Excerpted from “Summer of Discontent,” Fortnightly’s August 2010 Frontlines column.

As America approaches summer’s Dog Days, the debate over smart meters is heating up. Utilities in at least four states are facing public backlash against smart-meter rollouts — and that’s not counting the class-action lawsuits previously filed against Oncor and Pacific Gas & Electric in Texas and Bakersfield, Calif., respectively.

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA: About 60 residents picketed offices of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in San Francisco on July 20, carrying protest signs and chanting such slogans as, “One, two, three, four, smart meters no more.” The demonstrators voiced concerns about privacy and personal choice issues, as well as the meters’ radio-frequency transmissions and their possible effect on human health. Several local governments in Northern California, including Berkeley, Marin County, Santa Cruz and San Francisco, petitioned PG&E to stop its smart-meter rollout pending further public hearings and studies.

The Marin Independent Journal published an editorial on July 20 that stated, “Forcing your customers to do something without first making sure they are comfortable with it is not the best way to run a business.”

MARYLAND: Executives at Baltimore Gas & Electric were stunned when the Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC) decided in June to deny the company’s DOE-funded smart-grid investment plan. The decision came in the midst of a heated gubernatorial campaign, in which Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) is campaigning on a theme of green jobs, while former Gov. Robert Ehrlich (R) accuses the O’Malley administration of killing jobs with anti-business regulations. Against this backdrop, BGE petitioned for expedited re-hearing and amended its plan to address the PSC’s concerns—most notably by deferring and limiting BGE’s proposed capital-expense “tracker”; eliminating shareholder incentives for achieving demand-reduction targets; accelerating the depreciation of the new meters; making time-of-use rates voluntary instead of mandatory; and proposing a customer communication and education plan. The commission agreed to schedule hearings for early August.

OHIO: The Westerville city council voted in a closed-door meeting on July 20 to postpone a final vote on the municipal utility’s federal stimulus-funded smart-grid project. Chairman Mike Heyeck announced afterward that the postponement would allow the council to field questions and comments from Westerville residents, and to “provide additional opportunity to learn more about advanced metering” via a series of public events and outreach efforts.

The council’s decision came in the wake of growing public discontent, expressed at a July 6 city council meeting, where the residents who showed up spoke overwhelmingly against smart meters. ThisWeek newspaper quoted resident Charles Voight Jr. expressing outrage over the remote disconnection capabilities of smart meters, and the city’s decision to accept federal stimulus dollars. “This process seems to have been predetermined, with the grants being applied for without the public giving their full consent,” Voight reportedly said. “I personally will not let you into my home, remember that.”

Andy Boatright, electric utility manager for the city of Westerville, told Fortnightly in a phone interview that many of the 30-plus people who have expressed opposition to the project have focused on the federal government’s role. “I think it’s primarily a function of the federal grant,” Boatright said.

COLORADO: Xcel Energy awaits a decision by the Boulder city council on whether to recommend that voters renew Xcel’s utility franchise. That’s right; the celebrated Smart Grid City might actually walk away from its utility partner.

Xcel’s 20-year agreement expires at the end of 2010, and the utility wants Boulder to sign up for another 20 years. But surveys indicate voters would reject such an agreement, as well as an alternative plan that would impose an excise tax on Xcel—which the company would pass through to customers in monthly bills. Council members reportedly are considering municipalizing Boulder’s utility services if voters reject both initiatives.

Negative public sentiment over Xcel’s franchise agreement might be tied to the company’s Smart Grid City project, which has encountered its share of problems—from ballooning capital costs to disappointing participation in its demand-response program. Xcel CEO Dick Kelley told Fortnightly in June, “There’s huge value on the utility side of the meter, but it hasn’t been that successful on the customer side. I guess some people thought Boulder residents were super-environmentalists, but in fact they just want their TV to work and their beer to be cold when they get home.”-Michael T. Burr

Posted: July 22nd, 2010 under Smart metering, carbon regulation, climate change, dynamic pricing, efficiency, energy policy, green energy, regulation, renewables, smart grid.
Comments: none

Business-as-Usual Will Stifle Nuclear, Coal Development

In a letter dated July 21, Duke Energy CEO James Rogers urged Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to “include a carbon title in your base energy bill that allows this country to move forward.” Rogers argued that a business-as-usual approach to carbon regulation would stifle development of new nuclear and coal-fired power plants and make America dangerously dependent on volatile natural gas markets.

Rogers also referred Sen. Reid to a McKinsey analysis that showed U.S. GDP would grow more under a “utility first” carbon regulation scenario than it would without any carbon regulation, and that carbon allowances and efficiency improvements would actually reduce electricity bills on average by 7 percent.

Rogers’ letter arrives just as Senate Democrats were convening to debate whether to include a carbon title in an energy bill sponsored by the majority leader. The San Francisco Chronicle’s website quoted Senate sources predicting that a scaled-down bill would proceed in late July and would not include carbon regulation, but some legislators—including Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Ct.)—are hoping to retain the carbon title in Reid’s bill.-Michael T. Burr

Posted: July 22nd, 2010 under Current News, carbon regulation, climate change, coal, efficiency, energy policy, green energy, natural gas, nuclear renaissance, renewables.
Comments: none

Cyber security and customer privacy of paramount concern

July 22, 2010 - Weekly Update From Utility Regulatory News #3977: Reiterating its support for the most modernized electric network possible, the California Public Utilities Commission has released an updated plan for transforming the state’s grid into a safer, more reliable, and more efficient interoperable system.

The commission asserted that the measuring sensors, advanced meters, and automated control technology that form the backbone of smart grid networks facilitate communication between electric utilities and the grid as well as between the utilities and their customers. The special equipment allows for more timely collection and dissemination of operational data and also can help utilities integrate greater amounts of renewable energy into their resource portfolios. In the commission’s view, such smart grid technology not only can improve service reliability, by easing transmission congestion for instance, but also can encourage ratepayers to reduce or shift their usage, such that the need for additional new power plants is mitigated. The commission contended that, in turn, air quality can be improved and other environmental benefits achieved when new generating units can be avoided.

However, the commission said, it recognized that the electronic transmission of data has its risks, and it declared security to be a critical policy matter for it as it strives to implement smart grid fixtures. It expressed a commitment to enacting measures that will protect both the physical grid and private consumer information from being manipulated externally. To that end, it instructed the state’s electric utilities to include cyber security in their strategic planning deliberations and to abide by all cyber security rules and recommendations listed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology as well as by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. 

With such protections in place, the commission said, the state would be poised to bring its electric grid out of the “industrial age” and into the “information age” of technology. It added that its goal is to see not just a smart grid, but also a smart market, a smart utility, and a smart consumer. Subscribe to URN for the full story.

Posted: July 22nd, 2010 under Smart metering, carbon regulation, climate change, dynamic pricing, efficiency, energy policy, green energy, regulation, renewables, smart grid.
Comments: none

Weekly Update Courtesy of URN #3973: The Minnesota Court of Appeals has affirmed a Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) decision in which the commission had declined to compel an electric utility, Northern States Power Co. d/b/a Xcel Energy, to enter into a power purchase agreement (PPA) with the sponsor of an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plant.

The project developer, Excelsior Energy Inc., had touted its Mesaba Energy Project as a state-of-the-art IGCC facility that would be both environmentally friendly and economically productive. Although it had received certain preliminary permits and local approvals for the project, Excelsior was unable to reach agreement with Xcel Energy for purchasing the unit’s output. Excelsior thereupon petitioned the PUC for an order mandating that Xcel Energy sign the developer’s proffered PPA.

In considering the terms of the proposed PPA, the commission undertook a two-part analysis, the first part of which looked at whether the plant qualified as an innovative energy project (IEP) under state law. The commission said that if that first part were answered in the affirmative, then it needed to determine if the associated PPA would be in the public interest. Despite various parties’ claims to the contrary, the PUC declared that the Mesaba project did indeed fit within the definition of an IEP under state law. The commission explained that the IGCC technology was clearly innovative, would use coal as a primary fuel, and would significantly reduce four noxious emissions enumerated in the controlling statute. The commission thus concluded that the project met the basic criteria for IEP status established in the legislation. However, the commission ultimately disapproved the PPA, deeming it to involve an excessive and unrealistic cost structure that could jeopardize Xcel Energy’s financial health if it were forced to enter the agreement. Although the project developer argued that the PUC’s public interest analysis had exceeded its PPA review authority, the court held that the commission was clearly within its rights to conduct such a review, given its obligation to protect the overall public interest and the broad discretion conferred upon it to interpret those laws and regulations which it has been charged with enforcing, such as the IEP statute.

Accordingly, the court refused to substitute its judgment for that of the commission.-Subscribe to Utility Regulatory News for the full story.

Posted: June 18th, 2010 under IGCC, Uncategorized, carbon regulation, climate change, coal, green energy.
Comments: none

Amid a torrent of news about clean-tech projects and developments, three coal-fired power projects in the Great Plains and Mountain West seem to be bucking the trend — in part by getting on the green bandwagon.

In the first example, Minnesota-based G&T cooperative Great River Energy announced plans to develop a $300 million cellulosic biorefinery to be built on the site of its 99-MW lignite-fired Spiritwood cogeneration project, now under construction near Jamestown, N.D. The Dakota Spirit AgEnergy biorefinery would use agricultural waste to produce three products: ethanol, lignin and molasses. The C5 ethanol would be sold in wholesale markets, while the molasses would be used as a livestock feed adjunct and the lignin would be burned in the Spiritwood boiler. Great River Energy is negotiating with Inbicon of Denmark, which developed a similar biorefinery in Denmark.

In a second example, Black Hills Power Corp. began commercial operations at its $247 million WyGen III plant in northeastern Wyoming on April 1. The 110-MW plant started up 24 months early, according to company officials. It will burn Wyoming coal to provide power to customers in western South Dakota and parts of Wyoming and Montana. Black & Veatch served as project engineer.

Black Hills Power sold a 23-percent interest in the plant to the city of Gillette in mid-March for $62 million. Last April MDU Resources acquired 25 percent of the plant. Rate cases are proceeding before regulatory commissions in all three states to finance the project’s costs.

And in the third example, on March 8 the Wyoming Supreme Court upheld an air-quality permit the state’s Department of Environmental Quality issued more than three years ago for Basin Electric Power Cooperative’s 385-MW Dry Fork Station near Gillette. Environmental groups sued to stop construction on the $1.3 billion plant, challenging the validity of the state’s air permit, and also questioning whether the G&T cooperative selected the “best-available control technology” as defined by the Clean Air Act when selecting the plant’s pulverized-coal boiler design. Sargent & Lundy served as architect-engineer.

Although the Wyoming high-court ruling is a major victory for the Dry Fork project, it still faces a federal legal challenge led by the Sierra Club in U.S. District Court in Cheyenne.

Posted: April 2nd, 2010 under Uncategorized, carbon regulation, climate change, coal.
Comments: none