German Defense Chief Says Public Must Get Used To Possibility Of ‘War In Europe’

Energy News Beat

Starting last month, top Ukrainian officials began pushing an alarmist narrative that “world war 3 has already begun” – as the head Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council Aleksey Danilov had claimed in early September. The words were spoken after it became clear that Ukraine’s military was losing, and now Time magazine has confirmed the military doesn’t have the manpower to fight off the Russians. Naturally, Kiev must find new ways to draw in more direct support of key European powers.

“If somebody thinks that World War III hasn’t started then it’s a huge mistake. It has already begun. It had been underway in a hybrid period for some time and has now entered an active phase,” Danilov said before the Kiev Security Forum at the time (early Sept). More than a month later, some European leaders have begun to echo the same warning.

Significantly, this week Germany Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said in a media interview that German residents must start getting used to the idea of the specter of war in Europe.

“We have to get used to the idea that there may be a threat of war in Europe,” he said in the national broadcast interview. “Germany must be able to defend itself. We must be prepared for war.”

He was responding to questions related to Germany being slow to rearmament itself in the wake of the Russian war in Ukraine, and now with the prospect of the Gaza-Israel conflict spilling over into broader Mideast regional war:

He believes that the conflict in the Middle East and Russia’s war against Ukraine shall have consequences for German society. In particular, Germany must be able to defend itself, and this applies to both the Bundeswehr and society.

“We have to become capable of fighting,” Pistorius said.

“Unfortunately, everything that has been spoiled for 30 years cannot be fixed in 19 months,” Pistorius admitted in the fresh remarks. But he still pushed back against the critics:

Pistorius rejected accusations that the federal government was too slow to react to the so-called turning point. He stressed that not only had a €100 billion special fund for the Bundeswehr been set up, but that state bodies had also been changed.

Germany has meanwhile been among those western powers which see conflicts in the Middle East and Eastern Europe as related, with Russia being a prime bad actor exacerbating tensions (the Kremlin has in turn said the same thing about the West, and the US in particular).

On Monday, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock at a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Luxembourg claimed that President Vladimir Putin is taking joy in the crisis in the Middle East. “We can see that the Russian president is certainly happy, given the situation in the Middle East. That is why we are looking at Ukraine even more closely than we have done in the past,” she said.

Zelensky too has expressed increased concern that world powers have taken their eye off the ball as they focus on events in Gaza. But Defense Minister Pistorius has along with Baerbock sought to assure the Ukrainians that Berlin will not lessen its support to Kiev based on the Israel-Gaza conflict.

A fresh segment on Russian TV wherein popular pundits threaten war on Germany:

Meanwhile, Germany’s new ‘turn’ toward rebuilding its military could helping drive new populist politicians’ efforts at curtailing this new expanse of Berlin’s reviving military-industrial complex:

Wagenknecht’s politics clearly resonate with the German public. A recent survey of German voters found that 14% would vote for a Wagenknecht party, putting it just one point behind the governing Social Democrats (SPD) and two points ahead of the Green party. It speaks to the breadth of Wagenknecht’s coalition that, if initial polls are to be believed, she would take votes not only from her own former political home, but also from the centre-right CDU, the left-leaning Greens and the pro-business FDP. Most of all, though, Wagenknecht is trying to appeal to a section of AfD voters. Much of the party’s success in recent elections, she claims, comes from Germans who “don’t vote for the AfD because they’re rightwing. They vote for the AfD because they’re angry.” Wagenknecht’s attempts to siphon off the AfD’s protest voters currently seems like the only viable plan to mitigate the far-right party’s electoral success.

Far left and far right movements in Germany, and broadly in Europe remain distrustful of increased military spending, especially accompanied by politicians’ pleas for society to “prepare for war” – while silencing voices which seek ceasefire and a diplomatic offramp.

Loading…

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post German Defense Chief Says Public Must Get Used To Possibility Of ‘War In Europe’ appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

N.C. manufacturers move to abolish Duke Energy customer assistance program, dismaying advocates

Energy News Beat

A powerful consortium of pulp mills, pipe foundries and other manufacturers has moved to block an aid program for Duke Energy’s poorest residential customers — provoking dismay among the clean energy advocates who had championed it.

Set to begin early next year, the Customer Assistance Program would give a $42 discount for 12 months to customers struggling to pay their electric bills, more than offsetting coming rate hikes. Large industrial customers would help pay for the program with a $1.70 monthly fee.

The Utilities Commission this summer greenlit the initiative for Duke Energy Progress, covering eastern and parts of western North Carolina, and had been expected to do the same for Duke Energy Carolinas. Some 124,000 households were predicted to benefit.

But in a pair of Oct. 17 filings, the Carolina Industrial Group for Fair Utility Rates claimed regulators lacked authority to order the program and said it violated the principle that one class of customers shouldn’t subsidize another.

Pending an appeal to the state Supreme Court to overrule the program that could take years to resolve, the industrial group asked the Utilities Commission to delay it.

“No party to this proceeding would be prejudiced by entry of a limited stay of the Order,” the industrial group said in its motion.

In a flurry of responses filed this week, numerous parties said otherwise.

“Staying implementation of the [program] while the matter is appealed could result in irreparable harm to otherwise eligible low-income ratepayers,” wrote Robert Josey, an attorney with Public Staff, the state-sanctioned customer advocate.

And in a press release, a chorus of advocates including the state NAACP and the North Carolina Housing Coalition said it would be “shameful” if factories with monthly bills in the tens of thousands of dollars toppled the program over a fee that amounted to a rounding error.

“While large industrial and manufacturing customers are up in arms about an additional $1.70 a month, there are people all across our state struggling to keep the lights on,” said Mikaela Curry, field manager with the Sierra Club.

The notion that no one would be negatively impacted by the program’s suspension caused special alarm.

“It’s just not true,” said David Neal, senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, in an interview. “Tens of thousands of people would be prejudiced. It would be dreadful.”

Beyond its potential harm to low-income families, Neal says the industrial group’s legal challenge doesn’t make financial sense: It could easily cost more than its members’ $1.70 monthly charges. “It’s misguided and irrational,” he said.

Manufacturing customers will already see lower rate hikes than other customer classes, advocates pointed out to the commission. While Duke requested residential increases in the 20% range, they proposed 11% for some of their largest industrial customers.

Far from representing a cross-class subsidy, the $1.70 fee is most likely a bargain for large customers, who would otherwise chip in for unpaid bills from disconnected residential accounts.

“There’s great evidence in the record that it’s going to reduce the amount of bad debt otherwise recovered from all customer classes,” Neal said. “If you didn’t have any contribution from industrial customers, they would be getting a benefit without having paid the cost.”

He also dismissed the idea that the Utilities Commission needs explicit direction from the state legislature to implement the program.

For one thing, a 2021 law allows the panel to consider whether multi-year rate increase applications — such as that submitted by Duke — reduce low-income energy burdens. What’s more, Duke Energy Carolinas has run a much smaller assistance program for older, low-income customers since 1978, and the General Assembly has never objected.

“The idea that there’s something unlawful here,” Neal said, “doesn’t fit with the commission’s broad authority to set rates that are in the public interest and fair and reasonable.”

Still, the industrial group’s appeal, which the Republican-controlled state Supreme Court must hear by law, has high stakes. “They’re saying the commission does not have the authority to ever institute a low-income bill payment assistance program,” Neal said. “That’s really aggressive.”

The members of the Carolina Industrial Group for Fair Utility Rates are not publicized, but they originated with the pulp and paper industry and are separated according to which utility serves them.

While the Duke Energy customer groups have formed alliances with clean energy and low-income advocates before, executives at the prominent member Charlotte Pipe and Foundry Company have also denied climate science and decried renewables.

Christina Cress, the attorney representing the group’s entities before the Utilities Commission, declined to comment for this story, citing the pending case for Duke Energy Carolinas.

For now, consumer and clean energy advocates are looking to regulators to save the customer assistance plan.

“This program has the support of the public staff, Duke Energy, the utility commission, and advocacy groups across the state,” said Reggie Shuford, the executive director of the North Carolina Justice Center, in a release. “It should not be derailed by a group of faceless corporate entities.”

But Neal also holds out hope that the industrial group itself will reconsider its decision and reverse course.

“I really believe that most industrial customers in North Carolina want to be good corporate citizens,” he said. “If they really looked at this, they would be happy to pay $1.70 knowing that they’re contributing to something that improves the lives of the people of this state.”

He added, “that’s why I’m hopeful that there’s a path forward.”

Clarification: This story has been updated to remove a reference to a member of the Dominion Energy customer group. The Carolina Industrial Group for Fair Utility Rates is divided into separate organizations based on utility territories, and the company named in an earlier version of this story is part of a division not involved with the challenge.

The post N.C. manufacturers move to abolish Duke Energy customer assistance program, dismaying advocates appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

bp interim CEO denies U.S. shale acquisition claims, defends focus on energy transition

Energy News Beat

World Oil

(Bloomberg) – bp Plc’s temporary boss gave a robust defense of the company’s strategy, batting away suggestions that he needs to follow the big oil deals done by U.S. competitors Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp.

Source: World Oil

“We’re focused really on transition” to net zero emissions, Interim Chief Executive Officer Murray Auchincloss said on Tuesday. bp’s growth engines will be clean energy “and not the oil and gas side.”

Speaking at his first earnings presentation since taking the top job after the surprise resignation of former CEO Bernard Looney, Auchincloss reiterated his commitment to his predecessor’s plan and questioned the wisdom of acquisitions when crude prices are high.

“At $90 oil, I’m not sure it makes sense for us to pursue very many oil and gas transactions given the scale of our resource base,” Auchincloss said on a call with analysts.

In the past month, Exxon and Chevron agreed a pair of takeovers together worth more than $100 billion, both of which are intended to boost oil and gas production growth. The deals threaten to widen the oil and gas industry’s trans-Atlantic valuation gap as investors reward the U.S. majors for doubling down on the superior returns from fossil fuels.

“I feel very confident that we’ll be able to continue to close that gap over time,” Auchincloss said. “We’re seeing heavy U.S. investment into the company.”

bp has adjusted its low-carbon ambitions since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — pledging to keep its oil and gas output flat for the rest of this decade. In contrast, Exxon expects to more than double its production in the Permian shale formation through the takeover of Pioneer Natural Resources Co.

Auchincloss didn’t rule out bp deals altogether.

“If I can do something counter-cyclical, I will,” he said in a separate interview with Bloomberg. “If I can find barrels that are cheap, that we think fit well into our portfolio near our operations, then I will.”

However, when it comes to the U.S., Auchincloss said the company didn’t need to buy additional barrels. bp has 8 Bbbl of resources to develop in in its Paleogene reservoirs of the Gulf of Mexico and 7 Bbbl from its shale business BPX Energy.

“We don’t really feel we need more acreage,” Auchincloss said. “We’re very, very happy with our position in the U.S.”

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post bp interim CEO denies U.S. shale acquisition claims, defends focus on energy transition appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Commentary: The benefits of virtual power plants and solar in low-income communities

Energy News Beat

The following commentary was written by Larry Glover, a Maryland-based energy marketing & communications subject matter expert and community engagement specialist. See our commentary guidelines for more information.

We just lived through the hottest summer in recorded human history. From coast to coast, the United States set heat records, the brunt of which underserved communities felt the most

One thing we were fortunate enough not to experience this time were rolling blackouts due to energy shortfalls. But we came close. In Texas, for example, rooftop solar helped keep the state’s grid online during the hottest summer on record.

Despite its benefits, the real value of rooftop solar isn’t always acknowledged as a solution to climate change and the needs of our electricity grid. We have seen some states take the lead, but we must act quickly to leverage resources to benefit underserved communities.  

As climate disasters become more normal, our state and national grids will be tested more often. We can resolve this sad reality, however. Ensuring our nation’s clean energy movement is both inclusive and empowering has never been more important.

Here’s what I believe: Rooftop solar and batteries have a proven track record to deliver economic, community, and environmental benefits to everyone – and have the potential to positively impact our entire grid distribution for the better.

Not only are individual rooftop solar and battery systems critical for our clean energy future, but this technology can be connected and serve as a massive, distributed, power plant. Called a Virtual Power Plant (VPP), these networked systems can help bring value and grid stability and contribute to our clean air goals by reducing CO2 emissions.

For example, ConnectedSolutions has solar and battery system programs in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island. The goal is to lower grid costs for all residents. Replicable programs such as these make it easier for home and small businesses to share their clean electrons when the grid needs it most, bolster climate and clean energy goals and help to mitigate unnecessary costs to grid infrastructure.

If we take the best of what we know and apply it to low-income and underserved communities, we can create energy solutions with enormous benefit to the communities that need it most. Harnessing the benefits of VPPs and connecting rooftop solar and batteries will deliver benefits with far greater impact than any of those initiatives applied individually. Bills introduced in Michigan this year (HB 4840 and HB 4839) proposed not only to create a virtual power plant, but also provide additional, targeted incentives to get batteries into the low- and moderate-income (LMI) communities that have experienced the most severe impacts of power outages.

In 2022, more than 140 million people across the US were impacted by either rolling blackouts or calls to conserve power due to extreme weather. The proven reliability of local solar and batteries is paramount to ensuring that all of our communities stay safe.

Building virtual power plants in LMI communities offers immense potential for positive change. In fact, the Department of Energy recently just released a new report about the benefits of VPPs, and they found that tripling VPP capacity from 80 gigawatts to 160 gigawatts by 2030 could save ratepayers $10 billion per year in grid costs. Earlier this year, Brattle released a report that found that VPPs could save utilities $15-$35 billion in capacity investments over the next 10 years. Regardless of which study turns out to be accurate, the opportunity before us is immense. It can provide reliable and affordable electricity access while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We should easily conclude that rooftop solar is a necessary element in the energy solution for communities.

There is a risk, however, that these innovative solutions may inadvertently exacerbate existing inequities if not implemented with careful consideration. The first step is ensuring equal access to virtual power plant programs. This means providing opportunities for participation regardless of income level or location. By doing so, we can avoid creating a situation where only certain privileged individuals or communities can benefit from these advancements in energy technology.

It is imperative that we address equity concerns to ensure that all community members can reap the benefits of virtual power plants. Ensuring equitable access is crucial in creating a sustainable and inclusive energy future for LMI communities. Virtual power plants have the potential to revolutionize our energy systems by enabling decentralized generation and distribution of electricity.

It is important to consider the specific needs and challenges faced by marginalized communities. By actively involving communities in the planning and implementation processes, we ensure that their voices are heard, and their unique circumstances are considered.

The benefits of implementing virtual power plants with rooftop solar and batteries in LMI communities is a game changer. How else can we address energy affordability, grid reliability, reduced energy costs, job creation and community empowerment all within one focused initiative. We know it comes with its challenges and obstacles. However, as we search for long term solutions that prepare all communities for the great energy transition this is surely a way to leave no community behind.

 

The post Commentary: The benefits of virtual power plants and solar in low-income communities appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

U.S. crude production breaks records

Energy News Beat

Oil Price

U.S. crude oil production hit an all-time high in August, according to new data published by the Energy Information Administration on Tuesday, with production surpassing pre-covid levels. U.S. field production of crude oil reached 404.6 million barrels during the month of August, new EIA data shows, for an average of 13.05 million barrels per day–squarely breaking the previous record U.S. drillers set in July of 401.73 million barrels.

Source: Reuters

Increases in production were seen in PADDs 1, 2, 3, and 4, with the largest percentage increase in production seen in PADD 4, which comprises Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming. The largest actual increase was seen in PADD 2, which includes North Dakota, Illinois, and Kentucky, among other states.

Crude production in Texas in August—home to a large portion of the Permian Basin, rose from 173.775 million barrels to 174.562 million barrels.

Compared to this time last year, U.S. production is up by a total of 33 million barrels for the month.

The new record in crude production in the United States comes shortly after U.S. supermajor ExxonMobil spent $60B on purchasing another Permian player, Pioneer Natural Resources, although most oil companies in the United States have chosen fiscal restraint resulting in a slow and steady increase in output versus the no holds barred investment strategies during previous boom cycles.

Despite the record-breaking production levels seen in August, inventories of crude oil in the United States are estimated to be within 3 million barrels of where it began the year.

Analysts and traders have been watching drilling reports in the United States, with the latest count still 350 fewer active rigs than pre-pandemic levels.

WTI and Brent prices were trading flat to slightly up on Tuesday despite escalating tensions in the Middle East between Israel and Hamas. At 12:40 pm ET, WTI was trading flat at $82.31—within $.50 per barrel of the price point a day before Hamas attacked Israel on October 7.

By Julianne Geiger for Oilprice.com

 

The post U.S. crude production breaks records appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Marathon Petroleum tops profit estimates on strong fuel demand

Energy News Beat

Oil Price

Strong U.S. fuel demand helped Marathon Petroleum (NYSE: MPC) easily beat analyst estimates after reporting on Tuesday an adjusted net income of $3.2 billion for the third quarter of 2023. Adjusted earnings per share came in at $8.14, above the analyst consensus estimate of $7.75 compiled by The Wall Street Journal.

Source: Reuters

In the refining and marketing segment, adjusted EBITDA was $16.06 per barrel for the third quarter of 2023, down from $19.87 per barrel for the third quarter of 2022, due to lower market crack spreads.

The refining and marketing (R&M) margin for Marathon Petroleum was $26.16 per barrel for the third quarter of 2023, down from $30.21 per barrel for the third quarter of 2022.

Refining operating costs per barrel fell to $5.14 for the third quarter of 2023, versus $5.63 for the third quarter of 2022, primarily driven by lower energy costs, Marathon Petroleum said.

Crude capacity utilization was around 94%, resulting in total throughput of 3.0 million barrels per day (bpd) for the third quarter of 2023, the company said.

“The business generated $5 billion of net cash provided by operating activities and we returned $3.1 billion through share repurchases and dividends during the quarter,” President and CEO Michael J. Hennigan said.

“Demonstrating our commitment to return capital, we increased our quarterly dividend by 10% and increased our share repurchase authorization by $5 billion.”

Marathon Petroleum reported earnings days after Valero Energy (NYSE: VLO), the second largest U.S. refiner by capacity, opened the refiners’ earnings season, announcing last week higher-than-expected profits for the third quarter of 2023, amid continued strong product demand in America.

“Our refineries operated well and achieved 95 percent throughput capacity utilization, which is a testament to our team’s relentless focus on operational excellence,” said Lane Riggs, Valero’s CEO and president.

Phillips 66 (NYSE: PSX), however, missed analyst expectations despite stronger refining margins compared to the second quarter.

By Tsvetana Paraskova for Oilprice.com

 

The post Marathon Petroleum tops profit estimates on strong fuel demand appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Biden’s Alaskan oil plan is “major threat” to future drilling, ConocoPhillips executive warns

Energy News Beat

World Oil

(Bloomberg) – A century after the U.S. set aside a broad swath of northwest Alaska to be used as an emergency oil supply, the Biden administration is pursuing changes that could make it impossible to harvest crude from new leases in the 23 million-acre site.

Source: World Oil

The proposal for managing the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska has alarmed oil industry advocates who say it would thwart development in a crude-rich region the size of Indiana. Alaska’s congressional delegation said the Biden administration is “suddenly and dramatically reinterpreting the law so that it can treat 13.1 million acres” of the reserve “as de facto federal wilderness.” And a top ConocoPhillips Co. executive says the changes stoke uncertainty about future oil projects and infrastructure across the region.

The proposal “would discourage investment on the North Slope by adding more layers of permitting requirements and restrictions, even for existing leases,” Erec Isaacson, the president of ConocoPhillips Alaska, said in an interview Thursday.

The Interior Department argues a new framework is needed to balance development with environmental protections given the approach was last substantially updated in the early 1980s. It seeks to “raise the bar for development” in response to rapid warming in the region and accelerating degradation of the permafrost, the agency says.

The proposal would expand safeguards for current and future “special areas” across the preserve. At least once every five years, federal regulators would be required to designate new special areas for maximum protection because of their wildlife, scenic or other values. And those designations could not be undone unless the special values — wildlife, for instance — disappeared.

Oil industry concern has focused on provisions directing the government to presume oil leasing and infrastructure development “should not be permitted” even in areas of the reserve open for that activity unless there is specific information clearly demonstrating the work can be done with “no or minimal adverse effects” on the habitat.

The proposed rule upsets the current balance between energy production and conservation, ConocoPhillips’ Isaacson said. It “presumes permits shouldn’t be issued for energy production except in circumstances that are undefined and might be so narrow they even impact viability.”

The Interior Department has said the measure won’t affect “currently authorized oil and gas operations.” Isaacson said that includes his company’s mammoth 600 MMbbl Willow oil project, as approved earlier this year. Other companies with projects or holdings in the reserve include Spain’s Repsol SA and Oil Search Ltd.

Alaska’s congressional delegation successfully petitioned the administration to extend time for the public to weigh in on what it called “sweeping changes” that will affect local communities, existing leases, future leases and the infrastructure needed to connect tiny oil fields to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System.

The lawmakers — Democratic Representative Mary Peltola and Republican Senators Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan — said their initial review shows the plan “would result in unprecedented restrictions on a variety of activities across” the reserve. The proposal, they said, “fails to reflect the balance between oil and gas development and the protection of ecological and cultural values that is called for” in law.

 

The post Biden’s Alaskan oil plan is “major threat” to future drilling, ConocoPhillips executive warns appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Chevron expected to revitalize Bakken shale with Hess acquisition

Energy News Beat

Oil Price

Oil production in the Bakken shale play is set to increase after Chevron’s acquisition of Hess, although volumes are unlikely to hit the records seen before 2020, analysts have told Reuters. Last week, Chevron said it would buy Hess Corporation in an all-stock transaction valued at $53 billion with a total enterprise value, including debt, at $60 billion.

Source: Reuters

The Hess deal will give Chevron 465,000 net acres of high-quality, long-duration inventory in the Bakken supported by the integrated assets of Hess Midstream, Chevron said.

In the Bakken, Hess Corp’s net production was 190,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day (boepd) in the third quarter of 2023, compared with 166,000 boepd in the prior-year quarter, reflecting increased drilling and completion activity and higher NGL and natural gas volumes received under the percentage of proceeds contracts due to lower commodity prices.

According to analysts briefed by Reuters, Chevron is set to stick to the previous Hess plans for the Bakken shale play. Those plans entailed lifting the net oil-equivalent production to 200,000 boepd in 2025.

North Dakota, the home state of the Bakken, was the second-largest oil-producing state in the United States between 2012 and 2020, right after Texas, before being surpassed by New Mexico thanks to the part of the Permian it hosts.

Crude oil production in North Dakota has been rising this year, per EIA data, but it is still below the records from the end of 2019.

“In the Bakken, Hess holds a strong acreage position with a long queue of economic future drilling locations that will be added to Chevron’s advantaged shale and tight portfolio,” Chevron’s chief executive Mike Wirth said on the call with analysts to discuss the acquisition.

“The Bakken adds another prolific U.S. shale basin to our leading positions in the DJ and Permian, and we expect it will benefit from Chevron’s advancements in technology and performance as we aim to further improve recoveries and enhance returns,” Wirth added.

 

The post Chevron expected to revitalize Bakken shale with Hess acquisition appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Xcel Energy revives Minneapolis resiliency project with help of federal grant

Energy News Beat

A major federal grant will help Xcel Energy restart a Minneapolis microgrid project delayed earlier this year over cost concerns.  

Xcel Energy received a $100 million grant last week from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships program for resiliency and wildfire mitigation initiatives, including the Resilient Minneapolis Project. The utility also agreed to invest $140 million in the partnership grant.

The Resilient Minneapolis Project is an effort to build microgrids at the Minneapolis American Indian Center, the Sabathani Community Center and a resiliency hub in North Minneapolis. The utility had offered to provide and own battery storage systems at all three sites but pulled out in June, citing escalating costs.

Minnesota Public Utilities Commission member Valerie Means applauded Xcel’s decision to get the project back on track. 

“I appreciate the company’s pursuit of federal funds to support these investments in BIPOC communities,” she said. “The project had and has significant widespread support from stakeholders and site hosts, and many community organizations in Minneapolis.”

Means supports the project because it will provide resiliency hubs in diverse, low-income neighborhoods that often suffer outages during severe weather events. She said the commission was disappointed by Xcel’s decision to withdraw from the project earlier this year. After accepting Xcel’s withdrawal, the commission ordered the utility to file a new plan for moving forward within 180 days.

The project is part of a national movement by cities to create resilience hubs in disadvantaged neighborhoods. The city of Minneapolis began discussions with Xcel in 2019 focused on innovative clean energy-related pilots. Following the COVID-19 outbreak and the murder of George Floyd, the utility and the city decided on a proposal to build resiliency hubs in marginalized BIPOC communities.

The nonprofits selected are community centers in their neighborhoods that offer food shelves and other social services. Each is undergoing physical repairs — new roofs, an expansion, a necessary HVAC investment — this year and will be ready for microgrid installations next year. If and when severe weather or other challenges emerge, the microgrids will power the community centers, allowing first responders to offer medical care and residents to seek shelter, charge appliances and access food shelves.  

Xcel planned to spend $9 million in ratepayer money to install batteries at the three sites, with the nonprofits agreeing to buy solar panels and some equipment needed for their projects. In June, Xcel backtracked, saying battery storage system and supply chain issues had increased costs by 70% to $17.7 million. The withdrawal came a week after the Public Utilities Commission rejected half of Xcel’s requested electricity rate increase.

In a recent update to the commission, Xcel said it will use $9 million of the DOE grant for the Resilient Minneapolis Project. The commission earlier permitted Xcel to use $9 million in ratepayer money for the project. With the Resilient Minneapolis Project budget for battery storage now doubled to $18 million, Xcel will have enough money to cover increased costs without ratepayer exposure.

In an Oct. 18 letter to the commission about restarting the microgrid program, Xcel wrote that “there are many details to be worked out, but we wanted to share this exciting news as quickly as possible.”

Jamez Staples, founder of Renewable Energy Partners, developed the North Minneapolis Resiliency Hub, one of the three sites. The hub would place part of the microgrid on two schools and a nutrition center near Staples’ training and apprenticeship center. Renewable Energy Partners collaborated with Xcel and the other two nonprofits during the planning process for the Resilient Minneapolis Project.

Staples and his partner, Michael Krause of Kandiyo Consulting, question Xcel’s proposal to own the battery storage units. They believe the project members should possess the battery systems and use them to reduce their electricity bills.

“We’re still not in favor of the idea of Xcel owning the batteries,” Staples said. “We are focused more on community ownership for the microgrids and having the facilities utilize the solar and store the power that they could deploy during peak demand hours and have lower energy bills.”

Krause said resiliency still has a central role in the project. Minnesota has few microgrids today, making it imperative that the Resilient Minneapolis Project show the technology provides grid and community benefits. “We want to make sure that the models we’re creating are useful to other communities and show that [microgrids] can be done cost-effectively,” he said.

Xcel said it would collaborate with other Resilient Minneapolis Project partners and update the commission on the project in December.

 

The post Xcel Energy revives Minneapolis resiliency project with help of federal grant appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Electric vehicle charging legislation is urgent in Wisconsin, with federal funds at stake

Energy News Beat

Wisconsin will lose out on millions of federal dollars for electric vehicle charging infrastructure if the state does not pass legislation to allow stores or other owners of EV chargers to bill drivers for the amount of electricity they get when they plug in. 

Billing by the kilowatt-hour is a requirement to participate in the federal National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program, which has promised Wisconsin $78.6 million  and the chance to apply for a pot of $2.5 billion in competitive funding if it meets the program requirements. 

The goal of NEVI is to develop charging corridors along highways, with chargers available every 50 miles. 

Advocates are hoping for legislation that would make the change needed for federal funding, by enshrining in law that billing for electricity at an EV charger is allowed and would not make the owner a public utility. 

The legislature takes a break from Nov. 16 to January 16, hence advocates say time is of the essence to meet the March 2024 deadline for federal funding. 

Legislation allowing billing by the kilowatt-hour was introduced in 2021 but didn’t pass. Advocates say they are expecting Republican state Sen. Howard Marklein to introduce a bill this fall. A spokesperson for Marklein’s office said they expect the bill to be circulated for co-sponsors next week.

“We have a sense of urgency we didn’t have last year,” said Francisco Sayu, director of emerging technology for RENEW Wisconsin. “That limitation on electric vehicle charging stations has slowed down the Wisconsin market. We don’t have as many EV charging providers in the state as we could.” 

The Wisconsin Department of Transportation has a plan for deploying charging stations in keeping with the NEVI requirements, but the law change is needed to receive the funds. 

Currently in Wisconsin, entities from municipal governments to convenience stores that host chargers can only collect a parking fee or bill for the amount of time a vehicle is plugged in. 

“We may be the only state left in jeopardy of losing federal funding for EV corridors,” said Tom Content, executive director of the Citizens Utility Board of Wisconsin (CUB). 

The consulting firm EVAdoption reported that in fall 2021, there were 2,251 charging stations in Illinois, 1,226 in Minnesota and 881 in Wisconsin, including level one and two and fast-charging stations. There are 15,700 electric vehicles registered in Wisconsin, compared to 66,880 in Illinois and 24,330 in Minnesota, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Even adjusting for Illinois’ larger population, Wisconsin still lags on both fronts.

Electric vehicle advocates and owners say Wisconsin’s charging network is woefully lacking, making it harder to rely on an electric vehicle in the state. 

Corey Singletary, utility analyst for CUB, testified before the Public Service Commission about a road trip he took with his family in their electric Ford 150 Lightning pickup, from Madison to Minneapolis along Interstate 94. 

This heavily-traveled corridor proved difficult to traverse with an electric vehicle: at one Electrify America charging station, two out of four chargers were inoperable, there was a half-hour wait for the remaining chargers, and they delivered less power than expected. The family had a similar experience at a different charging station on the return journey. 

Singletary’s testimony came in a rate case for Xcel Energy, which is seeking the commission’s permission for its subsidiary Northern States Power Company to operate two fast-charging hubs. Singletary said CUB is in favor of the move. Ideally, he said, the state needs more chargers operated both by utilities and by public and private entities. 

“One of the questions is whether or not it’s appropriate for monopoly companies like the public utilities to own and operate EV charging stations,” Singletary said. “There is a concern or belief that utilities will be able to leverage their monopoly position to disadvantage other third parties.” 

But since the EV charging market is so nascent, more utility participation could actually jumpstart private investment. 

“If things can be provided more efficiently and effectively by a competitive provider, that’s great,” Singletary said. “But right now, there’s not really effective competition in the EV charging space, so the bar is very low. If you allow utilities like Xcel and MGE to kickstart this space and get some utility-owned chargers out there, and if they are all subject to regulation, you set a minimum bar for everyone else to clear, and that helps all consumers.” 

In a rate case before the commission, MGE is proposing to change to billing by the kilowatt-hour. Utilities are allowed to bill by the kilowatt-hour without legislation but still need commission approval for changes. 

MGE owns 53 EV chargers. That includes 13 DC Fast Chargers – eight of those at a fast-charging hub in downtown Madison – and 40 Level 2 chargers around the area. The utility charges $5 an hour for fast-chargers and $2 an hour for slow chargers. 

In testimony before the Public Service Commission, MGE rates director Brian Pennington noted that in 2017 most chargers could deliver about 50 kilowatts, and now many deliver 350 kilowatts. 

“This is a seven‐fold increase in power,” Pennington testified. “Likewise, auto manufacturers are increasingly rolling out EV models capable of charging at these higher DC currents. This equates to much more energy being transferred from the grid to the EV’s battery than was possible in previous EV models. Because the MGE public charging tariff has been based on the time spent charging instead of the energy delivered, newer and often more expensive models are able to take advantage of the existing billing structure.” 

MGE spokesperson Steve Schultz said that the utility wants to make sure ratepayers who don’t have EVs are not paying unfair amounts to subsidize the utility’s investments in EV charging infrastructure. The current billing model allows vehicles to get a lot of energy for a small fee, and MGE ratepayers are picking up the slack. 

“Energy-based public charging will better reflect the costs and benefits of the energy being delivered from the charger to the EV, and thereby reduce cost inequities among customers,” said Schultz. 

The EV charging issue in Wisconsin has dovetailed with an ongoing larger debate related to utilities protecting their turf as the energy landscape shifts. 

Wisconsin utilities have stridently opposed third-party ownership of solar installations, since — they argue — a company owning a solar installation and providing the energy to the homeowner, church, municipal agency or other entity means the developer is acting like a utility. Solar advocates have long asked the legislature, the Public Service Commission and the courts to provide clarity on the legality of third-party ownership of rooftop solar, so far to no avail. 

Meanwhile a bill that would allow third-party ownership of community solar is pending in the legislature. 

Utilities have similarly argued that a government or business charging by the kilowatt-hour at EV chargers means they are acting like a utility, selling electricity. That issue and the fact that charging a set fee is likely less lucrative makes it relatively unattractive for companies to develop EV chargers in the state.  

“It’s a very risky proposition to come to Wisconsin and risk being labeled a public utility,” said Sayu. “If I was a private investor looking to get into EV charging, I wouldn’t want to run the risk of becoming a public utility. Basically we just want an exception for EV charging, that you can sell electricity to the public [through chargers] without being regulated as a public utility, and that’s it.” 

Utilities still stand to benefit from privately-run EV chargers in their territory, since the entity running the charger ultimately needs to buy their electricity from the utility. 

Previously, utilities pushed for proposed legislation to ban EV charging hubs powered by on-site renewable energy, since that could disconnect them completely from the utility. This provision was unpopular with clean energy advocates. 

Sayu said that realistically an off-grid, renewable-powered EV charging station would not be a good financial proposition, and developers are unlikely to undertake such projects. Among other issues, NEVI funding requires that four vehicles be able to charge at once. 

“In order to do that from an off-grid EV charging station you’d have to have a significant amount of solar or wind and a significant amount of storage,” Sayu said. “If you were to build one of those stations today attached to the grid, you’re looking at spending between $700,000 to a million dollars. If you did it off-grid, you’re looking at $15-17 million. No one would build that in a state that has less than 1% EVs.”   

In other states, non-utility entities that operate charging stations generally can set their own prices. 

“Companies like EVGo and Electrify America have moved away from postage stamp pricing where all rates are the same, making it more locational,” said Singletary. “There is a move in the EV charging industry to have rates more reflective of cost of providing electricity to a particular charging station.” 

Such entities could theoretically charge different rates based on time of day too, to encourage charging at low-demand times, which could be seen as “economics 101,” Singletary said. 

But “if you are using a DC fast charger on a road trip to Chicago or Minneapolis, you really don’t have a choice — you need to charge when you need to charge,” hence a time-of-day rate would not be an incentive.   

“Now in the state of Wisconsin we don’t even have that opportunity to engage in that discussion,” Singletary said, “because everyone but public utilities is relegated to charging essentially a parking fee.”

Correction: Francisco Sayu of Renew Wisconsin estimated that building an off-grid electric vehicle charging station would cost between $15 million and $17 million. A previous version of this story misquoted the number.

 

The post Electric vehicle charging legislation is urgent in Wisconsin, with federal funds at stake appeared first on Energy News Beat.