IBJOpinion

KHARBANDA: The case for a diverse energy policy

Jesse Kharbanda
April 16, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

KharbandaIndiana’s electricity sector is at a crossroads. On average, power plants are more than three decades old, with their economics needing reassessment in light of new—and long-delayed—federal environmental rules.

What path will we pursue to power Indiana in the coming decades? Key utility executives and state legislators argue that Indiana’s power should come predominantly from coal and nuclear power. Those legislators made good on that conviction by passing, in recent years, taxpayer- and ratepayer-funded coal incentives considered “the most aggressive” in the United States, and have pushed to advance ratepayer-funded incentives to expand nuclear power, as proposed in the intensely debated Senate Bill 251.

The question is whether this monolithic approach is really in the best long-term economic interest of our state. While coal power will continue to dominate Indiana’s electricity mix, a decidedly more diverse generation mix would maintain reliability and be more affordable and better for economic development.

Natural gas is a logical part of this more diverse vision: According to the Energy Information Administration, the levelized cost of new gas is 40-percent lower than new coal and new nuclear, and its project time line is much shorter. Gas becomes more economically compelling in a world of carbon controls and, in the wake of the Japan tragedy, more robust—and expensive—nuclear reactors and operations.

But the broader opportunity for a more diverse electric-generation vision is in the commercial and small-scale renewable energy sector. Renewables get characterized by skeptics as limited, costly and unreliable. But this description is largely outdated.

Renewable resource potential, driven by technology, has exploded: Indiana’s commercially viable proposed wind projects alone could provide more than five times the power of what those currently installed generate, enough to make up 10 percent of our electricity. And the price of commercial wind has gone down to such a degree that it is 40 percent of the cost of new coal/nuclear on a per-megawatt-hour basis—and cheaper even without federal support.

Commercial wind’s economics have proven to reduce wholesale power prices in parts of the Midwest. And renewable energy resources do not impede reliability, safely contributing to more than 10 percent of the electricity of Iowa, Minnesota and the Dakotas, while being backed by existing generation.

Accelerated renewable-energy development creates an additional dividend: By concentrating construction, robust renewable-energy development will draw in component manufacturers who historically co-locate near such construction, as seen in Iowa and Minnesota. This co-location effect is forecasted to be larger in Indiana than other states due to our impressive automobile-component-manufacturing base, which has strong crossover with renewable-energy-component manufacturing.

Some will pose that, if renewable energy is so attractive, compared to new coal and nuclear, our state should naturally continue to see ample growth of the former. But Indiana’s five main utilities, monopolies by law, have no incentive to invite in renewable-savvy independent power producers, as these utilities reap a rate of return only on their own generation. Indiana, as a result, largely forgoes having a flood of IPPs continually competing to fulfill supply needs and driving down electricity rates.

SB 251 adds another layer of challenge to future competition, as it would expedite—and perhaps streamline—the approval process for recouping retrofitting expenditures for our existing power fleet. While offering a substantial new carrot to existing, coal-dominated generation, SB 251 offers no meaningful incentives to renewable energy. The bill’s voluntary clean-energy portfolio program could likely be met entirely, as of this writing, by energy-efficiency investments already prescribed by the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission.

We look forward to working with those who would seriously consider the added value of a more diverse energy policy than what current legislation would likely lead to. At stake are Indiana’s long-term cost competitiveness and economic growth.•

__________

Kharbanda is executive director of the Hoosier Environmental Council.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Right on the mark!
    Great article. I'm always encouraged to see the well thought-out arguments against coal and nuclear for Indiana. The state needs to create a true definition of clean energy - one that actually poses no risk to public health.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I am so impressed that the smoking ban FAILED in Kokomo! I might just move to your Awesome city!

  2. way to much breweries being built in indianapolis. its going to be saturated market, if not already. when is enough, enough??

  3. This house is a reminder of Hamilton County history. Its position near the interstate is significant to remember what Hamilton County was before the SUPERBROKERs, Navients, commercial parks, sprawling vinyl villages, and acres of concrete retail showed up. What's truly Wasteful is not reusing a structure that could still be useful. History isn't confined to parks and books.

  4. To compare Connor Prairie or the Zoo to a random old house is a big ridiculous. If it were any where near the level of significance there wouldn't be a major funding gap. Put a big billboard on I-69 funded by the tourism board for people to come visit this old house, and I doubt there would be any takers, since other than age there is no significance whatsoever. Clearly the tax payers of Fishers don't have a significant interest in this project, so PLEASE DON'T USE OUR VALUABLE MONEY. Government money is finite and needs to be utilized for the most efficient and productive purposes. This is far from that.

  5. I only tried it 2x and didn't think much of it both times. With the new apts plus a couple other of new developments on Guilford, I am surprised it didn't get more business. Plus you have a couple of subdivisions across the street from it. I hope Upland can keep it going. Good beer and food plus a neat environment and outdoor seating.

ADVERTISEMENT