pride in the American worker that a job can do something positive for the country and for our planet.

“The solar industry is creating manufacturing jobs from coast-to-coast and in the states where they are most needed. In Ohio, where communities are feeling the sting of the decline in traditional manufacturing, the solar industry is stepping in to fill that void. Over the past 10 years, 6,000 people have become employed in the solar industry in the city of Toledo alone, double what the coal industry employs in the entire state.

"By stimulating more domestic manufacturing, we can expand on this momentum."

Today’s announcement builds on President Obama’s commitment made in the American Recovery and Restoration Act to double America’s generation of renewable energy in the next three years. The program covers a number of clean energy technologies, including solar. It provides a 30 percent tax credit for investments in factories that manufacture products used in clean energy technology.

###

Established in 1974, the Solar Energy Industries Association is the national trade association of the solar energy industry. As the voice of the industry, SEIA works with its more than 1,000 member companies to make solar a mainstream and significant energy source by expanding markets, removing market barriers, strengthening the industry and educating the public on the benefits of solar energy. Learn more at www.seia.org.

SEIA President & CEO Rhone Resch is on Twitter: http://twitter.com/RhoneResch . SEIA is on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/thesolarindustry ) and Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Solar-Energy-Industries-Association/112495296809 ).

Read the Solar Bill of Rights at http://www.solarbillofrights.org/

Media Contacts:
Jared Blanton, 202.556.2886, jblanton@seia.org
Brian Mahar, 703.302.8393, bmahar@tigercomm.us

This news release brought to you by the Indiana Renewable Energy Association.

White House supports energy tax-credit hike

2009-12-16T13:16:00.000-08:00

Editor's note: This is a follow-up to an article posted Sunday, Dec. 13, 2009
Lugar Joins Senators Who Introduce Bill to Stimulate Clean Energy Manufacturing

December 16, 2009

http://detnews.com/article/20091216/BIZ/912160323

Senate effort to double incentive available for advanced manufacturing

DAVID SHEPARDSON
Detroit News Washington Bureau

Washington -- The White House expects today to announce its support of an effort to more than triple, to $7.3 billion, tax credits for advanced energy manufacturing.

In February, Congress passed a $2.3 billion tax credit giving businesses a 30 percent tax credit to produce high-tech batteries, electric vehicles, wind turbines, solar panels and renewable fuels, among other technologies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

But due to an unexpectedly high number of applicants, the program will run out of money by mid-January.

Vice President Joe Biden today will reaffirm the administration's commitment to a "strong manufacturing sector as a vital part of both the American economy and the rebuilding of the American middle class."

As part of that support, the White House is expected to endorse a $5 billion expansion of the tax credit, to $7.3 billion.

That's double the $2.5 billion sought in a bill last week by four bipartisan senators: Debbie Stabenow, D-Lansing; Orrin Hatch, R-Utah; Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M.; and Richard Lugar, R-Ind. They wanted to attach the money in a jobs bill that Congress will take up in the coming weeks.

Stabenow said the White House has been very supportive of the tax credit increase.

"We have a long line of manufacturers who have applied for the credit," Stabenow said Wednesday. "We have more people in Michigan that are going to be able to create jobs" if the 30 percent credit is expanded.

President Barack Obama praised the idea last week.

"With additional resources, in areas like advanced manufacturing of wind turbines and solar panels, for instance, we can help turn good ideas into good private-sector jobs," Obama said.

Automakers support the efforts to extend the credit.

"Sen. Stabenow and her colleagues should be commended for helping put American manufacturing on a competitive footing in the fight for new, green technologies," said General Motors Co. spokesman Greg Martin.

But money-losing automakers aren't expected to benefit immediately, since they have no taxes to offset.

Some, however, have applied so they can use credits when they again are profitable.
Manufacturing has been hit hard since the recession began in December 2007, losing 2.1 million factory jobs.

Manufacturing now accounts for less than 9 percent of U.S. employment.

That's its lowest percentage since before World War II.

Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm has lobbied the Obama administration for more funding for the tax credit, noting that the state has attracted a number of new advanced manufacturing developments in solar panels, wind turbines and batteries.

"I have asked them to take the cap off, so that there's a significant investment effort," she said. In September, Michigan announced it was helping fund a $725 million transformation of Ford Motor Co.'s shuttered Wixom plant.

Companies at the redeveloped site plan to build solar panels and utility-scale batteries for generating renewable power.

Michigan has the nation's highest unemployment rate at 15.2 percent, in part because the state's shed a quarter of its factory jobs over the last year.

Biden came to Detroit in August to unveil $2.4 billion in battery and electric vehicle research grants.

Michigan received more than half of the funds.

The administration has a multipronged effort aimed at creating tens of thousands of green jobs.

dshepardson@detnews.com

(202) 662-8735

This article brought to you by the Indiana Renewable Energy Association.

Cantwell’s cap-and-trade bill: almost genius

2009-12-14T10:15:00.000-08:00

Cantwell aims high but misses. Try again?

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-12-11-cantwells-cap-and-trade-bill-almost-genius

12 Dec 2009 12:23 AM Grist
by Alan Durning, Eric de Place

To borrow Dave Eggers’ book title, the novel approach to cap and trade proposed by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) is a heartbreaking work of staggering genius. Genius, because it is an innovative plan to create a best-case version of cap and trade. And heartbreaking, because by design and by omission it undermines the most important feature of cap and trade: a legally binding limit on carbon emissions.

It’s true that Cantwell’s CLEAR Act sets out ambitious reduction targets. Yet at present, it lacks detailed guidance for achieving them, especially in the near term.

We want to love this bill—and, in fact, we are head-over-heels for the majority of it—but we believe that its small number of flaws are so serious that, at best, it’s a diamond in the rough. (At worst, it’s a lump of coal that could jeopardize the best chance Americans have for comprehensive carbon pricing, ACES and its companion Senate bill, the Clean Energy Jobs Act.) In short, an “A” for intention, a “C” for execution. (We gave “B’s” to ACES and CEJ.) Fortunately, Senator Cantwell has time to revise her bill—or use it as a model for improving CEJ—in the weeks ahead.

Below is a detailed look at how CLEAR would work—and where it doesn’t get the job done. First, though, a synopsis:

• A solid reduction target: 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent below by 2050. Yet the targets are disconnected from CLEAR’s cap-and-trade program, which has a more modest trajectory and a narrower scope than other bills.
• Full auctioning —an excellent principle—but the auction format is less than ideal and the bill lacks detail about market oversight.
• Individuals are directly rebated with three-quarters of the auction proceeds —a wonderful idea for promoting fairness—but, again, the bill lacks a detailed plan for actually distributing the funds.
• Details are in short supply when it comes to enacting a border-adjustment tariff (to prevent industrial “leakage”) and for spending money on reductions outside the cap, as well as for adapation, international assistance, worker transition, energy efficiency, and other programs. • A price ceiling, which could bust the cap in certain circumstances. The bill does include provisions to offset permits that are issued beyond those allowed by the cap, but the details are sketchy.

One selling point of CLEAR is its brevity: it’s well under 50 pages. One might assume its concision brings clarity and transparency, especially when compared with 1,428-page ACES or 821-page CEJ. But we ended up wishing CLEAR were much longer. ACES and CEJ are thick because they are completed overhaul plans for the US energy economy. CLEAR, on the other hand, is more of an outline.

Let’s dig into the details.

The cap, the targets, and some confusion

While the bill aims to reduce total US greenhouse gas emissions, the cap-and-trade program, and hence the binding cap, is restricted to fossil fuel-based carbon-dioxide emissions. In other words, it caps a smaller share of the economy than the Clean Energy Jobs Act (CEJ), which directly covers some 86 percent of emissions under its cap and considerably more through regulatory and offset programs. But a fossil-only carbon cap isn’t nuts because the emissions account for an estimated 82 percent of US greenhouse gas emissions; and if the cap is implemented upstream, as CLEAR does, then regulatory compliance is limited to only about 3,000 firms, a number small enough to reduce administrative complexities.

The CLEAR cap would start up in 2012 at the level of actual emissions in that year, and the cap would remain at a constant level until 2015 when the program would make its first reduction. Thereafter, the rate of reduction would accelerate each year so that by 2050 total emissions under the cap were approximately 82 percent below 2012 levels.

Although the bill has just been released, there’s already much confusion about CLEAR’s reduction targets, which are actually different from the reductions in its cap-and-trade program. CLEAR sets out a target of a 20 percent reduction below 2005 levels by 2020. Yet the act’s cap-and-trade program achieves only about a 5 percent reduction below 2012 levels by 2020. Because the act’s overall targets and its cap-and-trade program use different baseline years, and because no one knows what emissions will be in 2012, it is impossible to determine the extent to which CLEAR’s cap-and-trade mechanism falls short of the act’s overall goals. But it is clear that there will be some shortfall.

If we assume that emissions in 2012 are the same as they were in 2005—a somewhat optimistic assumption in our view—then by 2020 CLEAR’s cap would still be “missing” an additional 15 percent reduction. (There’s a similar shortfall in 2025 and 2030 for which CLEAR also sets forth overall reduction goals that fail to jibe with the cap-and-trade program’s trajectory.) However, CLEAR has a plan for making up the difference.

These missing reductions are to be achieved by use of the Act’s CERT fund (about which, more later) to enact complementary policies and perhaps purchase offsets. But the CERT fund is essentially a laundry list of funding areas, only some of which would reduce emissions. There’s little guidance—and no guarantee— provided by CLEAR’s current language about how CERT would actually achieve emissions reductions on a set schedule.

In other words, more than three-quarters of CLEAR’s reductions by 2020 are left to a roughed-in fund that lacks adequate explanation, oversight, and direction. Not only would CERT have to make up the shortfall in the cap-and-trade program’s targets, but it would have to achieve an additional 20 percent reduction in the emissions that are outside the cap-and-trade program. Short on specifics as CERT is now, it’s not clear at all whether the bill contains the legislative mechanisms to accomplish its goals.

Auction & markets

CLEAR proposes to auction 100 percent of the permits, a decision Sightline wholeheartedly endorses. We also like that CLEAR’s auctions will be conducted using a “uniform price” method, a good method for minimizing the risks of manipulation by bidders. We do wish, however, that the bill contained a bit more specificity about the auction format. We tend to favor sealed bid, uniform price, single round auctions, but granting authority to the auction administrator to alter the format as best-practices advance also makes good sense to us. In particular, altering the format can prevent auction participants from devising gaming strategies. This is not a major consideration, however, given that gaming a carbon auction would be exceedingly difficult and bring little reward.

Yet other provisions for conducting the auction are not as canny. Bidding is restricted to the big polluters who are regulated by the program, and these regulated entities are allowed to trade the permits with one another.

Unfortunately, limiting participation in the auctions and trading to regulated entities may have the opposite effect of what is intended: it may increase the slim chances for collusion in the auction. The fewer bidders or traders, the easier it is for them to organize themselves. Sightline sees many reasons to regulate closely the carbon market, but we do not see a reason to limit entrance to the regulated entities. Brokers, for example, could play a valuable role in smoothing the market and maintaining a daily secondary market to help firms adjust to their changing needs.

Furthermore, we doubt that limiting participation—as opposed to other regulations on the market—does anything to prevent market manipulation. For example, prohibiting trading of carbon permits cannot prevent financial firms from trading in derivative products based on the underlying dynamics of the carbon permit market. (CLEAR does allow for derivatives trading, though regulated entities are not allowed to participate.) What’s missing rather is specific regulatory guidance for carbon derivatives. On this question, CLEAR essentially punts market regulation to an administrative process— a process for which it provides very little direction. In fact, this is one of several areas where CLEAR is missing key details.

A more minor problem: limiting auction participation to regulated entities will prevent mission-driven organizations from buying and retiring permits without using them, to accelerate the transition to a clean-energy future.

All told, the auction and market limitations are only a small flaw in CLEAR. Any market, including CLEAR’s, will need oversight to guard against manipulation. More distinctive is CLEAR’s use of auction revenue, which Sightline enthusiastically supports.

A climate rebate

The bill returns three-quarters of the auction revenue directly to legal US residents in the form of equal per capita rebates, making it an only somewhat diluted version of “cap and dividend.” Preliminary analysis shows that CLEAR’s dividend would leave about half of all households, including all low income households, in a better financial position than without the program; and most remaining households, with the exception of some high energy users, would feel minimal financial impact on net.

Per-capita rebates of auction proceeds are smart policy, but the details can be tricky and the administration of the particular plan in this bill—electronic fund transfers to everyone— is a worrisome prospect. Providing monthly payments to each legal resident of the nation would be extremely difficult. No mechanism currently exists that can deliver funds in this manner. The United States has neither a registry of legal residents, nor an address list, nor a system for adding births and immigrants, nor for removing deaths and emigrants. The bill doesn’t specify certain important details, such as who would receive and manage the funds for children and legal dependents, such as the developmentally disabled.

Existing public mechanisms such as Social Security, income taxes, Medicare, and the electronic benefit transfer (EBT) systems of most states can reach large swaths of the public. But none of them can reach everyone. The Alaska Permanent Fund does pay dividends to legal residents of the state, but it does not pay dividends to minors. It pays dividends only once a year. It requires residents to register to receive payment—a prospect that civil liberties advocates would likely bitterly oppose at the national level. And Alaska is a state with fewer than 1 million residents.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) has done excellent work to identify practical means of distributing auction rebates through existing mechanisms. (ACES adopted CBPP’s recommendations in its plan for rebates to low-income families.) Our recommendation for CLEAR would be to use a mix of CBPP’s plan for low-income families, an expanded earned-income tax credit, and a refundable income tax credit for all tax filers. President Obama’s 2009 budget proposal, to use auction proceeds to fund his working families tax reduction, is another good option that’s easy to administer. Annual rather than monthly payments make the most sense to us.

The Clean Energy Reinvestment Trust (CERT)

So while three-quarters of the auction revenue goes to rebates, the remaining quarter goes into a special fund, called CERT, that is dedicated to a variety of climate-related purposes such as research and development into new technology, low-income weatherization, and climate adaptation programs. Many of these purposes seem smart to us, but the bill is very short on specifics. It would be easier for us to endorse these investments if the bill provided a clearer picture of what, precisely, they might be—or at at least what guidelines would be used for making spending decisions with these funds.

The absence of details about CERT is problematic for several reasons. First, CLEAR relies on CERT to achieve about three-quarters of its reductions by 2020 (and about half its reductions by 2025 and one-third of its reductions by 2030). Second, CLEAR relies on CERT to offset any emissions in excess of the cap, in the event that the so-called “safety valve” price ceiling is reached at auction. (More on this, later.) And third, CLEAR relies on CERT to achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions outside of the capped sectors, about 18 percent of total emissions. That’s a lot—too much—riding on a section of the bill that at present contains hardly any specifics about oversight, spending, and accountability.

Border adjustment

As an aside, CERT and market regulation are not the only areas where CLEAR seems short on details. The bill sets out a border adjustment provision that is admirable in its simplicity. (Basically, a border adjustment attempts to prevent carbon-intense industries from departing for countries that do not price carbon. It levies a tariff on imported carbon-intense goods that originate in countries without rigorous carbon policy while it provides a payment for goods that are exported to such countries.) CLEAR would be stronger if it gave more guidance on which commodities are energy intensive enough to merit border adjustments. How to calculate border adjustments is also a tricky analytical job with huge implications for trade policy. Ascertaining the carbon footprint of a commodity in international trade is an extraordinarily difficult task. The US Trade Representative will have his or her hands full!

Price controls—and a leaky cap

Where CLEAR gets really interesting, however, is in its auction pricing: the carbon permit auction in CLEAR includes both a price floor and a price ceiling, collectively refered to as a “price collar.” (The construction of the price collar is similar to that in the Senate’s Clean Energy Jobs Act.) At the outset, the floor is set at $7 and the ceiling at $21 and starting in 2015 they begin climbing annually at the rate of inflation plus 6.5 percent.

In case you need a refresher, a price floor prevents the government from selling carbon permits to firms that are unwilling to pay the floor price, even when not all the carbon permits allowed under the cap have been exhausted. So when a price floor kicks in, it is effectively a tightening of the cap—a good thing from a climate protection perspective. By contrast, a price ceiling means that the government must provide unlimited carbon permits to firms that are willing to pay the ceiling price, even when the number of carbon permits being sold exceeds the number allowed under the cap. So when a price ceiling kicks in, it is effectively a removal of the cap—a bad thing for the climate.

Of course, when the auction price of permits is between the floor and the ceiling then the government will supply exactly the number of permits that are allowed under the cap. Demand from bidders for the limited supply of permits will determine the auction price.

Carbon permit prices can oscillate between the floor and ceiling prices, so CLEAR’s price limits provide bidding firms with more certainty about price than they would have in an open market. But by putting an upward boundary on prices CLEAR erodes certainty about overall emissions. Emissions may exceed the cap, if the ceiling is reached. In other words, CLEAR fails to establish a firm limit on carbon emissions because it puts price certainty ahead of emissions certainty.

Plugging the leaks?

In fairness, CLEAR has one more trick up its sleeve. In the event that auction prices exceed the ceiling—when the government must supply more permits than are provided for by the cap—the revenue from sales in excess of the cap would be set aside for a special purpose. CLEAR would use these revenues to either purchase offsets or pursue emissions reductions from non-fossil fuel sources. In either case, the money earned from the cap-busting permits would be directed to the CERT fund where it would be used to obtain emission reductions outside the cap, thereby neutralizing the damage of exceeding the cap, at least in theory.

CLEAR’s approach is intriguing to be sure: if the revenue from the carbon permits sold above and beyond the cap is used to obtain genuine emissions reductions from outside the cap, the program appears to have its price ceiling and its cap too. It’s almost a stroke of genius, but unfortunately the bill provides exceedingly little guidance on how to use these funds. Unlike ACES or CEJ, CLEAR does virtually nothing to define how its offsets program might work or how the program would really guarantee that the excess revenue was actually achieving genuine and permanent carbon reductions. This is more than a nitpick: as we mentioned earlier, the sketchy language that defines CERT is a rather substantial weakness of CLEAR— albeit one that could be fixed by a more attentive and robust approach to address reductions outside the cap.

Yet even if CLEAR were to enhance its treatment of reductions beyond its cap, we see few compelling arguments for a price ceiling. Rather, we believe ACES’s “strategic reserve” approach is superior, in which sudden price increases can trigger the release of permits from a special reserve of permits. But ACES can guarantee that its cap is protected because the strategic reserve is mostly stocked with actual permits under the cap that are set aside in prior years. In other words, it tightens the cap slightly in the early years, while the reserve is being stocked with permits; and it effectively prevents body-shocks to the economy from carbon price spikes. (CEJ includes both a price ceiling and a strategic reserve; it stocks its strategic reserve largely with offsets.)

Furthermore, ACES’s strategic reserve is activated by relative price increases, not absolute ones—making it more responsive to actual market conditions and a better economic shock absorber. If carbon prices hovered around the price floor for three years, then jumped 60 percent in a month, the reserve would activate. In the same circumstances, CLEAR’s price celing would not activate until prices had jumped 300 percent! On the other hand, if carbon prices hover for a long spell at levels close to CLEAR’s price ceiling, even a modest increase would trigger the release of new permits. ACES, meanwhile, would not release any new permits unless prices rose rapidly by 60 percent.

The politics

We believe that the relative price approach is better because the economic risk is not in the absolute price of carbon but rather in sudden changes in its price—sudden changes for which households and businesses are unprepared. That said, we understand why a price ceiling might be politically desirable, to reassure certain legislators or interest groups. But most other aspects of CLEAR are written without pandering to political popularity, so why include a price ceiling in the bill at all?

It’s here, in the hazardous zone of politics, that we register our final complaint. Sightline is concerned that Senator Cantwell’s bill will not be used to improve Congressional climate legislation but rather to torpedo ACES, which has already cleared the House, and its companion, CEJ, which has the best chance of passing the Senate. Neither ACES nor CEJ is flawless—indeed, we’ve catalogued our grievances in some detail—but we believe that they are basically sound bills.

We very much believe that the major congressional climate bills would be improved if they were to adopt some of CLEAR’s better features, such as generous auctioning and per-capita rebates. But climate policy doesn’t need a circular firing squad, it needs to be strengthened and passed into law post-haste.

Alan Durning directs Sightline Institute, a Seattle research and communication center working to promote sustainable solutions for the Pacific Northwest.

Eric de Place is a senior research at Sightline Institute, a Seattle-based sustainability think tank, working on promoting smart policy decisions for the Pacific Northwest. Visit http://daily.sightline.org/daily_score to read more on Sightline’s blog.

This article brought yo you by the Indiana Renewable Energy Association.

Two U.S. Senators unveil alternative climate bill

2009-12-14T10:06:00.000-08:00

Fri, Dec 11 2009

By Ayesha Rascoe

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two more U.S. Senators jumped into the climate bill debate on Friday, offering a proposal that would cap planet-warming emissions but reduce the role of Wall Street in carbon markets.

Unlike the climate bill passed by the House of Representatives earlier this year, financial speculators would be shut out of carbon markets created under this legislation, introduced by moderate Senators Maria Cantwell, a Democrat, and Susan Collins, a Republican.

Instead of placing carbon limits on most major polluters, the bill would focus only on producers and importers of fossil fuels such as coal mining companies and not power plants and manufacturers.

The companies covered by their legislation would be required to buy permits for their carbon emissions in monthly auctions.

The majority of the revenue from the auctions would be refunded back to consumers to offset higher energy costs, with the remaining 25 percent going to clean energy development.

This market, known as "cap and dividend", would be more streamlined than the House's cap and trade scheme.

This bill "provides businesses and investors with a simple, predictable mechanism that will open the way to clean energy expansion while achieving America's goals of reducing carbon emissions," Cantwell said in statement.

The new legislation further muddles the landscape for climate regulation in the Senate, where lawmakers are trying to reach a consensus to overcome the regional and economic concerns that have stalled action so far.

On Thursday, a bipartisan trio of Senators unveiled their own framework for addressing global warming, which would marry a cap and trade system limiting carbon emissions with incentives for more domestic energy production.

The Senators John Kerry, Lindsey Graham, and Joe Lieberman have been working to win votes from climate fence sitters in both parties. The White House hailed their framework as a "positive development" toward reaching a bipartisan agreement in the Senate.

The three Senators signaled their climate control system would likely follow the same contours of the House-passed bill, which covered most major polluters.

Under the House bill, major emitters such as refiners and utilities would be required to acquire carbon permits. Initially, most permits would be allocated to industries for free with the rest auctioned off.

Critics of the House bill and previous Senate proposals have complained they are too broad in scope and that complex carbon and offset markets would invite manipulation and abuse from financial speculators.

(Editing by Timothy Gardner and Marguerita Choy)

This article brought to you by the Indiana Renewable Energy Association.

Lugar Joins Senators Who Introduce Bill to Stimulate Clean Energy Manufacturing

2009-12-13T07:35:00.000-08:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Thursday, December 10, 2009

CONTACTS:
Jude McCartin/Bingaman (202) 224-1804
Mark Eddington/ Hatch (202)-224-5251
Matt Williams/Stabenow (202) 224-1437
Mark Hayes/Lugar (202) 224-8370

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Richard Lugar (R-IN) have introduced legislation that would create jobs by encouraging the manufacture of renewable energy technologies in the United States.

The senators’ American Clean Technology Manufacturing Leadership Act extends the life of a successful tax credit that allows companies to write off 30 percent of the cost of creating, expanding, or re-equipping facilities to manufacture renewable energy technologies, like solar panels, wind turbines, and advanced batteries.

The legislation expands an innovative tax incentive first created at Bingaman’s urging in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The Act authorized the Departments of Energy and the Treasury to award up to $2.3 billion in tax credits. But due to an unexpectedly high number of applicants, that program will run out of funds by mid-January. The senators’ American Clean Technology Manufacturing Leadership Act (S. 2857) would provide an additional $2.5 billion in tax credits, enough to leverage $8.33 billion in new domestic investment.

“This tax incentive has been so successful that President Obama himself called on Congress to extend it, so that more companies can take advantage of it and create jobs,” Bingaman said. “Currently, the United States runs an annual ‘green trade deficit’ of almost $9 billion. But the United States should be the world’s No. 1 manufacturer of clean energy technology. This tax incentive will help us move toward that goal.”

“With all the talk about green jobs these days, it can be confusing to figure out just what a green job is. Well, this legislation promotes green jobs where they matter the most, in the domestic advanced energy manufacturing sector. Renewable energy is a rapidly growing field, and we’re joining together today to ensure that the United States maintains leadership in the development and manufacture of the best energy technologies, while keeping our nation on the competitive cutting edge,” Hatch said.

“In order to turn our economy around and create jobs, we need to build the clean energy technology of the future here in America. Otherwise, we will lose the race with other countries and see those jobs go overseas,” said Stabenow. “This manufacturing tax credit, which I co-authored in the recovery act, has already spurred interest to invest in advanced energy projects such as wind, solar, geothermal, and other renewable resources across the country. It has also set aside critical funding for companies manufacturing technologies for the next generation of advanced vehicles. This initiative is central to any jobs package, and I am pleased to partner with my Senate colleagues to introduce legislation that will help put our economy back on track.”

“With one in ten Hoosiers unemployed and many more underemployed, job creation must be a first priority. Extending the Advanced Manufacturing Tax Credit is a fiscally-responsible way of helping American workers and businesses use our manufacturing expertise to lead in new energy technology production,” Lugar said.

Until ARRA was enacted in February, all domestic tax incentives focused exclusively on business and consumer tax credits to encourage the use of such technology as solar panels. The 30 percent tax credit – created first in ARRA and proposed for expansion through the American Clean Technology Manufacturing Leadership Act -- for the first time incentivized companies to manufacture clean technologies in the United States.

The American Clean Technology Manufacturing Leadership Act was referred to the Senate Finance Committee. Bingaman, Hatch and Stabenow are members of that committee. Bingaman also chairs the Finance Subcommittee on Energy, Natural Resources & Infrastructure, and plans to convene a hearing in 2010 on tax incentives for energy manufacturing.

This news release brought to you by the Indiana Renewable Energy Association.

Trip Gives US State Policymakers Insight into German Green Energy

2009-12-10T10:10:00.000-08:00

David Pippen, Indiana :“As a coal state interested and working diligently in cleaning our energy mix it really was the panoply of issues/visits which mean the most to me…I am a policy person, so the discussions with institutional, business and political leaders (and staff) stand out as the most engaging and educational experiences.”

Pippen is Senior Policy Director in the office of Governor Mitchel E. Daniels in Indiana. He can be reached at: dpippen@gov.in.gov

Reflections on the Transatlantic Climate Bridge Trip

Officials from the states of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Tennessee and Virginia reflect on the insights they gained during the trip and the potential opportunities for German-US partnerships.

Delegates from the states of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Tennessee and Virginia traveled to Germany for a five-day fact-finding mission in June 2009, as part of the German Government’s Transatlantic Climate Bridge Initiative. The program was presented in partnership with The Climate Group and Ecologic.

The delegation was comprised of senior policymakers from some of the states that share unique similarities with Germany in terms of their economic make-up and energy mix.
During the five days in Berlin and Munich, a mix of meetings, site visits, and cultural activities allowed delegates to witness firsthand the opportunities and challenges born from making a definitive leap towards a more sustainable low carbon future.

Delegates learned about Germany’s landmark Renewable Energy Act, also known as the feed-in tariff; they dived into the details of the European Emissions Trading System; and they saw how carbon capture and storage (CCS) is being piloted at the Schwarze Pumpe coal-fired power plant.
At the futuristic production site of Q-Cells, in Germany’s high-tech “Solar Valley,” the delegates learned about the process of manufacturing solar cells and about green collar job creation through the right mix of policies. The final day of the trip in Munich included a trip to the world headquarters of BMW, where the latest innovations in energy efficient and high performance design were showcased.

Several meetings also took place with prominent German politicians and policy makers, such as Prof. Dr. Ottmar Edenhofer of the Potsdam Institute and the Co-Chair of Working Group III of the IPCC; and Dr. Herman Scheer, renowned Social Democrat Party figure and author the German Renewable Energy Act.

This trip told the German story about how to address climate change in a common sense way while continuing to grow the economy. The seeds have been planted for the Americans to next welcome their German colleagues to the United States, to demonstrate how America has adopted some of these best practices, and at the same time, pioneered some of its own.

By Michael Allegretti, Director of Government Relations, The Climate Group

The Climate Group is an international, non-profit organisation with the goal of helping government and business set the world economy on the path to a low-carbon, prosperous future:

http://www.theclimategroup.org/

The Ecologic Institute is a private not-for-profit think tank for applied environmental research, policy analysis and consultancy dedicated to bringing fresh ideas to environmental policies and sustainable development:

http://ecologic.eu/

This article brought to you by the Indiana Renewable Energy Association.

Midwestern Policy Makers Visit Germany on “Green Jobs – Green Growth” Trip

2009-12-10T09:44:00.000-08:00

Nov 18, 2009

Eleven state policymakers from Kansas, Minnesota, Wisconsin, South-Dakota, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan and California took part in an informational visit to Berlin and Bremen in November entitled “Green Jobs – Green Growth: Opportunities through Re-Industrialization.”

A hydrogen-powered vehicle at the Clean Energy Partnership project
(© German Embassy)

The five-day visit was organized by the German Government and the Midwestern Governors Association, as part of the ‘Transatlantic Climate Bridge’ initiative, and aimed to provide an in-depth knowledge of Germany’s energy and climate policy.

Delegates had the opportunity to engage firsthand with policy makers, experts and industry leaders on both the German federal and state level to discuss the prospects for job creation, advanced clean energy technologies, and industrial innovation.

The week in Germany kicked-off with a discussion of the environmental, social and economic opportunities and challenges in transitioning toward a low-carbon economy, led by Dr. Haas from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

U.S. Policy Makers in Berlin (© German Embassy)
including Marc E. Lewis, Vice President--External Relations, Indiana Michigan Electric (I&M).

Contact him at: melewis@aep.com

A visit to the Federal Environment Ministry highlighted the goals set out by the European climate package as well as Germany’s integrated climate and energy program. This was followed by an in-depth assessment by a representative from the German Foreign Office, of the international climate negotiations in the run-up to the U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen in December.

Delegates were also given the chance of engaging with business leaders in the renewable energies field. They test-drove a fully hydrogen-powered vehicle at the Clean Energy Partnership project, toured the River Spree on a solar-powered boat and explored the production of “clean coal” from biomass at a start-up company, SunCoal Industries.

A day trip to Bremen allowed for a closer look at a newly established wind power training centre by Siemens, which is providing on-site education and training for future wind technicians.

By pursuing a low-carbon growth path, Germany has created over 280,000 new jobs and spurred innovation in new clean energy technologies. In the words of one participant, it was “refreshing to see the commitment by everyone to work on these issues.”

The trip highlighted the fact that Germany and the Midwest have much in common – both have strong traditional energy industries and both are building strong foundations for leadership in the fields of renewable energies and energy efficiency

The Indiana Renewable Energy Association became aware of this recent trip and thought it would be of interest.

From the sun

2009-12-08T04:40:00.000-08:00

ELECTRIC SUN: Joe and Lee Scheidler stand beside the 30 solar panels they installed on their property this year to offset their consumption of electricity. So far, they have been able to cut their utility bill in half and reduce their “carbon footprint.”

Reprinted from the Logansport Pharos Tribune
Published: December 07, 2009 09:34 pm

http://www.pharostribune.com/local/local_story_341213455.html

Local couple installs solar panels to offset energy costs.

Joe and Lee Scheidler couldn’t stand to see sunshine wasted any longer so the Cass County couple installed an array of 30 solar panels that turns the renewable resource into electricity.

By doing so, the owners of Springcreek Landscaping lowered their monthly electric bill by more than half and did their part to reduce the amount of pollution from burning fossil fuels.

On Sept. 30, the Scheidlers started producing energy on their property north of Logansport. So far they have saved 1,594 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions and produced 937.5 kWh of power.

According to Joe’s figures, all the carbon they currently generate in a year’s worth of driving will be offset by their solar array.

Joe said in November, one of the worst months to tap into solar power, they used 64 percent less electricity compared to the same month last year. They are looking forward to the summer when the electric meter spins in reverse, which means they will be putting power back onto the power grid and getting compensated for it.

The couple has partnered with Logansport Municipal Utilities in a pilot program so that on days the Scheidlers are producing more energy then they are consuming they receive credits that lower their monthly electric bills. The rate, which is still being finalized, is typically the same rate LMU charges.

LMU distribution manager Bob Dunderman says Joe and Lee are the program’s first customers. To record electricity production, LMU installed a special meter at their home that reads how much the Scheidlers have produced and how much LMU has provided.

The partnership may seem to be contradictory since LMU is in the business of producing electricity but Dunderman thinks cooperation with independent producers of “green” power can be beneficial, especially in the summer months when LMU must purchase supplemental power from Duke Energy. He said the solar power energy would reduce the amount they buy.

Because Joe and Lee want to minimize their impact on the planet, they feel their partnership with LMU is a win for everyone.

“This is 100 percent pollution-free energy, and the more clean energy a utility handles these days, the better,” Joe said.

Laura Ann Arnold, president of the Indiana Renewable Energy Association board of directors, agrees.

“Whether you do or don’t agree that there is a problem with climate change, the reality is that coal, where we get most of our electricity from, is a finite resource,” she said.

Once the capital investment is made in a renewable energy system, such as the Scheidlers solar array, unlimited energy is produced without cost or detriment to the environment, Arnold added.

Even after receiving a USDA grant, the Scheidlers still had to fork out thousands of dollars upfront to install their system. They will receive a 30 percent federal tax credit for energy efficiency improvements but return on their investment will take as long as 19 years.

Joe pointed out, though, that they would get no return if they did not make the investment and because they have their own source of electricity they have a permanent buffer to increasing fossil fuel costs.

“The sun has not raised it’s rates for 4.5 billion years,” Joe said.

Life expectancy of the system is up to 35 years for the photovoltaic panels and 15 years for the inverter, which changes the current from DC to AC. The system works best on sunny days but still produces electricity on cloudy days. Maintenance is easy because there are no moving parts.

“It’s just incredible technology,” Joe said.

Joe, Lee and Arnold all hope there will be more incentives made available for Hoosiers.

“People want to take advantage of these new technologies and with proper state and federal incentives, more people will,” Joe said. “Our legislators need to hear from us, learn of the demand, work to support incentives and take steps to move manufacturing of clean energy components back to the USA.”

• Kevin Lilly is news editor of the Pharos-Tribune. He can be reached at 574-732-5117 or kevin.lilly@pharostribune.com.

Joe and Lee Scheidler with Springcreek Landscaping in Logansport are members of the Indiana Renewable Energy Association.

Keeping Up the PACE: Property Assessed Clean Energy Financing

2009-12-04T03:46:00.000-08:00

Reprinted from Renewable Energy World.

December 3, 2009

New York allows municipal finance programs for solar and efficiency retrofits on private property.

by Annie Carmichael & Shaun Chapman, Vote Solar

Last month, in what New York legislators called an "extraordinary" session, lawmakers voted to authorize municipal finance programs for clean energy improvements on homes and businesses. Called PACE (Property Assessed Clean Energy) financing, these popular municipal programs allow homeowners to go solar and make efficiency improvements without any upfront cost. Just how popular is PACE? There was not one single "no" vote in either house. New York's PACE legislation passed by a resounding 192 – 0.

And New York is not alone. Fifteen other states have passed laws to allow PACE programs. For those keeping track that’s: California, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin. Municipalities in Hawaii and Florida can implement PACE programs without any special enabling legislation at the state level. So why is PACE suddenly the most popular flavor of state renewable energy policy?

PACE programs effectively remove the single greatest barrier to energy efficiency and solar adoption — upfront cost. It works like this: Cities set up special clean energy finance districts capable of issuing low-interest bonds. Participating property owners can then opt-in to use the bond money to pay for renewable energy and energy efficiency improvements. They then pay the loan back through a long-term assessment on their property taxes.

This arrangement spreads the cost of a new solar system out across a 20-year payment plan that is easily transferable (along with those energy saving benefits) to the next owner if the property changes hands — a particular benefit to solar that can have longer payback periods. Best of all, the cost of that assessment is typically less than the electricity bill savings generated by the new solar system, so property owners see savings from day one.

Local governments understand the promise of PACE as well. First, and perhaps most importantly in these volatile economic times, the bond-backed PACE model presents little to no impact on the city’s general fund. Or the state’s for that matter (thus why it’s proven such a popular policy for state legislatures this year).

In short, it’s a fiscally-responsible way for government to support local clean energy job growth, make climate change progress, and help lower energy bills in one fell swoop. Plus it’s based on a known and trusted municipal project finance structure, making PACE programs a relatively palatable new program for cities to implement.

Look at Austin, Texas. Earlier this fall, Austin Energy, which had consistently provided one of the strongest rebates in the nation for customer-owned solar, announced that budget constraints were necessitating changes to the popular program. PACE looked to be offering the forward-thinking municipal utility one very viable alternative option. In October, the Austin City Council unanimously passed a resolution to get the ball rolling on a PACE style program for its residents. The plan, called Project Energize, would serve as an exciting supplement to the rebate program.

The White House also recently announced its support for PACE as a job creation and economic development tool. In addition to developing best practice guidelines and consumer protections, the federal government will allow cities to apply for a portion of $454 Million in Recovery Act funds to help launch a PACE program. With the deadline to apply for those PACE dollars coming up on December 14, New York’s late night legislative decision came through for Empire State municipalities in the nick of time.

Economic crisis is forcing leaders at all levels of government to make difficult decisions between very worthy programs: healthcare, education, public safety and the transition to a new energy economy. We can help them make the right choices, by offering easier ones. Through PACE, cities empower homeowners to invest private dollars in building a local clean energy market. At a time when budgets are constrained even beyond their normal parameters, that is music to all of our ears.

Click here for additional resources including a toolkit for helping your city develop a PACE program.

Annie Carmichael is Federal Policy Director with Vote Solar. Annie spearheads the organization’s federal efforts as well as a number of state initiatives. Shaun Chapman is East Coast Campaigns Director at Vote Solar. Based in New York, Shaun leads the organization’s efforts on the east coast.

Vote Solar is a non-profit grassroots organization working to fight climate change and foster economic opportunity by bringing solar energy into the mainstream. Since 2002 Vote Solar has engaged in state, local and federal advocacy campaigns to remove regulatory barriers and implement the key policies needed to bring solar to scale.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/12/keeping-up-the-pace?cmpid=WNL-Friday-December4-2009

Proposed Indiana (Midwest) Feed-in Tariffs 2009

2009-12-03T13:50:00.000-08:00

November 25, 2009

By Paul Gipe

This is a brief explanation of the proposed feed-in tariffs provided to the Indiana Renewable Energy Association and Representative Matt Pierce.

The tariffs suggested are applicable throughout the Midwest and not solely to Indiana.

The tariffs, or prices paid for renewable generation per kilowatt-hour, are based on my professional judgment of current best practice worldwide and best practice specifically in North America.

In large part the tariffs are based on those implemented October 1, 2009 in Ontario, Canada. The Ontario Power Authority derived a system of tariffs for renewable energy following the most rigorous and, equally as important, the most transparent price-setting process yet conducted in North America. The Ontario tariffs were converted to US dollars.

Because of lucrative federal subsidies in the US, there are two tariff tracks: one without federal subsidies, and one with the subsidies.

Two Tracks (with & without Federal Tax Credits)
There are two tracks because not every potential generator can fully use the federal tax credits. If the program is to be equitable, that is, if the program is to provide equal opportunity to all Indiana citizens, it must not be limited to only those with substantial federal taxes. Thus, even those who do not have substantial federal tax liability can take advantage of the program by using the tariffs.

While it would be technically more correct to run a full financial model taking into account the discounted effects of the federal subsidies, this was determined to be unnecessary. Instead, the proposed Indiana tariffs derived from Ontario's current rates were simply reduced 30 percent, representing the equivalent benefit of the federal tax credits.

Wind Energy
Wind energy is a special case and was treated separately and in much more detail. There are four classes of wind energy tariffs: two tariff classes for small wind turbines, an offshore class, and a tariff class for onshore, commercial-scale wind turbines.

Small Turbines
Tariffs for small wind turbines are divided by the area swept by the wind turbine's rotor. This measure allows inclusion of both conventional horizontal-axis wind turbines as well as novel vertical-axis wind turbines.

The smallest class is representative of household-size wind turbines. These are currently more expensive and less productive than commercial-scale turbines and, consequently, the tariff needed is much greater. The tariff proposed for household-size wind turbines is comparable to that in several European countries and to that proposed in Great Britain.

The second small turbine class is for wind turbines considered suitable for small businesses. With the federal tax credit, the tariff proposed is similar to that proposed by Indianapolis Power & Light in its filing with the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) for wind turbines less than 100 kW in capacity.

Commercial-Scale Turbines Onshore
The price necessary for profitable operation of commercial-scale wind turbines is highly dependent upon the wind resource and the resulting productivity of the wind turbine. To spread economic opportunity to a greater percentage of Hoosier farmers, rural landowners, and small businesses it is necessary to offer a range of tariffs to reflect the different wind resources available.

When a single wind energy tariff is used for commercial-scale wind turbines, some generators will be overpaid and others underpaid. Both to avoid overpayment at windier sites and to enable profitable wind development at less windy sites it's necessary to calculate a range of tariffs.

There are two techniques currently in use to accomplish this task: the German system, and the French system. Both systems use a trial period of five to ten years. All turbines are paid the same price during the trial period. After the trial period, the tariff payment changes, reflecting the site's productivity. The German system (it is also used in Switzerland) is more unwieldy than the French system and less adaptable to North America.

The French system bases the post-trial tariff on a measure of the wind turbine's productivity.

The proposed Indiana tariffs are similar to those proposed in Ontario by the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association. They have been specifically adapted to the North American wind resource and costs.

The proposed Indiana tariffs are derived from the Profitability Index Method developed by Bernard Chabot for the French equivalent of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

This method incorporates average installed costs, annual expenses, inflation, the cost of capital, and so on. Most importantly, this method enables simple recalculation of the tariff needed as the wind resource and turbine productivity vary.

The two most important parameters are the installed cost relative to the area swept by the wind turbine rotor. In this case, the installed cost is approximately $2,400/kW for a 2 MW wind turbine with a 90 meter diameter rotor.

The base productivity is set at a minimum average annual specific yield of 650 kWh/m2/yr. This yield is equivalent to a wind resource of 5.5 m/s (12.3 mph) at hub height. The calculation results in a tariff of $0.14/kWh without tax credits and $0.098/kWh with the federal tax credits.

The base tariff is paid for the first five years to all turbines installed under the program. Turbines with a productivity of 650 kWh/m2/yr or less will be paid the base tariff for the full 20 years.

At the end of the first five years, the yield for each year is determined. The year with highest yield and the year with the lowest yield are discarded. The productivity of the turbine is calculated from the yield of the remaining three years.

The profitability index is limited to 0.55 at an annual yield of 1,200 kWh/m2/yr. This eliminates overpayment for development at windy sites where the wind resource is equivalent to 7.4 m/s (16.6 mph) at hub height. The calculation results in a tariff for years 6 through 20 of $0.084/kWh without tax credit, and $0.059/kWh with federal tax credits.

Note that because there are two tariffs (for years 1-5, and for years 6-20), the average or equivalent tariff is somewhat more than the second period tariff. Thus, at a site with an average yield of 1,200 kWh/m2/yr, the average or equivalent 20-year tariff is $0.104/kWh without tax credits and $0.073/kWh with federal tax credits. The latter equivalent tariff is nearly identical with that proposed by Indianapolis Power & Light to the IURC for wind turbines larger than 1 MW of $0.075/kWh.

This article brought to you by the Indiana Renewable Energy Association. For more information, please visit www.indianarenew.org.