Indiana Senate Bill 309

[solar pete]

Sanity prevails, thanks DanS26

[DanS26]

I just reviewed the latest version of Senate Bill 309 and it appears that the "buy all, sell all" provisions of Section 15 have been removed. It's a small but significant victory for individual property rights.

Section 15 now reads:

"Sec. 15. An electricity supplier shall procure the excess distributed generation produced by a customer at a rate approved by the commission under section 17 of this chapter. Amounts credited to a customer by an electricity supplier for excess distributed generation shall be recognized in the electricity supplier's fuel adjustment proceedings under IC 8-1-2-42"

Compare that to the original language:

"Sec. 15. To ensure that a customer is properly charged for the costs of the electricity delivery system through which an electricity supplier provides retail electric service to the customer:

(1) all distributed generation produced by the customer shall be purchased by the electricity supplier at the rate approved by the commission under section 13 of this chapter; and

(2) all electricity consumed by the customer at the premises shall be considered electricity supplied by the electricity supplier and is subject to the applicable retail rate schedule"

[GRickard]

I just watched the Indiana Senate session online and they promptly voted down every proposed amendment. Back to the original language. Not sure when it will be back for a vote now.

[sensij]

Looking a bit further into this, it's beginning to look, to me anyway, a lot like what IN is doing is not unlike what's happening elsewhere - getting away from net metering in a somewhat gradual way. The CA net metering of the future is similar but certainly not identical. I just read that ~ 1,000 IN homes currently are on net metering. That doesn't look like a tidal wave assault by solar for IN, especially when considering PV's been around in a serious way for ~ 10 years or so. Hell, I bet I can see that many installations from my kitchen window.

Looks like those folks in IN who are already on net metering, and those who install prior to 07/01/2017 will get ~ 30 years net metering grandfathering. If you install between 07/01/17 and 07/01/22 you'll be grandfathered until 2032. If you install after 07/01/2022, you're SOL. That doesn't seem like a tidal wave of roof top solar assaulting the state, particularly after PV being a lot more viable after having been around for ~ 10 years or so. The 1.5 % cap which looks kind of low compared to other states' rules looks some, or a lot different when considered in the light of the relatively small IN solar utilization rate thus far.

FWIW, I'd still wait and see what the final, signed bill looks like before I got my knickers in a bunch over it. Then, the court challenges will begin. From 1,500 miles away, that bill doesn't look all that much different in sense than CA's current situation, and a hell of a lot better than NV. It also looks, to me at least, and pretty much like most other places, like more than a little fear mongering going on in IN from the solar interests and tree huggers.

FWIW, I'm seeing the same thing...

The bill phases out net metering and replaces with the "buy all, sell all" provisions of Sec 15.

I don't see a phase-out anywhere in the text. Everything I'm seeing in Sections 15-21 relating to the tariff that will eventually replace net metering is applicable only to "excess distributed generation"... whatever is delivered to the grid in excess of what is consumed.

Sec. 5. As used in this chapter, "excess distributed generation" means the difference between: (1) the electricity that is supplied by an electricity supplier to a customer that produces distributed generation; and (2) the electricity that is supplied back to the electricity supplier by the customer.

The grandfathering looks good, almost generous.
Sec 10 - Sets a 1.5% cap, or a July 1, 2022 deadline for new net metering customers.
Sec 11 - Protects the terms and conditions of net metering for 30 years (July 1, 2047), but ends new offers of the tariff after June 30, 2022. Customers eligible for the tariff are defined in sec 13 and 14.
Sec 12 - Creates the 1.5% cap, and reserves 40% of it for residential customers
Sec 13 - Says that as long as the customer owns, occupies, and resides at the premises, and installs after June 30 2017 and before the Sec 10 deadline, the net metering is protected for 15 years (July 1, 2032).
Sec 14 - Says that as long as the customer owns, occupies, and resides at the premises, and installs before July 1 2017, the net metering is protected for 30 years (July 1, 2047).

Sec 18 indicates that the credits are accrued monthly and can be carried forward.

So, with all this, I guess I'm reading a different bill than the one that contains the buy all, sell all provisions. The current net metering policy allows full retail credit to be carried forward indefinitely. (for example, see NIPSCO's net metering rider here) This bill specifies that excess generation will eventually be paid out at a roughly wholesale rate. That isn't very different than what CA does (and has been doing under NEM 1.0) at the annual true-up.

I guess the issue could be the language in Sec 11 that after June 30, 2022, "an electricity supplier may not make a net metering tariff available to customers" i'm not sure that means what we think it means. The definition of net metering tariff is in Sec 7.

Sec. 7. As used in this chapter, "net metering tariff" means a tariff that: (1) an electricity supplier offers for net metering under 170 IAC 4-4.2; and (2) is in effect on January 1, 2017.

It looks to me that any new net metering tariff that comes into effect after January 1, 2017 is not necessarily prohibited.

[DanS26]

I don't have a dog in this hunt, since this bill only affects public utilities and I deal with a private Coop. I really don't care how the public utilities bill their customers. I also don't care if IN is a solar friendly state or even if residential solar collapses in IN in the future.

What I do care about is the preservation and protection of private property rights.........and I think the utility interests in promoting this scheme are overstepping the line between private property and corporate property.

[J.P.M.]

Looking a bit further into this, it's beginning to look, to me anyway, a lot like what IN is doing is not unlike what's happening elsewhere - getting away from net metering in a somewhat gradual way. The CA net metering of the future is similar but certainly not identical. I just read that ~ 1,000 IN homes currently are on net metering. That doesn't look like a tidal wave assault by solar for IN, especially when considering PV's been around in a serious way for ~ 10 years or so. Hell, I bet I can see that many installations from my kitchen window.

Looks like those folks in IN who are already on net metering, and those who install prior to 07/01/2017 will get ~ 30 years net metering grandfathering. If you install between 07/01/17 and 07/01/22 you'll be grandfathered until 2032. If you install after 07/01/2022, you're SOL. That doesn't seem like a tidal wave of roof top solar assaulting the state, particularly after PV being a lot more viable after having been around for ~ 10 years or so. The 1.5 % cap which looks kind of low compared to other states' rules looks some, or a lot different when considered in the light of the relatively small IN solar utilization rate thus far.

FWIW, I'd still wait and see what the final, signed bill looks like before I got my knickers in a bunch over it. Then, the court challenges will begin. From 1,500 miles away, that bill doesn't look all that much different in sense than CA's current situation, and a hell of a lot better than NV. It also looks, to me at least, and pretty much like most other places, like more than a little fear mongering going on in IN from the solar interests and tree huggers.

[J.P.M.]

It looks like the power companies are hitting this from more than one angle. I found a House Bill 1188 that looks to be the exact same bill. Not sure if this is common practice or not.

https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2017/...ument-d09221a2

Kind of like U.S. congress and other some bicameral bodies. Each chamber writes its own bill and then the two are compared/adjusted until the bills are the same and then passed or not by each chamber. I'd wait for the fin al signature and court challenges before pronouncing gloom/doom. I've heard it said that making legislation is a lot like making sausage. Kind of messy until it gets to market.

[GRickard]

It looks like the power companies are hitting this from more than one angle. I found a House Bill 1188 that looks to be the exact same bill. Not sure if this is common practice or not.

https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2017/...ument-d09221a2

[J.P.M.]

The bill phases out net metering and replaces with the "buy all, sell all" provisions of Sec 15.

I missed that. Can you point me in the correct direction in the bill where it says that , or how I can make sense of it ?

Thanx

Edit: Compared to CA net metering, that phaseout looks pretty generous in terms of how long it can last, especially, as I just read, for the 1,000 or so currently net metered customers in IN. The rest of the phaseout also looks pretty gradual to me Also, if that 1,000 cust. figure is close to correct, the 1.5 % cap looks a little larger. Hell, I can probably see 1,000 rooftop installations from my kitchen window. Viewed from ~ 1,500 miles away, it doesn't look like IN is rushing headlong into rooftop PV, at least not so far.

[DanS26]

A quick perusal into the bill's latest update, dated 02/21/2017, and subject to me missing something (which is likely), leads me to wonder if, depending on just how a "net metering facility" is defined in "170 IAC 4 - 4.2 - 1(k)" , whatever that is, such facilities are not, or may not be considered to be "distributed generation facilities" per pp. 8 & 9, of Senate bill 309, under Chap. 40, Sec.3, (3),(b),(2) ,

(b),(2) says: "(b), the term does not include electricity produced by the following",

and : " (2), A net metering facility as defined in (170 IAC 4 - 4.2 - 1(k)) operating under a net metering tariff."

So, if a PV system is on a net metering tariff, it looks like it may not be a considered a "distributed generation facility" and therefore not subject to the requirements of Sec. 15.

Also, Secs. 13 and 4 of the bill look to me like they deal with grandfathering.

Been reading customer and gov. specs for a long time. I haven't torn this one apart because I don't live in IN, but there seems more to it than a simple read might lead one to conclude.

But, like I wrote, maybe and probably I'm missing something.

The bill phases out net metering and replaces with the "buy all, sell all" provisions of Sec 15.

We need a term for this hybrid "net billing" system so that more people can easily understand where the utility industry is moving. Maybe "buy all, sell all billing" is the best we can do.

[DanKegel]

A policy overview piece published last week, utilitydive.com/news/war-peace-and-innovation-solar-policy-in-2016/435991 , mentions that SWEPCO in Texas is also proposing a buy-all, sell-all tariff.

(I really like utilitydive; they seem to present a levelheaded, thorough overview of events in the power utility industry.)

[sensij]

CA actually confronted this same thing during development of the NEM successor. SDG&E's proposal included a "choice" between a plan which allowed self-consumption, but charged both a "system access fee" and a "grid use fee" that would total to something over $60 / mo for a typical system, and what they called the "sun credit" plan which disallowed self-consumption:

From D1601044

2.6.2.
SDG&E's "Sun Credits" proposal would require customers to purchase energy from the utility to meet all of their energy needs and to export all of their generation to the grid.

They would be compensated for exported energy with a bill credit equivalent to the retail system average commodity rate. SDG&E proposes an initial flat compensation rate because it is of the opinion that its current TOU periods do not line up with the times in which generation capacity is most costly. SDG&E states that once its TOU periods are aligned with generation costs of service, it will propose to change its compensation rate to a TOU structure.

Under SDG&E's proposal, VNM and NEMA customers would be required to participate in the Sun Credits option.

[J.P.M.]

Duke Energy, the major public utility in Indiana, does not charge a "service availability" fee. That is usually a flat fee charge per residential meter by public and private utilities to cover the distribution grid. Duke has to bury those distribution costs in the retail rate.

Now lets read Section 15 of the bill again:

" 15. To ensure that a customer is properly charged for the costs of the electricity delivery system through which an electricity supplier provides retail electric service to the customer:

(1) all distributed generation produced by the customer shall be purchased by the electricity supplier at the rate approved by the commission under section 13 of this chapter; and

(2) all electricity consumed by the customer at the premises shall be considered electricity supplied by the electricity supplier and is subject to the applicable retail rate schedule."



See bold type and red type....Duke needs to cover the cost of the delivery system. This is their method to recover the delivery costs.

It is a poor method because it requires confiscation of private property to accomplish their goal.

A quick perusal into the bill's latest update, dated 02/21/2017, and subject to me missing something (which is likely), leads me to wonder if, depending on just how a "net metering facility" is defined in "170 IAC 4 - 4.2 - 1(k)" , whatever that is, such facilities are not, or may not be considered to be "distributed generation facilities" per pp. 8 & 9, of Senate bill 309, under Chap. 40, Sec.3, (3),(b),(2) ,

(b),(2) says: "(b), the term does not include electricity produced by the following",

and : " (2), A net metering facility as defined in (170 IAC 4 - 4.2 - 1(k)) operating under a net metering tariff."

So, if a PV system is on a net metering tariff, it looks like it may not be a considered a "distributed generation facility" and therefore not subject to the requirements of Sec. 15.

Also, Secs. 13 and 4 of the bill look to me like they deal with grandfathering.

Been reading customer and gov. specs for a long time. I haven't torn this one apart because I don't live in IN, but there seems more to it than a simple read might lead one to conclude.

But, like I wrote, maybe and probably I'm missing something.

[cebury]

And 15.2 seems pretty clear their intention to charge for customer generated electricity.

[DanS26]

Duke Energy, the major public utility in Indiana, does not charge a "service availability" fee. That is usually a flat fee charge per residential meter by public and private utilities to cover the distribution grid. Duke has to bury those distribution costs in the retail rate.

Now lets read Section 15 of the bill again:

" 15. To ensure that a customer is properly charged for the costs of the electricity delivery system through which an electricity supplier provides retail electric service to the customer:

(1) all distributed generation produced by the customer shall be purchased by the electricity supplier at the rate approved by the commission under section 13 of this chapter; and

(2) all electricity consumed by the customer at the premises shall be considered electricity supplied by the electricity supplier and is subject to the applicable retail rate schedule."



See bold type and red type....Duke needs to cover the cost of the delivery system. This is their method to recover the delivery costs.

It is a poor method because it requires confiscation of private property to accomplish their goal.