07-12-16 Utilities - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Committeemember Davis asked what types of issues Germany was experiencing. Mr. Robinson stated there were financial issues where their rates had increased pretty substantially fairly quickly. When renewables are brought on in those numbers the prices will go up even though it was subsidized at a pretty high rate. If you do this it has to be done right and that is why we have these conversations. Being able to keep reliability is important because energy like solar is so volatile where it can fluctuate megawatts in a matter of seconds and that wreaks havoc on energy systems. Mr. Robinson clarified that he is not a subject expert but that is what he knows are the concerns with affordability and reliability with renewables as of right now. Mr. Satterwhite questioned the Council's need to be an advocate to call out an individual plant. I &M thinks that would be inappropriate and it is more reasonable for an advocate group like the Sierra Club to do those things. The Council should be more concerned with overall prices, regulation, the IRP process and those types of issues. I &M included a statement about Rockport in their resolution where it talks about their analysis of taking Rockport off and demonstrates that I &M is considering that. The statement that Rockport "is the second most toxic plant in Indiana" makes it look like the Council is using an attacking word and also does not mention that Rockport is one of the largest units in the country. Things in resolutions like this need to be portrayed accurately and responsibly. I &M also had issue with the proposed resolution blaming them for not using Indiana coal, but the reason they do not use Indiana coal at the Rockport plant is because of the high sulfur content compared to other coal. Committee Chair Dr. Varner asked if the Sierra Club representatives wished to speak again in response and stated that there will be time for public input. Ms. Perras stated this resolution is about jobs. It encourages I &M to retire a costly, dangerous, and unhealthy coal fired power plant and replace it with clean energy that can be here in South Bend. This is really about the advantage of having I &M invest in your community as opposed to out of state investments. Ms. Perras wanted to clarify that I &M's preferred plan would not start adding solar until 2022 and some wind in later years which is not at the levels given by I &M. Those numbers they gave were for AEP in total not I &M. Regarding the costs, the claim that I &M customers would pay less if Rockport was closed is false. Ms. Perras stated that I &M did not choose the least cost plan in their IRP, they chose a more expensive plan. When we are comparing costs we are comparing them to their preferred plan. It is true that retiring half of Rockport would be less expensive than the preferred plan I &M chose which is to put scrubbers and pollution controls on Rockport and add renewable energies. This is opposed to making that transition to renewable energy that could be generated here in your community. Ms. Perras suggested that the Council stay away from complimenting I &M's energy efficiency program. Ms. Perras submitted a letter from the Sierra Club from January of 2016 that highlights the controversial aspects of their energy efficiency programs. I &M has consistently not met the goals set for them in 2012, 2013 and 2014. We want I &M to expand their energy efficiency programs. 5