Indiana Senate Bill 309

[DanKegel]

IMO having more EV chargers out in the work place would be a major help for the EV manufacturer to sell more cars as opposed to the POCO to needing to reduce peak demand.

It's a virtuous cycle. The utilities are seeding the market with chargers ahead of demand.
They're betting this will drive EVs sales, and as people see their neighbor saving time and money with their EV, yet more EV sales and yet more even demand... lessening the need for peakers and other POCO investment. We'll see whether it works.

(How many EVs on 6kW chargers would it take to make a difference? Well, KCP&L has a bunch of 77MW peaker plants... 77 MW of flexible ev charging load might let them get away with one fewer. That's about 12,000 cars on smart chargers. There were 1200 EVs in KC last year, so it may be a while before they hit that.)

[J.P.M.]

Variable pricing like that makes a lot of economic sense.
blog.aee.net/time-varying-rates-an-idea-whose-time-has-come lists a few places that are starting to do something similar.

Dan: Of course it does - a real no brainer there - but don't take my stuff out of context and meaning.

[SunEagle]

Several utilities are installing or proposing electric car chargers to do exactly that. Kansas City's effort was on the radio yesterday: npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/02/14/514517425/in-americas-heartland-a-power-company-leads-charge-for-electric-cars

Being able to shift the load to the daytime will usually help any POCO that sees a peak in the evening. Although with smart controllers those EV's could be charged late at night when the peak demand has dropped.

IMO having more EV chargers out in the work place would be a major help for the EV manufacturer to sell more cars as opposed to the POCO to needing to reduce peak demand.

[DanKegel]

Just maybe, the increased number of users will mostly cancel decreased customer consumption. KWH use here has
been reduced 2/3 from awhile ago, by reducing waste and the best new energy efficient appliances, not affecting
services. Different now with electric heat replacing propane, BUT its done in a manner to help level peaks.

Several utilities are installing or proposing electric car chargers to do exactly that. Kansas City's effort was on the radio yesterday: npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/02/14/514517425/in-americas-heartland-a-power-company-leads-charge-for-electric-cars

[DanKegel]

as a no brainer, higher differential rates to the extent the POCOs can talk the PUCs into being allowed to charge higher differential rates for peaker power.

Variable pricing like that makes a lot of economic sense.
blog.aee.net/time-varying-rates-an-idea-whose-time-has-come lists a few places that are starting to do something similar.

[J.P.M.]

Right. People aren't replacing large coal units with small natural gas peakers; generally they are replacing the large coal units with large combined-cycle natural gas units. They're cleaner, cheaper, more efficient and are (often) easier to throttle. Large, fast startup/load following combined cycle plants are becoming more common; this reduces the need for those small peakers.

Peakers are by nature, purpose and design, smaller than sources of baseline loads. Peakers can fire up quicker. That added and needed flexibility comes at a cost however. That cost is usually higher maintenance for the peaker and a bit lower cycle efficiency, both leading to increased operating costs, and, as a no brainer, higher differential rates to the extent the POCOs can talk the PUCs into being allowed to charge higher differential rates for peaker power.

[jflorey2]

As far as the small natural gas combustion units, the plant people tell me that it's more cost effective to run the large coal unit due to the increased maintenance cost of the engines. They have to be shut down after so many hours to change oil just like any other engine.

Right. People aren't replacing large coal units with small natural gas peakers; generally they are replacing the large coal units with large combined-cycle natural gas units. They're cleaner, cheaper, more efficient and are (often) easier to throttle. Large, fast startup/load following combined cycle plants are becoming more common; this reduces the need for those small peakers.

[GRickard]

The strongest factor in the reduction of coal powered plants is the low cost of natural gas. This won't last forever of course, but for the near future coal just can't compete with NG.

As far as the small natural gas combustion units, the plant people tell me that it's more cost effective to run the large coal unit due to the increased maintenance cost of the engines. They have to be shut down after so many hours to change oil just like any other engine.

[SunEagle]

I work for an engineering firm that does mostly control system upgrades in coal burning power plants. What I am seeing is a lot of plants are being converted to natural gas which gives less BTU's and in turn less megawatts from the unit. Then there is an ever increasing trend to decommissioning the units that were built in the 60's. A lot of these are being supplemented with a row of the small natural gas "peakers" that can be started and shut off quickly to meet demand.

I see all the time how the environmental groups would like to shut down all of the coal burners, but I don't think they realize that there is not sufficient technology for storage to replace all of the coal with wind and solar. Hydro is a good option, but it is limited as well.

Greg

You are correct Greg.

Shutting down all of the existing fossil fuel generating plants without first installing an equal amount of generating that will be available 24/7 is IMO suicide. Storage technology is still being developed and while it works in some places is still very expensive.

[jflorey2]

I see all the time how the environmental groups would like to shut down all of the coal burners, but I don't think they realize that there is not sufficient technology for storage to replace all of the coal with wind and solar. Hydro is a good option, but it is limited as well.

The strongest factor in the reduction of coal powered plants is the low cost of natural gas. This won't last forever of course, but for the near future coal just can't compete with NG.

[bcroe]

I'm all for energy efficiency.

Hypothetical question: if everybody cut their use of electricity by 50%, what would that do to the utilities' balance
sheets? What would be the best way for them to react to that situation from the consumers' point of view, without going bankrupt?

I wish that question was more than hypothetical

Just maybe, the increased number of users will mostly cancel decreased customer consumption. KWH use here has
been reduced 2/3 from awhile ago, by reducing waste and the best new energy efficient appliances, not affecting
services. Different now with electric heat replacing propane, BUT its done in a manner to help level peaks.

Perhaps average customer usage isn't down, but managing it to reduce PEAKS would really help. The PoCo is
already making attempts to do this. Bruce Roe

[GRickard]

I work for an engineering firm that does mostly control system upgrades in coal burning power plants. What I am seeing is a lot of plants are being converted to natural gas which gives less BTU's and in turn less megawatts from the unit. Then there is an ever increasing trend to decommissioning the units that were built in the 60's. A lot of these are being supplemented with a row of the small natural gas "peakers" that can be started and shut off quickly to meet demand.

I see all the time how the environmental groups would like to shut down all of the coal burners, but I don't think they realize that there is not sufficient technology for storage to replace all of the coal with wind and solar. Hydro is a good option, but it is limited as well.

Greg

[SunEagle]

I'm all for energy efficiency.

Hypothetical question: if everybody cut their use of electricity by 50%, what would that do to the utilities' balance sheets? What would be the best way for them to react to that situation from the consumers' point of view, without going bankrupt?

I wish that question was more than hypothetical

I agree with jflorey2 that the possible action from the POCO would be to raise everyone's rates. The % increase would be determine by the PUC.

Of course with fewer customers the POCO would now have a reason to retire older less profitable generating plants since the new Peak Demand would be much lower. Then you have the problem of new customers that increase their consumption and now the POCO does not have enough generating capacity to cover the Peak so they purchase the power from others at a much higher price and get to ask for higher rates to cover their cost.

It can be a spiral that leaves the customer less happy then before they reduced their consumption by 50% but more than likely that reduction would still save the customer more than the increased price per kWh.

[jflorey2]

Hypothetical question: if everybody cut their use of electricity by 50%, what would that do to the utilities' balance sheets? What would be the best way for them to react to that situation from the consumers' point of view, without going bankrupt?

Raise everyone's rates about 40% to account for costs stranded in plants they will no longer need. (The savings in fuel usage would not cover those.)

[DanKegel]

I'm all for energy efficiency.

Hypothetical question: if everybody cut their use of electricity by 50%, what would that do to the utilities' balance sheets? What would be the best way for them to react to that situation from the consumers' point of view, without going bankrupt?

I wish that question was more than hypothetical