DOCSLIB.ORG

Replacing Property Taxes on Utility Generation with Revenues from a Carbon-Based Tax: a Minnesota Tax Shift Opportunity I

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Replacing Property Taxes on Utility Generation with Revenues from a Carbon-Based Tax: a Minnesota Tax Shift Opportunity I Memo: To: Michael Noble, ME3 From: John Bailey, David Morris, ILSR (Tel: 612-379-3815) Date: 11/15/98 Re: Replacing Property Taxes on Utility Generation With Revenues from a Carbon-Based Tax: A Minnesota Tax Shift Opportunity I. Introduction Electric utilities in Minnesota pay four types of taxes: income tax, franchise fee (or gross receipts tax), sales tax, property tax.1 The total amount paid in each category is shown in Table 1. In 1995, the total came to $375 million. Table 1. Electric Utility Tax Paid in Minnesota in 1995 Property Tax MN Sales Tax MN Income Tax Franchise Fee Total NSP $152,078,365 $65,076,000 $31,709,000 $25,505,000 $274,368,365 Minnesota Power $34,706,493 $5,963,664 $3,843,817 $700,000 $45,213,974 Otter Tail $7,152,715 $4,197,450 $1,370,067 $233,643 $12,953,875 Interstate $3,670,381 $1,935,124 $573,770 $569,969 $6,749,244 Anoka Elec. Coop $3,179,055 $4,658,862 $0 $534,379 $8,372,296 Dakota Elec. Assoc. $4,742,500 $4,487,719 $0 $144,025 $9,374,244 Cooperative Power $7,095,000 $0 $0 $0 $7,095,000 United Power Assoc. $10,827,954 $0 $5,000 $0 $10,832,954 Total $223,452,463 $86,318,819 $37,501,654 $27,687,016 $374,959,952 Source: Minnesota Department of Public Service, 1996 Energy Policy and Conservation Report, December 1996 Recently, Minnesota has re-examined the utility tax structure in light of the restructuring of electricity occurring throughout the country. The rationale for this re-examination is that if Minnesota were to deregulate its electricity sector, customers would be able to buy electricity from any supplier. If taxes were imposed on in-state power plants but not on out-of-state suppliers, it would result in a competitive disadvantage to in-state generators.2 Of the many taxes imposed on electricity and electric utilities, several will not play an important role in a restructured electricity future. Sales tax, for example, is imposed on the customer of electricity and would be collected whether the power is generated outside or inside the state. The income tax might represent a competitive disadvantage, but virtually all states impose a corporate income tax and thus the differential would probably be slight or non-existent. 1 Utilities also pay payroll taxes, which are ignored for purposes of this report. 2 The assumption is that the generation plant tax is high enough to offset the cost of transporting electricity across state lines. The personal property tax, or tax on utility equipment, is equivalent to $.00153 or .153 cents per kwh. Transmission rates vary substantially. A previous calculation by ILSR estimated transmission costs of sending electricity from Iowa or North Dakota into Minnesota populated areas as .03 to .19 cents per kWh. Thus it appears that the current personal property tax is nearly the same to five times the cost of transmitting electricity from out-of-state. See John Bailey and David Morris, Taxing Wind Energy in Minnesota, Institute for Local Self-Reliance, January 1995 1 Much of the attention has focused on the utility property tax. Taxes are imposed on utility generators, buildings, transmission and distribution lines. Table 2 breaks down the amount paid in Minnesota by IOUs, Cooperatives and municipal utilities in various categories. A restructured electricity system would continue the monopoly on transmission and distribution lines. Thus the taxes on T&D lines and related equipment and buildings would be imposed on both out-of-state and in-state suppliers. The focus has thus been on the utility personal property tax, that is, the tax on generation attached machinery. Table 2: Distribution of Property Tax by Ownership and Use (taxes payable in 1997) Net Tax Percent of Utility Type Property Type (million $) Total Tax Investor-Owned Generation of Electricity Structures $16.3 6.94% Attached Machinery $68.2 29.03% Transmission/Distribution Land and Buildings $6.7 2.85% Attached Machinery $17.5 7.45% Transmission/Distribution Lines $70.7 30.10% Cooperatives Generation of Electricity Structures $3.1 1.32% Attached Machinery $7.5 3.19% Transmission/Distribution Land and Buildings $4.6 1.96% Attached Machinery $12.9 5.49% Transmission/Distribution Lines $21.4 9.11% Municipal Power Agencies* Generation Attached Machinery $6.0 2.55% Total $234.9 100.00% * This data set is adapted from Minnesota House of Representatives House Research Department report Public Utility Property Taxation, December 1997. The original table included Municipal Power Agencies in the numbers for IOU's. We have separated out Municipals based on House Research estimates. 2 Total property taxes paid by utilities were $235 million in 1997, equivalent to about 0.46 cents per kWh if paid equally by all electricity customers in the state. Utility property tax revenues provide a not insubstantial percentage of money to local governments. This is especially true for those counties which are host to power plants. In 1995 Goodhue County, for example, received 48 percent of its revenue from utility property taxes. Itasca County received 33 percent, Sherburne 37 percent and Wright 27 percent. Franchise fees imposed by municipalities range from 1-8 percent of utility gross revenues and generate 5 percent of total muncipal revenue in cities like Albert Lea, Moorhead, and West St. Paul.3 States that have already restructured their electric regulatory systems to allow for retail customer choice of electricity suppliers have also restructured their utility tax system (see Appendix). Most have proposed to replace property taxes with a flat kilowatt-hour charge on the distribution of electricity. Some have eliminated local franchise fees and state utility income taxes and substituted a charge on electricity to make up the difference. Such a replacement tax or fee on the distribution system allows local governments to receive the same revenue they did before restructuring.Such changes in utility taxation avoids the in- state/out-of-state differential that could occur if the current locality-based tax system had continued. Recently, Minnesota's investor-owned utilities have been trying to change the way local governments assess property tax on electric generating equipment and transmission lines. The proposals would replace some or all of the utility property taxes with a charge on electricity use. The latest form of the legislation focused only on eliminating the personal property tax on utility generation equipment (known as attached machinery). This component represents about $82 million of the total property taxes paid by electric utilities. The legislation had provisions for replacement revenues for local taxing districts through charges on electricity usage until year 2009, when the fees would be phased-out completely. Minnesota Senate File No. 3377 introduced during the 1998 legislative session contained the following provisions with respect to the personal property tax on utilities. • electric utility's generation equipment is exempted from property tax assessment • a generation equipment personal property tax replacement surcharge will be appear as a separate item on electric bill • the surcharge rate per kWh is determined by the ratio of the 1998 personal property tax levied on generation equipment minus any in-lieu taxes to the total kWhs of all electricity use in the service area. • the surcharge as calculated above remains in place until the year 2005. Between April 1, 2005, and March 31, 2009, the surcharge rate will be reduced from the 1998 level by 20 percent each year. • the utilities subject to the replacement surcharge will collect the money into a special account and distribute these revenues to the PUC within 30 days prior to when property taxes are due. 31996 Energy Policy and Conservation Report, Study of Minnesota Taxes Paid by Electric Utilities and the Implications of Utility Tax Assessments. Attachment 4, page 3-5. We should point out that in the future, these percentages should decline. While property tax revenue from non-utility firms and households will rise, personal property tax revenue from utilities will decline. The reason is that the tax is on the value of the equipment and the equipment is depreciated. The current state formula that determines the value of a utility's personal property uses the cost of the property to account for 75% of the total. The cost is affected by depreciation, but is limited to a maximum depreciation of 60% of the utility plant value. Thus the revenue from a utility plant will decline by about 30 percent as it is depreciated. 3 • the PUC will apportion the money to the appropriate county treasurers, who will distribute the money to the respective local taxing districts. Thus a tax shift regarding utility taxes is well underway. ME3 has previously aggressively pursued a broad revenue-neutral ecological tax shift. It seems appropriate to introduce the concept of an ecological tax shift into the utility restructuring debate. Indeed, one could argue that such a tax shift could and should occur even without electric restructuring. An ecological tax shift is more defensible than a sales tax on electricity based on electricity consumption for three reasons: 1) it internalizes the true costs of power generation with tax levels that are in the range of the externality values adopted by the PUC; 2) it is consistent with the legislature's stated goal of maximizing the use of renewable resources and minimizing environmental degradation; 3) it makes concrete Minnesota's commitment to reducing greenhouse gases, consistent with the stated declaration of Presidents Bush and Clinton. If the personal property tax on electric utilities' generation equipment were replaced by a carbon tax, the tax would come to about $6.70 per ton of carbon emitted4 ($1.83 per ton of carbon dioxide).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nuclear Power Reactors in California
    Nuclear Power Reactors in California As of mid-2012, California had one operating nuclear power plant, the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant near San Luis Obispo. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) owns the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, which consists of two units. Unit 1 is a 1,073 megawatt (MW) Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) which began commercial operation in May 1985, while Unit 2 is a 1,087 MW PWR, which began commercial operation in March 1986. Diablo Canyon's operation license expires in 2024 and 2025 respectively. California currently hosts three commercial nuclear power facilities in various stages of decommissioning.1 Under all NRC operating licenses, once a nuclear plant ceases reactor operations, it must be decommissioned. Decommissioning is defined by federal regulation (10 CFR 50.2) as the safe removal of a facility from service along with the reduction of residual radioactivity to a level that permits termination of the NRC operating license. In preparation for a plant’s eventual decommissioning, all nuclear plant owners must maintain trust funds while the plants are in operation to ensure sufficient amounts will be available to decommission their facilities and manage the spent nuclear fuel.2 Spent fuel can either be reprocessed to recover usable uranium and plutonium, or it can be managed as a waste for long-term ultimate disposal. Since fuel re-processing is not commercially available in the United States, spent fuel is typically being held in temporary storage at reactor sites until a permanent long-term waste disposal option becomes available.3 In 1976, the state of California placed a moratorium on the construction and licensing of new nuclear fission reactors until the federal government implements a solution to radioactive waste disposal.
    [Show full text]
  • Toward a Sustainable Electric Utility Sector
    The Distributed Utility Concept: Toward a Sustainable Electric Utility Sector Steven Letendre, John Byrne, and Young-Doo Wang, Center for Energy and Environmental Policy, University of Delaware The U.S. electric utility sector is entering an uncertain period as pressure mounts to cut costs and minimize environmental impacts. Many analysts believe that exposing the industry to competition is the key to reducing costs. Most restructuring proposals acknowledge the need to maintain environmental quality and suggest mechanisms for assuring continued support for end-use efficiency and renewable energy in a deregulated electric utility industry. Two of the most prominent ideas are non-bypassable line charges and portfolio standards. This paper suggests another option based on the distributed utility (DU) concept in which net metering and a form of performance-based ratemaking allow distributed generation, storage, and DSM to play an important role in a new competitive electric utility sector. A DU option directly incorporates these resources into the electric system by explicitly acknowledging their value in deferring distribution equipment upgrades. INTRODUCTION electric utility industry. In our view, the DU option has been neglected in the current debate. The electric utility sector in the U.S. is on the verge of A DU strategy involves a fundamental shift in the way fundamental change as regulators, policymakers, and indus- electricity is delivered, with a move away from large-scale try officials seek a strategy for introducing competition into central generation to distributed small-scale generation and the industry. The move toward competition is driven by the storage, and targeted demand-side management. To date, belief that significant efficiency gains could be realized by the DU concept has mainly been analyzed in terms of its exposing the industry to market forces.
    [Show full text]
  • Regularization of Business Investment in the Electric Utility Industry
    This PDF is a selection from an out-of-print volume from the National Bureau of Economic Research Volume Title: Regularization of Business Investment Volume Author/Editor: Universities-National Bureau Volume Publisher: Princeton University Press/NBER Volume ISBN: 0-87014-195-3 Volume URL: http://www.nber.org/books/univ54-1 Publication Date: 1954 Chapter Title: Regularization of Business Investment in the Electric Utility Industry Chapter Author: Edward W. Morehouse Chapter URL: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c3026 Chapter pages in book: (p. 213 - 282) REGULARIZATION OF BUSINESS INVESTMENT IN THE ELECTRIC UTILITY INDUSTRY' EDWARD W. MOREHOUSE GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORPORATION Introduction THIS PAPER explores the possibilities of regularizing business invest- ment by the electric utility industry. The program for the conference adds, "as means of maintaining high productive employment in a private enterprise economy." This ultimate goal of "high productive employment" as an incen- tive for regularization of investment is of less importance in the electric utility industry than in other industries, as data submitted later tend to show. Electric utilities already have achieved a rela- tively high stability of employment of operating personnel, and the impact of investment on wages and employment in electric utility operations is relatively less significant to the total economy than it is in other industries. Any contribution that electric utilities might make by stabilizing their capital expenditures would be a contribu- tion to employment stability generally, and particularly to employ- ment in the building of plant, or the manufacture of plant and equipment items, needed by electric utilities. These indirect em- ployment effects would bulk larger than the direct effects on the number of employees used in utility operations.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Electric Power Industry - Context and Structure
    U.S. Electric Power Industry - Context and Structure Authored by Analysis Group for Advanced Energy Economy November 2011 Industry Organization The electric industry across the United States contains Figure 1 significant variations from the perspectives of structure, A History of the U.S. Electric Industry organization, physical infrastructure characteristics, 1870 cost/price drivers, and regulatory oversight. The variation stems from a mix of geographical influences, population Thomas Edison demonstrates the electric light bulb and generator and industry make up, and the evolution of federal and 1880 state energy law and policy. Edison launches Pearl Street station, the first modern electricity generation station th In the early part of the 20 century, the electric industry 1890 evolved quickly through the creation, growth and Development begins on the Niagra Falls hydroelectric project consolidation of vertically-integrated utilities – that is, Samuel Insull suggests the utility industry is a natural companies that own and operate all of the power plants, 1900 monopoly - electric industry starts to become vertically transmission lines, and distribution systems that generate integrated and deliver power to ultimate customers. At the same Wisconsin enacts first private utility regulation and 30 states time, efficiency of electricity generation dramatically follow suit shortly thereafter 1910 improved, encouraging growth, consolidation of the industry, and expansion into more and more cities, and The Federal Power Act created the Federal Power Commission across a wider geographic area. Over time, consolidated (now FERC) utilities were granted monopoly franchises with exclusive 1920 service territories by states, in exchange for an obligation to serve customers within that territory at rates for service 1 1930 based on state-regulated, cost-of-service ratemaking.
    [Show full text]
  • Business As Usual and Nuclear Power
    BUSINESS AS USUAL AND NUCLEAR POWER 1974 .1999 OECD, 2000. Software: 1987-1996, Acrobat is a trademark of ADOBE. All rights reserved. OECD grants you the right to use one copy of this Program for your personal use only. Unauthorised reproduction, lending, hiring, transmission or distribution of any data or software is prohibited. You must treat the Program and associated materials and any elements thereof like any other copyrighted material. All requests should be made to: Head of Publications Service, OECD Publications Service, 2, rue Andr´e-Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France. OECD PROCEEDINGS BUSINESS AS USUAL AND NUCLEAR POWER Joint IEA/NEA Meeting Paris, France 14-15 October 1999 NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT Pursuant to Article 1 of the Convention signed in Paris on 14th December 1960, and which came into force on 30th September 1961, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shall promote policies designed: − to achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and a rising standard of living in Member countries, while maintaining financial stability, and thus to contribute to the development of the world economy; − to contribute to sound economic expansion in Member as well as non-member countries in the process of economic development; and − to contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, non-discriminatory basis in accordance with international obligations. The original Member countries of the OECD are Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Energy: Statistics Dr
    Nuclear Energy: Statistics Dr. Elizabeth K. Ervin Civil Engineering Today’s Motivation The more people learn about nuclear power, the more supportive they are of it { 73% positive in Clean and Safe Energy Coalition survey in 2006. Nuclear power plants produce no controlled air pollutants, such as sulfur and particulates, or greenhouse gases. { The use of nuclear energy helps keep the air clean, preserve the earth's climate, avoid ground-level ozone formation, and prevent acid rain. One of the few growing markets { Jobs, capital… { 2006: 36 new plants under construction in 14 countries, 223 proposed. Worried about Nuclear Power Plants? Dirty Bombs? Radon? U.S. civilian nuclear reactor program: 0 deaths Each year, 100 coal miners and 100 coal transporters are killed; 33,134 total from 1931 to 1995. Aviation deaths since 1938: 54,000 “That’s hot.” { Coal-fired plant releases 100 times more radiation than equivalent nuclear reactor { Three Mile Island released 1/6 of the radiation of a chest x-ray { Despite major human mistakes, 56 Chernobyl deaths Nuclear power plants: 15.2% of the world's electricity production in 2006. 34% of EU 20% France: 78.1% 16 countries > 25% of their electricity 31 countries worldwide operating 439 nuclear reactors for electricity generation. U.S. Nuclear There are 104 commercial nuclear power plants in the United States. They are located at 64 sites in 31 states. { 35 boiling water reactors { 69 pressurized water reactors { 0 next generation reactors Nuclear already provides 20 percent of the United State’s electricity, or 787.2 billion kilowatt-hours (bkWh) Electricity demands expected to increase 30% nationally by 2030.
    [Show full text]
  • Utility Use of Renewable Resources: Legal and Economic Implications
    Denver Law Review Volume 59 Issue 4 Article 4 February 2021 Utility Use of Renewable Resources: Legal and Economic Implications Jan G. Laitos Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/dlr Recommended Citation Jan G. Laitos, Utility Use of Renewable Resources: Legal and Economic Implications, 59 Denv. L.J. 663 (1982). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Denver Law Review at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Denver Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],[email protected]. UTILITY USE OF RENEWABLE RESOURCES: LEGAL AND ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS* JAN G. LAITOS** I. Overview: The Nature of Utility Involvement in Renewable Energy Applications ......................................... 666 A. Types of Utilities and Their Differing Relationships to Renewable Energy ...................................... 666 1. Electric Utilities and Renewable Energy .............. 666 2. Gas Utilities and Renewable Energy ................. 669 B. Prospects for Utility Interest in Renewable Energy ....... 671 II. Utilities and Decentralized Renewable Energy Applications ... 672 A. Utilities and Nonelectric, Decentralized, Renewable Technologies ..... ................................ 673 1. The Effect of Nonelectric Renewable Technologies on U tilities ............................................. 673 2. Responses of Utilities to Nonelectric Renewable Technologies ........................................ 676 a. Utility
    [Show full text]
  • State of Oklahoma
    STATE OF OKLAHOMA 1st Session of the 46th Legislature (1997) HOUSE BILL NO. 1941 By: Morgan AS INTRODUCED An Act relating to public utilities; creating the Oklahoma Electric Utility Reform Act; stating purpose of the act; defining terms; providing for open access to electric distribution systems; directing electric utilities to provide open access; providing purchasing options for customers; authorizing the Corporation Commission to promulgate certain rules; authorizing the Commission to establish certain fees; limiting authority of the Commission to regulate certain entities; making effective date contingent upon certain occurrences; providing for levy of an electric sales gross receipts tax; making tax in lieu of other taxes; providing for apportionment of tax; providing for payment of tax; requiring sellers of electricity to file certain forms; requiring certain reports; requiring preservation of records; providing for semiannual payments in certain circumstances; amending 17 O.S. 1991, Sections 151 and 152, as last amended by Section 6, Chapter 315, O.S.L. 1994 (17 O.S. Supp. 1996, Section 152), which relate to regulation of public utilities; modifying definition; deleting certain statutory cite; amending 17 O.S. 1991, Sections 180.1 and 180.2, which relate to advertising by public utilities; modifying definitions; amending Section 43, Chapter 278, O.S.L. 1993, as amended by Section 1, Chapter 91, O.S.L. 1996 (17 O.S. Supp. 1996, Section 180.11), which relates to public utility assessment; adding certain utility subject to assessment; modifying definition; amending 17 O.S. 1991, Sections 250, 251, as amended by Section 16, Chapter 315, O.S.L. 1994, 252, 253 and 254 (17 O.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Electric Vehicles As Distributed Energy Resources
    ELECTRIC VEHICLES AS DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCES BY GARRETT FITZGERALD, CHRIS NELDER, AND JAMES NEWCOMB O Y M UN ARBON K T C C A I O N R I W N E A M STIT U T R R O O AUTHORS & ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AUTHORS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Garrett Fitzgerald, Chris Nelder, and James Newcomb The authors thank the following individuals and e-Lab * Authors listed alphabetically. All authors are from member organizations for offering their insights and Rocky Mountain Institute unless otherwise noted. perspectives on this work, which does not necessarily reflect their views. ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTORS Jim Lazar, Regulatory Assistance Project Rich Sedano, Regulatory Assistance Project Riley Allen, Regulatory Assistance Project Sarah Keay-Bright, Regulatory Assistance Project Jim Avery, San Diego Gas & Electric CONTACTS Greg Haddow, San Diego Gas & Electric Chris Nelder ([email protected]) San Diego Gas & Electric Load Analysis Group James Newcomb ([email protected]) Noel Crisostomo, California Public Utilities Commission Jonathan Walker, Rocky Mountain Institute SUGGESTED CITATION Chris Nelder, James Newcomb, and Garrett Fitzgerald, The authors also thank the following additional Electric Vehicles as Distributed Energy Resources individuals and organizations for offering their insights (Rocky Mountain Institute, 2016), and perspectives on this work: http://www.rmi.org/pdf_evs_as_DERs. Joel R. Pointon, JRP Charge Joyce McLaren, National Renewable Energy Laboratory DISCLAIMER e-Lab is a joint collaboration, convened by RMI, with participationfrom stakeholders across the electricity Editorial Director: Cindie Baker industry. e-Lab is not a consensus organization, and Editor: David Labrador the views expressed in this document are not intended Art Director: Romy Purshouse to represent those of any individual e-Lab member or Images courtesy of iStock unless otherwise noted.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Power in Competitive Electricity Markets
    Nuclear Power in Competitive Electricity Markets NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT Pursuant to Article 1 of the Convention signed in Paris on 14th December 1960, and which came into force on 30th September 1961, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shall promote policies designed: − to achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and a rising standard of living in Member countries, while maintaining financial stability, and thus to contribute to the development of the world economy; − to contribute to sound economic expansion in Member as well as non-member countries in the process of economic development; and − to contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, non-discriminatory basis in accordance with international obligations. The original Member countries of the OECD are Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The following countries became Members subsequently through accession at the dates indicated hereafter: Japan (28th April 1964), Finland (28th January 1969), Australia (7th June 1971), New Zealand (29th May 1973), Mexico (18th May 1994), the Czech Republic (21st December 1995), Hungary (7th May 1996), Poland (22nd November 1996) and the Republic of Korea (12th December 1996). The Commission of the European Communities takes part in the work of the OECD (Article 13 of the OECD Convention). NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) was established on 1st February 1958 under the name of the OEEC European Nuclear Energy Agency.
    [Show full text]
  • Pathway to a 21St Century Electric Utility Ef!Ciency Solutions
    Pathway to a 21st Century Electric Utility Ef!ciency Solutions Load Management Solutions November 2015 Distributed Resources 93 63 84 therms Ef!cient All YOU NMeighyb orDs aNesighbobrsoard Acknowledgements About the Author Ceres would like to thank the Energy Foundation for a grant Peter H. Kind, that helped make this work possible. Ceres and the author Executive Director—Energy Infrastructure Advocates LLC. would like to extend their deep appreciation to the experts Peter is the Executive Director of Energy Infrastructure who generously agreed to review a draft of this report: Advocates LLC, a strategic advisory consultancy focused • Diane Munns, Environmental Defense Fund on public policy supportive of utility and energy sector • Steven Nadel, American Council for infrastructure development in a changing energy an Energy Ef!cient Economy industry landscape. • Rich Sedano, Regulatory Assistance Project Prior to the founding of EIA in 2012, Peter worked for over • Devra Wang, Energy Foundation 30 years in investment banking, with a specialization in utility and power sector !nance. Peter’s banking experience Dan Bakal, Meg Wilcox and Sue Reid of Ceres made includes capital markets advisory and transaction execution important contributions to this report. and strategic advisory services, including merger and Graphic design by Patricia Robinson Design. acquisition and corporate !nance advice. Peter’s M&A experience includes all sectors of regulated utility and non- © Ceres 2015 regulated power businesses. Throughout his career, Peter has been actively involved in outreach to regulators and About Ceres policymakers, including work as an expert witness in Ceres is a nonpro!t organization mobilizing business regulatory proceedings and forums, presenting at industry leadership on climate change, water scarcity and other and regulatory conferences on !nancial issues impacting global sustainability challenges.
    [Show full text]
  • Vehicle-Grid Integration (VGI) Roadmap: Enabling Vehicle-Based Grid Services
    CALIFORNIA Vehicle-Grid Integration (VGI) Roadmap: Enabling vehicle-based grid services February 2014 The California ISO thanks the California Energy Commission and the California Public Utilities Commission for their support in the development of the VGI Roadmap. We also acknowledge the commitment to this effort shown by our industry stakeholders who participated in workshops leading up to the draft roadmap. Stakeholder engagement and ongoing feedback were critically important. Additionally, the ISO recognizes the work of DNV-GL, which facilitated the stakeholder process, integrated comments and developed the roadmap tracks. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Executive Summary ....................................................... 1 2. What is Vehicle-Grid Integration .............................................. 3 3. Identified Barriers ......................................................... 5 3.1 Value of VGI .....................................................5 3.2 Market Product Definitions, Requirements, and Processes ........................5 3.3 Technology and Coordination ..........................................5 4. VGI Roadmap ........................................................... 6 4.1 Track 1: Determine VGI Value and Potential .................................6 Activities for Determining VGI Value Track ..................................6 4.2 Track 2: Develop Enabling Policies, Regulations and Business Processes. .8 Activities for the Develop Enabling Policies Track ..............................9 4.3 Track 3: Support Enabling
    [Show full text]