NewEnergyNews: Do the Big Three Utilities Need More of Californians’ Money? The Ratepayer Advocate says no, but the IOUs say yes.

NewEnergyNews

Gleanings from the web and the world, condensed for convenience, illustrated for enlightenment, arranged for impact...

Every day is Earth Day.

YESTERDAY

  • TODAY’S STUDY: WHAT UTILITIES THINK
  • QUICK NEWS, May 21: U.S. EMISSIONS DROP AS ELECTRICITY OUTPUT RISES; THE SPACES BETWEEN THE WINDS; WTO RULES FOR IMPORTED SUN
  • -------------------

    GET THE DAILY HEADLINES EMAIL: CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS OR SEND YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS TO: herman@NewEnergyNews.net

    -------------------

    THE DAY BEFORE

  • TODAY’S STUDY: THE BEST UTILITIES FOR SUN
  • QUICK NEWS, May 20: INSURANCE COMPANIES PREPARE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE; UK’S GREEN BANK BRINGS THE BIG BUCKS; UTILITY GOES FOR BETTER SUN, WIND FORECASTS
  • THE DAY BEFORE THE DAY BEFORE

  • Weekend Video: Spray On Solar
  • Weekend Video: Wind In The Rural Landscape
  • Weekend Video: What Dark Snow Means
  • THE DAY BEFORE THAT

  • FRIDAY WORLD HEADLINE-CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER
  • FRIDAY WORLD HEADLINE-WHERE NEW ENERGY NEEDS TO BE
  • FRIDAY WORLD HEADLINE-KUWAIT’S POSSIBLE SOLAR
  • FRIDAY WORLD HEADLINE-WHAT INDIA WIND NEEDS
  • AND THE DAY BEFORE THAT

  • TTTA Thursday- HOW CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL WORKS
  • TTTA Thursday-HOW WOMEN MAKE A DIFFERENCE
  • TTTA Thursday-POLITICS AND THE EPA
  • TTTA Thursday-THE ENORMOUS LED OPPORTUNITY
  • THE LAST DAY UP HERE

  • TODAY’S STUDY: THE NEW INTELLIGENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY
  • QUICK NEWS, May 15: MINNESOTA’S SOLAR AMBITIONS IN CONTEXT; RHODE ISLAND’S FIGHT OVER OCEAN WIND; VC MONEY FOR SMART GRID STEADY

    --------------------------

    --------------------------

    Anne B. Butterfield of Daily Camera and Huffington Post, is a biweekly contributor to NewEnergyNews

  • NEW BILLS AND NEW BIRDS in Colorado's recent session (May 20, 2013) by Anne Butterfield (Boulder Daily Camera via NewEnergyNews)

    Out with the old and in with a new. Gone are the five feet of snow from April and May - and in with this sudden summer heat. The feeder and fountain in view from this keyboard are graced with migratory birds such as Evening Grosbeak, Spotted Towhee and one Ruby-Throated hummingbird that loved on that sugar water when all fragrant things were cloaked by heavy snow. And in Denver, flown from the coop are all our state legislators from their tightly compressed legislative session. What have they gotten done?

    “This has been an extraordinary legislature,” said a seasoned Democratic fundraiser in Denver, Sallyanne Ofner by Facebook message. The range of work was wide:

    For civil unions came a meaningful redress of the wrong-headed vote of 2006 to limit marriage to one man and one woman. Now LGBT couples can commit for life and legally reap respect and due benefits.

    Firearm safety has been enhanced with popular universal background checks on purchases plus size limits on high capacity magazines.

    On behalf of rape victims, parental rights of attackers over the children they spawn have been severed, and sexual assault victims have access to a payment program for their medical needs.

    One gripping disappointment was the failure to repeal the costly and conspicuously racist death penalty in Colorado.

    Also disheartening: the failure to pass seven out of nine bills to regulate hydraulic fracturing. A notable failure was minimum fines for serious spills -- needed apparently because spills now don’t invoke the maximum fines allowed. The 30-hour spill that erupted in mid-February near Fort Collins still has not been fined, according to the Colorado Oil and Gas Association. The Governor has ordered a formal review of how fines are imposed.

    Also targeted was a ban on energy industry employees from serving on the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to regulate their own companies - failed. Lawmakers also failed to require more frequent inspections at Colorado’s tens of thousands of wells, though they did secure budgeting for 11 more inspectors and a lower spill amount threshold at which companies must report. More health and water testing around fracking areas? Also failed.

    Visiting The Camera this week, representatives from the Colorado Oil and Gas Association lamented the session as being polarized, and that legislators with no knowledge of industry surprised them with a slew of bills that COGA hadn’t seen much less collaborated on. This came off poorly as they and their 23 lobbyists certainly know that the session is compressed and filled with the slew of matters just mentioned.

    Coming this fall is still more action on fracking, in a rule making session by the Air Quality Control Commission. Judging by the Governor’s oft-stated goal to see “zero” fugitive emissions from natural gas infrastructure, let’s hope the AQCC can screw some new regulations to the sticking point.

    On the bright side for clean energy, Boulder’s own Will Toor is uniquely proud of a suite of successful bills for electric vehicles that led his agency, South West Energy Efficient Project, to launch Colorado to a leading grade of A- among six western states for EV’s. New bills included extended rebates for private purchases of EV’s and conversions of hybrids. For state and local governments to purchase EV’s, life cycle costs may now be considered as well as contracting through energy service companies to have EV’s paid for through fuel savings. PACE financing for commercial buildings and parking lots was expanded to cover charging stations. Also, apartment buildings and HOA’s will have to allow charging stations. And to address an old sore spot, a decal program will have EV owners pay a $50 tax per year for road maintenance and the construction of more public charging stations.

    We will see more charging stations – this comes with nice timing as Consumer Reports just named the Tesla Model S the best car. And as Colorado’s electric power sector cleans its emissions, the use of EV’s will leverage reductions in emissions from transportation.

    But that electric sector still has serious business leftover. Colorado has until June 7th to persuade the Governor to act on the gloriously debated SB 252 that would require rural electric providers to get 20 percent of their power from renewables. Since coal costs have about doubled over 10 years and Tri-States’ coal-rich power expenses have risen four times faster than sales, SB252 needs to pass for pocketbooks and to deal with that horrific new 400 ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere.

    Author's note: Want to support my work? Please "fan" me at Huffpost Denver, here (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anne-butterfield). Thanks.

    -------------------

    Anne's previous NewEnergyNews columns:

  • Lies, damned lies and politicians (October 8, 2012)
  • Colorado's Elegant Solution to Fracking (April 23, 2012)
  • Shale Gas: From Geologic Bubble to Economic Bubble (March 15, 2012)
  • Taken for granted no more (February 5, 2012)
  • The Republican clown car circus (January 6, 2012)
  • Twenty-Somethings of Colorado With Skin in the Game (November 22, 2011)
  • Occupy, Xcel, and the Mother of All Cliffs (October 31, 2011)
  • Boulder Can Own Its Power With Distributed Generation (June 7, 2011)
  • The Plunging Cost of Renewables and Boulder's Energy Future (April 19, 2011)
  • Paddling Down the River Denial (January 12, 2011)
  • The Fox (News) That Jumped the Shark (December 16, 2010)
  • Click here for an archive of Butterfield columns

    -------------------

    Some details about NewEnergyNews and the man behind the curtain: Herman K. Trabish, Agua Dulce, CA., Doctor with my hands, Writer with my head, Student of New Energy and Human Experience with my heart

    email: herman@NewEnergyNews.net

    -------------------

    Your intrepid reporter

    -------------------

      A tip of the NewEnergyNews cap to Phillip Garcia for crucial assistance in the design implementation of this site. Thanks, Phillip.

    -------------------

    Pay a visit to the HARRY BOYKOFF page at Basketball Reference, sponsored by NewEnergyNews and Oil In Their Blood.

  • ---------------
  • Tuesday, January 29, 2013

    Do the Big Three Utilities Need More of Californians’ Money? The Ratepayer Advocate says no, but the IOUs say yes.

    Do the Big Three Utilities Need More of Californians’ Money? The Ratepayer Advocate says no, but the IOUs say yes.

    Herman K. Trabish, August 17, 2012 (Greentech Media)

    California’s investor-owned utilities (IOUs) asked state regulators to approve small Return on Equity (ROE) decreases for the period 2013-2016 that will, according to the state’s Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA), redirect hundreds of millions of dollars too little from the utilities’ stockholders.

    Interest rates and other capital costs are presently significantly lower than they were whenthe California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in 2007 put the Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) ROE at 11.35 percent, the Southern California Edison (SCE) ROE at 11.50 percent and the San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) ROE at 11.1 percent. After extensions during the recession, those determinations expire December 31.

    The PG&E requested ROE reduction to 11.0 percent, the SCE requested reduction to 11.1 percent, and the SDG&E requested reduction to 11.0 percent “far exceed the companies’ revenue needs and market standards,” according to Acting DRA Director Joe Como.

    SCE’s request “is reasonable compared to other jurisdictions when adjusted for risk and leverage,” asserted SCE spokesperson Lauren Bartlett. “The proposal would lower requested customer rates by more than $120 million.”

    DRA is asking the CPUC to limit the PG&E and SCE ROEs to 8.75 percent and the SDG&E ROE to 8.50 percent. The differences between the requested ROEs and the DRA recommended rates, according to DRA regulatory analyst Jerry Oh, are $377 million for PG&E, $211 million for SCE, and $50 million for SDG&E.

    The IOUs, Como said, “should be passing those tens of millions of dollars in savings on to their customers.”

    Setting the ROEs accurately requires determining how much above or below the return on alternative investments the IOUs should provide their shareholders. The higher the return they offer, the more capital investment they can attract.

    Setting the ROEs accurately begins, Oh said, with the sophisticated mathematics of three basic financial models, the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) model, the Capital Asset Pricing (CAP) model and the Historical Risk Premium (HRP) model.

    Those models make assumptions, Oh explained. Pivotally, assumptions are used in (1) selecting comparable groups of utilities, (2) calculating the anticipated growth of alternative investments and (3) estimating the risk associated utility investments versus the risk of alternative investments.

    The DRA’s CPUC filing, authored by Pennsylvania State University Professor of Finance J. Randall Woolridge, found the utilities’ modeling flawed in three broad ways: They selected comparable groups of utilities with above average yields, they assumed overly optimistic growth from alternative investments, and they overestimated the degree of risk to their shareholders.

    The IOUs’ filings with the CPUC to date do not deny Woolridge’s conclusions, though further rebuttals are expected by the end of August. Instead, they have argued, the larger factors are used because they need more money than other U.S. utilities and must therefore offer higher ROEs. Optimistic projections for alternative investment returns were purposely chosen, for instance, because they increase what the IOUs can offer investors.

    “We believe a return on equity of 11.0 percent is warranted under current market conditions,” PG&E External Communications Chief Jonathan Marshall emailed. “Our request would reduce our annual revenues by about $100 million (other things being equal). Although our proposed ROE is a little higher than for other comparable utilities across the country, that’s justified by the extra risk premium many investors see for doing business in California.”

    Historic long-run growth rates for GDP and the S&P 500 “are in the 5 percent to 7 percent range,” Professor Woolridge noted, whereas PG&E’s “long-run growth rate projection of 10.9 percent is vastly overstated.” Recent trends, Woolridge added, suggest economic growth “in the range of 4 percent to 5 percent.”

    “SCE’s unprecedented capital investments to meet state and federal policy mandates and goals, replace aging infrastructure, modernize meters and support new renewable electric sources with vast new transmission projects have significantly increased SCE’s business risk,” explained the filing, which was authored by SCE Director of Regulatory Finance and Economics Dr. Paul T. Hunt. SCE’s long-term power contracts for conventional and renewable resources, he added, “are perceived by the financial community to be debt equivalents that must be supported by equity earning a compensatory return.”

    “Our request actually protects customer interests,” PG&E’s Marshall added. “We are looking at raising about $8 billion in debt and equity markets from 2012-14 for infrastructure upgrades, repairs, and facilities to meet load growth. With a credit rating of only BBB, we have no cushion against negative surprises.”

    All changes in economic markets, interest rates, and IOU infrastructure and capital needs will be considered by the CPUC in a process of hearings and counter-filings that will begin in September, Oh said. And the Commission will not only be limited to an evaluation of the numbers, but must also reconcile IOU needs, shareholder needs and ratepayer needs.

    SCE is burdened, potentially severely, by the loss of the 2,300-megawatt San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, of which it is a 78-percent owner. SDG&E, which owns 20 percent of San Onofre, has incurred the expense of hurrying the 1,000-megawatt-capacitySunrise Powerlink transmission system on-line to help relieve the loss of the nuclear plant. And PG&E is still struggling to cope with liability losses and replacement costs associated with the 2010 San Bruno natural gas line explosion.

    It may be that the question the CPUC must ultimately decide is whether the IOUs’ shareholders or ratepayers must bear those burdens.

    0 Comments:

    Post a Comment

    << Home