** FMPA Coordinating Statewide Campaign to Raise Florida Municipal Utilities’ Fixed Fees, Block Solar ([link removed])
------------------------------------------------------------
By Alissa Schafer on Aug 22, 2019 01:09 pm
The Florida Municipal Power Agency (FMPA) is waging a campaign to increase monthly fixed fees to as high as $50 in an attempt to block the growth of solar, according to records obtained by the Energy and Policy Institute. FMPA is a wholesale power agency owned by Florida’s municipal electric utilities; it sells electricity to the municipal utilities, which serve 2.3 million Floridians in31 cities ([link removed]) across the state.

Fixed fees have been shown to most harm low- and fixed-income residents. AARP of Florida and Consumers Union have fought against fixed fees and surcharges on utility bills. Utilities themselves also recognize that higher fixed fees disproportionately impact low power users, citing the heavy burden on low-income households ([link removed]) as one of the reasons they have not already raised fixed fees. One way to mitigate the worst of those income-based effects would be to place customers into “tiers” based on their income level, and to reduce the fixed fees for the lowest-income tiers. FMPA discouraged that idea, however, admitting that “introduction of tiers or other charges with more limited precedent may trigger a rate structure review [by the Florida Public Service Commission] and could require justification.”
([link removed])

FMPA leadership has not publicly advertised its plan, which is likely to generate controversy, though it has not kept it a tight secret either.

Jacob Williams, the FMPA’s general manager and CEO, gave a keynote addressing the FMPA board of directors, streamed ([link removed]) July 18 via Facebook Live, in which he claimed utility customers’ monthly fixed fee “should be $50.” Williams is a former coal executive from the bankrupt coal company Peabody Energy.
Jacob Williams FMPA general manager and CEO (former coal executive from the bankrupt coal company Peabody Energy) Jacob Williams at the 2019 FMPA Board of Directors Luncheon ([link removed])

He said his municipal utility members should be “playing the game smart” by implementing the changes in the summer so customers’ bills would appear to go down, even though in the winter they will be “a bit higher”.

Utilities often couple fixed fees with a lower kWh charge and advertise the changes as “revenue neutral”. However, modeling by Synapse Energy, commissioned by Consumers Union in 2016, showed that fixed fees still lead to higher bills ([link removed]) .
Figure 1. Caught in a Fix – Synapse Energy Economics Inc. ([link removed])


** FMPA appears to be heavily influencing decisions by munis to raise fixed fees
------------------------------------------------------------

The FMPA cannot set rates for each of the municipal utilities that are members. The utilities do that for themselves and are overseen by their own city governments. But FMPA has a strong influence on its members.

According to a draft white paper prepared by the Winter Park Utilities Advisory Board, the average monthly fixed fee for the municipal power companies is $9.18 ([link removed]) . FMPA’s requested changes would add $40.82 to the average monthly fixed fee in Winter Park for an annual increase totaling $489.84. Winter Park is an FMPA member, and FMPA presented ([link removed]) the Winter Park Utilities Advisory Board with options on how to raise fixed fees, according to the same Winter Park white paper. The Winter Park Utilities Advisory Council recommended ([link removed]) an increase of their fixed fees of 10-20% over the next 5-10 years.

A South Florida FMPA member, Lake Worth Beach, is currently coordinating with the agency, according to a July 2019 utility update at a city commission meeting. Lake Worth Beach utility general manager Ed Liberty discussed his work with the FMPA consultant on rate changes. The communications strategy Lake Worth Beach discussed is similar to the one promoted by FMPA.


** CEO: FMPA plan would also make rooftop solar customers “go away.”
------------------------------------------------------------

Another effect of higher fixed fees is that they can dramatically worsen the economics of rooftop solar, since customers cannot reduce those fees no matter how much of their own power they generate.

FMPA’s Williams mentioned that effect in his keynote as a feature, noting that the “second benefit” of a $50 fixed fee is that it will make “these [solar] net metering customers go away” ([link removed]) .
Figure 2. FMPA Presentation to the Joint Action Agency Conference – January 7, 2019

FMPA used an unrealistic example of 50% of its customers having rooftop solar ([link removed]) in a presentation Williams gave in January of this year. Rooftop solar leaders such as California or Hawaii have not reached nearly that level of solar penetration. The Winter Park advisory board also cites Williams’ 50% figure in its white paper. ([link removed])

FMPA has promoted solar, but only utility-scale projects under its control. ([link removed])

Note: An earlier version of this post briefly said that Lake Worth had a current fixed fee of $31.40 per month. That is actually the utility’s minimum bill that customers must pay per month.

The post FMPA Coordinating Statewide Campaign to Raise Florida Municipal Utilities’ Fixed Fees, Block Solar ([link removed]) appeared first on Energy and Policy Institute ([link removed]) .
Read in browser » ([link removed])
[link removed] [link removed]




** Duke Energy’s Allegiance to Gas Leads to Muddled Statements on Solar Emissions Impacts ([link removed])
------------------------------------------------------------
By Kelly Roache on Aug 21, 2019 06:45 pm
A Duke Energy spokesperson last week claimed that the growth of solar energy is increasing nitrous oxide (NOx) emissions in North Carolina, and that more solar could even “reverse” a trend of reduced carbon emissions if added to the grid.

Duke spokesperson Kim Crawford’s allegation came as Duke seeks modifications to the air quality permit ([link removed]) for its gas-powered Rockingham County Combustion Turbine Facility from the NC Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Such “peaker plants” only operate when demand is highest, and can be used in concert with intermittent resources like solar, ramping up and down in response to solar’s variable output. The utility applied in March to more than double the number of hours per year the gas plants could operate. Duke is proposing similar changes for three other facilities.

Conservative media and serial deniers of climate science seized on Crawford’s comments. The North State Journal ([link removed]) , a Raleigh-based conservative outlet, quoted Crawford alongside the Heartland Institute’s ([link removed]) Steve Goreham, the Institute for Energy Research’s ([link removed]) Dan Kish, and Donald van der Vaart, who is former Secretary of the NC DEQ and energy advisor to past Republican Governor Pat McCrory.

On its face, Duke’s claims that solar could increase overall emissions are patently false. A study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory ([link removed]) found that cycling gas generation to accommodate the addition of solar and wind to the grid still results in both NOx and CO2 emissions reductions. Duke attempted this week to walk back the erroneous claims in a blog post ([link removed]) , writing “[T]o say solar is causing more air pollution? That may be some faulty logic.”

“If someone buys a Tesla but keeps their Lexus idling in the garage ‘just in case,’ then emissions would indeed be higher than necessary,” said Bryan Jacob, Solar Program Director at Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, further illustrating the farce of Duke’s original misrepresentation.


** Behind solar myths, Duke gas expansion looms
------------------------------------------------------------

Duke’s original claims, and subsequent retraction of them, raises the question of why the company’s public statements on alleged solar emissions impacts have been so confused. The utility’s deep investment in gas may offer a clue: Duke may feel compelled to justify its reliance on fossil fuel infrastructure, or even to tarnish renewable alternatives. Duke has signaled its intention to build over 9,500 MW of gas capacity ([link removed]) in the Carolinas alone by 2033, nearly three times its planned solar capacity additions on that same timeline. It is a partner in the bedeviled $7.5 billion Atlantic Coast Pipeline, which would transport gas from West Virginia to Virginia and North Carolina, and possibly further south.

Duke’s greenwashing of natural gas, on display in its blog response, is consistent with coordinated industry messaging. In a 2016 internal memo ([link removed]) , the Edison Electric Institute – the trade association representing investor-owned electric utilities – outlined a strategy to “articulate and educate stakeholders that natural gas plants (or sunshine peakers) go hand-in-hand with renewable energy” (emphasis added).

In its DEQ filings seeking approval to further pollute, Duke raises a limited set of alternatives to increasing use of its peaker plants, such as curtailing solar or nuclear output. Grid experts say those aren’t the only options.

“It’s all a business model issue…We saw this with Colorado utilities claiming they’d need natural gas plants to integrate wind. But no one talks about that anymore because they figured out how to run their system with renewables,” said Ric O’Connell, Executive Director of Gridlab, a group that provides technical analysis in support of a low-carbon electrical system. “Other utilities have had no problems integrating large amounts of solar. What’s Duke’s issue?”

Duke’s DEQ filings even present storage as a viable solution to burning more gas – but admit it has barely built any; the utility has deployed 15 MW of storage to date. Recent North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association testimony ([link removed]) to the state utility commission, borrowing from a North Carolina State University study, demonstrates how storage significantly reduces the need for gas-powered ramping.

The Southeast lacks an independent grid operator, clearing the way for utility monopolies like Duke to run their gas-burning plants as long as that is profitable. California, to which North Carolina is frequently compared as the state with the second-most solar, instead uses an Independent System Operator to address grid needs in real time – dispatching capacity hourly, or with even greater frequency. “In California, the older plants go out of business because they cost too much, and they aren’t dispatched because they aren’t flexible enough,” Michael Wara, Director of the Climate and Energy Policy Program at Stanford University’s Woods Institute for the Environment, told E&E News ([link removed]) .

Meanwhile, Duke’s dedication to gas expansion only exacerbates the current grid deficiencies that lead to ramping, at the expense of investing in a modernized energy system. An E3 study ([link removed]) commissioned by FirstSolar and the Tampa Electric Company showed that at higher penetration, flexible solar resources can supplant the function of gas peaker plants – all at lower emissions and lower cost.

The post Duke Energy’s Allegiance to Gas Leads to Muddled Statements on Solar Emissions Impacts ([link removed]) appeared first on Energy and Policy Institute ([link removed]) .
Read in browser » ([link removed])
[link removed] [link removed]




** The Fossil Fuel and Utility Industries Lobbying for New FERC Commissioners Spots ([link removed])
------------------------------------------------------------
By Itai Vardi on Jul 29, 2019 11:13 am
Prominent players in the fossil fuel industry are involved in the ongoing nomination process for the open seats on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), recent congressional disclosures show.

With the pending departure of Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur in August, FERC – which permits interstate gas pipelines and LNG facilities and regulates electricity markets – will be left with only three commissioners. Though it will still have a quorum for considering projects and issuing orders, a bare-bones FERC has raised “anxiety” levels ([link removed]) among energy companies, as billions of dollars in energy investments hang in the balance.

A changed FERC might also impact the looming decisions on mid-Atlantic’s grid operator PJM Interconnection’s capacity market proposals. Though FERC this week delayed PJM’s August auction, a shifting political imbalance on the commission concerns clean energy advocates ([link removed]) who are afraid PJM’s proposals to disadvantage state-incentivized renewable resources in the capacity market may become a central part of a new tariff.

Federal lobbying disclosures reviewed by the Energy and Policy Institute indicate that the fossil fuel industry is not sitting idly by.

Houston-based Calpine, one of the nation’s largest power generating companies, has been lobbying ([link removed]) for FERC nominations since mid last year. It is joined by the utility Exelon, which has been lobbying ([link removed]) for its own nominees in the past several months. LNG and pipeline company Tellurian has also been involved ([link removed]) in the first half of this year in the effort to shape FERC’s composition.

Fossil fuel and utilities-backed industry trade groups have taken an active role as well. The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) – whose members ([link removed]) include include such fossil fuel powerhouses as ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips,Koch Industries, Phillips 66, Southern Company, Continental Resources, Marathon Petroleum, Dominion, Energy Transfer, and Devon Energy – has been lobbying ([link removed]) the White House on FERC nominations since late last year.

The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA), which includes the likes of Enbridge, Dominion, ConEdison, Cheniere, Kinder Morgan, National Grid, and PG&E, has similarly lobbied ([link removed]) for the commission’s appointments.

Additionally, disclosures show that the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) ([link removed]) , the nuclear industry’s lobbying arm, and Chicago-based power producer Invenergy ([link removed]) , which has a mixed portfolio of gas and renewable energy, had each lobbied for FERC nominations late last year.

Recent reports indicate that other major players are stirring the pot behind the scenes.

As E&E News revealed, coal executive Bob Murray is putting pressure ([link removed]) on President Trump to, in his words, “fix feckless FERC.” In an interview following a fundraiser he held for the president, the Murray Energy CEO told E&E that he argued to Trump that FERC has failed to press states to buy coal power and that while Trump didn’t respond, Murray was confident Trump was listening and, “Anything that gets to him, he gets it quick and he deals with it.”

Murray has an open score to settle with FERC, which in a 5-0 vote denied a proposal ([link removed]) to bail out struggling coal plants in January 2018. But three of those voting commissioners are no longer at FERC: Kevin McIntyre, Robert Powelson, and soon Cherly LaFleur.

Trump has since appointed Bernard McNamee to fill one of the positions ([link removed]) . McNamee’s nomination drew significant opposition in the U.S. Senate ([link removed]) due in part to his earlier work for the Trump administration on DOE’s failed proposal to bail out uncompetitive coal and nuclear power plants at consumers’ expense ([link removed]) , and his clear history of bias against renewable energy ([link removed]) . The Senate approved his nomination in December 2018 on a 50-49 vote.

And while Commissioner Chatterjee voted against the DOE bailout proposal, Greentech Media noted ([link removed]) that his written statement concurring with the rejection of DOE’s proposal detailed his concerns with “bulk power system resilience” and that he called for a process to learn if “interim measures may be needed.” In fact, Politico recently reported ([link removed]) that Chatterjee “will aim to resolve a longstanding impasse over state energy subsidies in the PJM power market; increase payments for coal, nuclear and oil power plants using so-called ‘fuel security’ reforms.” Chatterjee also reportedly played a role in preventing the nomination of Republican David Hill ([link removed]) , NRG Energy’s general counsel, to join FERC earlier this year. Hill was vocal against p
lant bailout plans.

One of the next commissioners to replace LaFleur and to fill the current vacancy could be the deciding vote in any tariffs that benefit Murray Energy and other coal companies.

It’s not clear the degree to which Trump is personally monitoring the decision, if at all. Ari Peskoe, Director of the Electricity Law Initiative at the Harvard Law School Environmental and Energy Law Program and a close watcher of FERC, wrote on Twitter ([link removed]) that he received a note from an investment analyst suggesting that Trump was “personally interviewing” potential candidates.

Featured Image: “FERC Commission meeting” by FERC.gov ([link removed]) is licensed under CC BY 2.0

The post The Fossil Fuel and Utility Industries Lobbying for New FERC Commissioners Spots ([link removed]) appeared first on Energy and Policy Institute ([link removed]) .
Read in browser » ([link removed])
[link removed] [link removed]




** TECO’s Political Contributions Seem Geared to Influence Approval of New Big Bend Gas Plant with Sea Wall ([link removed])
------------------------------------------------------------
By Daniel Tait on Jul 24, 2019 01:20 pm
Tampa Electric (TECO), and its law firm have made political contributions to members of the Florida Power Plant Siting Board in the lead-up to tomorrow’s vote to approve the company’s controversial new natural gas plant. The Power Plant Siting Board is responsible for the final approval of TECO’s gas plant.

TECO plans to switch its Big Bend Power Station from coal to natural gas and begin operation in 2023. The project features a seawall ([link removed]) to protect the fossil fuel plant from the effects of climate change, caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

TECO and its law firm, Holland & Knight, have contributed $60,000 to members of the Power Plant Siting Board in 2019. The Board is made up of Gov. Ron DeSantis, Attorney General Ashley Moody, State Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Patronis, and Commissioner of Agriculture Nikki Fried.

The governor’s vote is weighted; his vote plus just one other vote will approve the project. TECO contributed $25,000 to DeSantis two months ago.


** Contributions to Siting Board Members in 2019
------------------------------------------------------------

Recipient Date Contributor Amount
Friends of Ashley Moody (PAC) 01/02/2019 HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP $10,000
Florida Consumers First (PAC)
(Note: Associated with Commissioner Nikki Fried) 01/14/2019 TECO ENERGY, INC. $25,000
Friends of Ron DeSantis (PAC) 05/22/2019 TECO ENERGY, INC. $25,000

Source: Florida Division of Elections

TECO and Holland & Knight also contributed $235,000 to the political parties and their allied campaign funds. The vast majority of TECO’s party-related contributions have gone to Republicans.

Recipient Date Contributor Amount
Florida Democratic Party 1/4/19 $10,000 HOLLAND & KNIGHT
Republican Party of Florida 1/2/19 $25,000 TECO ENERGY, INC.
Florida Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee 1/24/19 $25,000 TECO ENERGY, INC.
Florida Democratic Party 1/24/19 $5,000 TECO ENERGY, INC.
Republican Party of Florida 1/25/19 $25,000 TECO ENERGY, INC.
Florida Democratic Party 2/5/19 $5,000 TECO ENERGY, INC.
Republican Party of Florida 2/8/19 $25,000 TECO ENERGY, INC.
Florida Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee 2/19/19 $25,000 TECO ENERGY, INC.
Florida Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee 2/19/19 $25,000 TECO ENERGY, INC.
Florida Democratic Legislative Campaign 2/20/19 $15,000 TECO ENERGY, INC.
Florida Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee 6/13/19 $20,000 TECO ENERGY, INC.
Republican Party of Florida 6/28/19 $30,000 TECO ENERGY, INC.

Source: Florida Division of Elections

TECO has claimed that it must build the new gas plant in order to accommodate new solar energy. In an interview with WMNF ([link removed]) , TECO Vice President Tom Hernandez said, “I will tell you if we were not doing the Big Bend modernization project we could not add more solar to our system. There’s a point where you start bumping up into operating constraints …”

In 2018, only 0.6% of TECO’s energy came from solar while 78% came from natural gas. The new plant will further increase TECO’s overreliance on natural gas.

Source: TECO 2019 10 Year Site Plan ([link removed])

The Sierra Club and other local groups have opposed the plant. TECO has avoided a review of its plan by the Florida Public Service Commission, which traditionally has the authority to approve or deny new power plants, by arguing that because the site had previously burnt coal, the plant is not “new.” “Their [TECO] position is that no one should review whether that’s even needed,” Sierra Club representative Diana Csank said ([link removed]) to the Tampa Bay Times.

U.S. Representative Kathy Castor wrote a letter ([link removed]) to the Power Plant Siting Board on July 19, urging DeSantis and the other members to weigh all considerations, especially whether the plant was needed at all. She cited two examples in other states with Republican governors and utility regulators, Northern Indiana Public Service Company ([link removed]) and the Georgia Public Service Commission ([link removed]) , as pathways for Florida to increase renewable energy and reduce the use of fossil fuels.

Castor is the chair ([link removed]) of the Select Committee on Climate Crisis.

The Power Plant Siting Board meeting will be live-streamed as part of the Governor’s cabinet meeting tomorrow, July 25. It can be viewed live on the Florida Channel ([link removed]) at 9:00 AM Eastern.

Photo source: Wikipedia ([link removed])

The post TECO’s Political Contributions Seem Geared to Influence Approval of New Big Bend Gas Plant with Sea Wall ([link removed]) appeared first on Energy and Policy Institute ([link removed]) .
Read in browser » ([link removed])
[link removed] [link removed]




** Colorado Public Utilities Commissioner questions “whether or not Tri-State has been candid us” ([link removed])
------------------------------------------------------------
By Joe Smyth on Jul 19, 2019 11:23 am
A Colorado utility’s attempts to avoid oversight by state regulators appears to be backfiring.

At a Colorado Public Utilities Commission hearing this week, Commissioner Frances Koncilja said she has “some serious questions about whether or not Tri-State has been candid with us,” and reminded the attorneys for electric utilities that “everyone who appears before a tribunal has an obligation of candor to the tribunal.”

IFRAME: [1][link removed]


** Commissioner asked Tri-State in February if it planned to “run off to FERC”
------------------------------------------------------------

The commissioner’s comments came during a July 15 hearing concerning the dispute between Delta-Montrose Electric Association (DMEA), an electric cooperative in western Colorado, and Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, a wholesale power provider headquartered near Denver. DMEA has been seeking to end its contract with Tri-State, which requires ([link removed]) the co-op to purchase wholesale power from Tri-State, in order to pursue ([link removed]) more local renewable energy projects and reduce its wholesale power costs. The Colorado PUC has been holding hearings ([link removed]) since the beginning of 2019 to determine the “exit fee” that DMEA will have to pay to Tri-State in order to end its contract.

But last month, Tri-State moved ([link removed]) to become rate-regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which could preempt the Colorado PUC’s jurisdiction over the DMEA dispute and derail the case just as the PUC neared a decision in August. That forum shopping is what incited Commissioner Koncilja’s questioning of Tri-State’s candor with the PUC; she had asked Tri-State months earlier if Tri-State planned to try and move the case to FERC, and did not receive a direct answer.

During a hearing on February 6, Commissioner Koncilja directly asked Tri-State attorney Thomas Dougherty, “Is any FERC jurisdiction implicated in this dispute?”

Dougherty responded: “I’m not sure I understand your question Commissioner.”

Koncilja asked again: “Is somebody going to run off to FERC at some point?”

Dougherty again dodged the question: “Umm… at some point in the future or during the pendency of this case?”

IFRAME: [2][link removed]


** Commission requests Tri-State communications regarding FERC rate regulation
------------------------------------------------------------

Commissioner Koncilja questioned this week whether Dougherty had failed in his obligation to be candid to the PUC as an attorney, or whether the failure was Tri-State’s.

“We expect candor. And I am not saying that it is Mr. Dougherty who was not candid. It might well have been his client,” said Koncilja.

Koncilja also raised the possibility of public hearings to question Tri-State executives about the company’s conduct before the commission, and requested that Tri-State provide the commission with its communications regarding its pursuit of FERC rate regulation.

IFRAME: [3][link removed]

Colorado PUC Chairman Jeff Ackermann agreed with Commissioner Koncilja’s request for Tri-State’s communications, and on Thursday the commission ordered ([link removed]) Tri-State to “file a summary of all actions” it took to pursue FERC rate regulation.

View note ([link removed])

Tri-State’s pursuit of FERC rate regulation has raised a variety of concerns, including that it could make it harder ([link removed]) for other co-ops to end their contracts with Tri-State.

In accordance with Supreme Court precedent, FERC applies this much higher burden of proof to requests to modify or abrogate bilateral contracts. The late Justice Scalia once called the public interest standard “practically insurmountable.” 2/3 [link removed]
— Jeff Dennis (@EnergyLawJeff) July 9, 2019 ([link removed])

Chairman Ackermann echoed those concerns during Monday’s hearing: “I think it’s clear that they will be captive as soon as that submission happens, or that sequence into jurisdiction, that you have captive members there and it’s a different path than the path through the Colorado PUC, clearly.”

Legislators are also concerned that FERC rate regulation of Tri-State could hamper the Colorado PUC’s oversight of Tri-State’s resource planning process, which was clarified in legislation ([link removed]) that Colorado Governor Jared Polis signed in May.

Tri-State says ([link removed]) it will comply with Colorado’s new climate policy, as well as New Mexico’s recently expanded renewable portfolio standard. But environmental advocates and some Colorado legislators are concerned that without oversight of Tri-State’s rates, the Colorado PUC could face challenges in enforcing its oversight of Tri-State’s resource planning.


** Tri-State also eroded trust with top Colorado legislators
------------------------------------------------------------

Key Colorado legislators highlighted those concerns in a July 3 letter ([link removed]) to Tri-State CEO Duane Highley and Chairman of the Board Rick Gordon: “Given the connection between rates and resource planning, we are concerned that Tri-State was not more transparent about the possibility of transitioning to FERC oversight” during negotiations earlier this year.

View note ([link removed])

The letter was signed by the leadership of the Colorado Senate and Assembly, including Speaker of the House KC Becker, Senate President Leroy Garcia, House Majority Leader Alec Garnett, and Senate Majority Leader Stephen Fenberg, as well as the chairs of energy committees: Representative Dominique Jackson, Chairwoman of the House Energy and Environment Committee, Senator Faith Winter, Chairwoman of the Senate Energy and Transportation Committee, and Representative Chris Hansen, Chairman of the Interim Energy Legislation Review Committee ([link removed]) , which will begin hearings this month to consider energy policy ideas for the 2020 legislative session.

The legislators left no doubt of their intent to respond in the next legislative session to Tri-State’s latest moves:

“The General Assembly looks forward to making clarifications through legislative initiatives in the coming session focused on cooperative governance, transparency, and accountability to the public interest.”

Several of Tri-State’s largest member co-ops also wrote to Tri-State requesting ([link removed]) more information about the implications of FERC rate regulation before the Tri-State board voted on the matter.

Despite those requests by legislative leaders and some of its major member co-ops, Tri-State approved ([link removed]) a resolution ([link removed]) during its July board meeting to move toward FERC rate regulation.

The post Colorado Public Utilities Commissioner questions “whether or not Tri-State has been candid us” ([link removed]) appeared first on Energy and Policy Institute ([link removed]) .

References

1. [link removed]
2. [link removed]
3. [link removed]
Read in browser » ([link removed])
[link removed] [link removed]




** Southern Company CEO Tom Fanning’s $2 Million Greenhouse Gas Reduction “Incentive” a Misnomer ([link removed])
------------------------------------------------------------
By Daniel Tait on Jul 01, 2019 10:00 am
Southern Company unveiled a new greenhouse gas reduction bonus package ([link removed]) for CEO Tom Fanning, worth as much as $2 million this year, according to its 2019 proxy statement ([link removed]) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Southern Company board of directors set the greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goal low enough to ensure that Fanning would receive the bonus without any changes in plans from Southern Company. In fact, Fanning has likely already secured his bonus, according to filings and announcements made by the company at or around the time of the bonus plan becoming public.

The bonus package claims to align Fanning’s compensation to the company’s move ([link removed]) to be “low- to no-carbon” by 2050, but Fanning will receive ([link removed]) credit for the development of Southern’s liquified natural gas business. The transportation and combustion of natural gas emits greenhouse gases.

The company has continued touting ([link removed]) its “low- to no-carbon” pledge, even in light of conflicting ([link removed]) testimony from its subsidiaries to regulators. As Southern’s CEO, Fanning has denied ([link removed]) that carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.


** How Fanning’s Bonus Works
------------------------------------------------------------

The incentive plan lays out two pathways for Fanning, a quantitative and qualitative pathway.

Quantitatively, Fanning can receive his bonus by either adding zero-carbon capacity to the Southern Company system or by removing coal. The quantitative section makes no mention of natural gas. Qualitatively, Fanning can earn a “modifier” on his quantitative payout from items such as research and development, national leadership in energy policy, and venture capital spending.


** Quantitative Scoring and Payout
------------------------------------------------------------


** Qualitative Modifier
------------------------------------------------------------

In short, Fanning will receive at least part of his bonus for greenhouse gas emissions as long as Southern Company either eliminates enough coal capacity or adds enough zero-carbon capacity to total 2,641 megawatts (MW) or more.


** Coal Closures and Zero-Carbon Additions
------------------------------------------------------------

Southern Company has already announced the closure of three coal plants representing 2,548 megawatts (MW). The Georgia Power integrated resource plan (IRP) proposed settlement calls for 1,650 MW of new solar, as of the time of publication. Current GHG reduction announcements by the company total 4,198 MW compared to Fanning’s bonus goal of 3,080 MW. Fanning’s quantitative bonus potential caps at 3,518 MW, well below Southern’s already planned actions.

That makes Southern’s proxy statement description of the bonus program as an “incentive,” a misnomer, since it is not incenting any new actions from Fanning. The program does not indicate if Fanning will receive credit toward his bonus upon announcement or when a plant is added or removed from service.


** Announced Closures and Additions
------------------------------------------------------------

Nameplate Capacity (MW) Source
Gorgas Steam Plant 1,417 SourceWatch ([link removed])
Hammond Steam Generating Station 953 SourceWatch ([link removed])
McIntosh Steam Plant 178 SourceWatch ([link removed])
Georgia-based Solar Additions 1,650 Georgia Integrated Resource Plan Stipulation ([link removed])
Total 4,198

In addition to announced actions, Fanning could receive credit for the construction of the Vogtle Unit 3 nuclear plant or the closure of the coal-fired Plant Bowen Units 1 and 2. Southern Company reaffirmed ([link removed]) a November 2021 in-service date for the over-budget Vogtle Unit 3 on its 1st quarter 2019 earning call. Plant Bowen Units 1 and 2 have not been slated for closure but the Georgia IRP settlement proposal limits ([link removed]) Southern’s capital investments in the plant, signaling an impending closure.


** Possible Closures and Additions
------------------------------------------------------------

Nameplate Capacity (MW) Source
Vogtle Unit 3 (addition) 1,117 Wikipedia ([link removed])
Plant Bowen Units 1 and 2 (closure) 1,595 SourceWatch ([link removed])
Total 2,712

Fanning’s favorable terms have him scheduled to max out his GHG reduction bonus, even if Southern Company struggles to bring Vogtle Unit 3 online, continues to operate Plant Bowen Units 1 and 2, and the company continues to grow its natural gas business with no real change in direction toward faster decarbonization.

Photo source: YouTube

The post Southern Company CEO Tom Fanning’s $2 Million Greenhouse Gas Reduction “Incentive” a Misnomer ([link removed]) appeared first on Energy and Policy Institute ([link removed]) .
Read in browser » ([link removed])
[link removed] [link removed]




** Recent Articles:
------------------------------------------------------------
** Utilities gave $320K to Ohio House members who voted for bailout bill ([link removed])
** AEP wants customers to fund “clean coal” group behind attacks on renewable energy ([link removed])
** Ads link FirstEnergy Solutions to dark money group Generation Now, Inc. ([link removed])
** Southern Company Wins Hundreds of Millions in Profit from Rural Residents and Businesses ([link removed]

============================================================
** Facebook ([link removed])
** Twitter ([link removed])
** Website ([link removed])
Copyright © 2019 Energy and Policy Institute, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you opted in at our website via our Contact Us page.

Our mailing address is:
Energy and Policy Institute
P.O. Box 170399
San Francisco, CA 94117
USA
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can ** update your preferences ([link removed])
or ** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])
.
Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp
[link removed]