AOBA Alliance, Inc. Selects Constellation NewEnergy as Energy Services Provider
WASHINGTON, Feb 23, 2010 (BUSINESS WIRE) — The AOBA Alliance, Inc., announced today that it has chosen Constellation NewEnergy, a subsidiary of Constellation Energy /quotes/comstock/13*!ceg/quotes/nls/ceg (CEG 35.00, +0.25, +0.72%) , as its new energy services supplier. The AOBA Alliance, Inc. has been assisting commercial customers in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia in the procurement of competitive energy services since the deregulation of electricity markets approximately 10 years ago. Over the past decade AOBA Alliance participation has grown to roughly 650 megawatts of peak load and nearly 3.0 billion kilowatt-hours of annual electricity sales. Through this new relationship, the AOBA Alliance has the potential to become Constellation NewEnergy’s largest retail customer and will provide an array of energy services to non-residential electricity and natural gas users throughout the metropolitan area.
“Our primary goal in negotiating with suppliers was of course, to obtain competitive pricing while maintaining the highly favorable contract terms and conditions that AOBA Alliance participants have enjoyed over the last decade,” said Frann Francis, senior vice president and general counsel for AOBA. “Constellation NewEnergy clearly demonstrated that, with this new partnership, the AOBA Alliance will be positioned to offer additional services while enhancing its overall value to participants.”
Constellation NewEnergy will provide AOBA Alliance participants with the ability to choose from a complete portfolio of energy services ranging from electricity and natural gas supply to renewable power solutions and energy efficiency programs.
“AOBA members can expect Constellation NewEnergy to be a committed energy services provider that will work to structure energy buying strategies to meet members’ economic and sustainability goals,” said Mark Huston, managing director of retail energy for Constellation Energy. “Most of all, Constellation NewEnergy will deliver the high level of customer service and streamlined energy procurement processes that AOBA Alliance participants expect.”
AOBA Alliance participants will now have access to the resources and expertise of Constellation NewEnergy, a national leader in the provision of energy service for commercial customers. Constellation NewEnergy is active in all competitive markets in the U.S. and is the chosen supplier to two-thirds of the Fortune 100 businesses, including such energy service options as energy efficiency projects, installation of on-site solar generation, and participating in demand response programs that financially compensate businesses for reducing electricity usage during periods of peak demand on the grid.
The renewable energy products offered by Constellation NewEnergy through the AOBA Alliance program will provide businesses with simple, low cost ways of meeting their sustainability objectives, including using renewable energy certificates (RECs) to match electricity usage. Program participants can also utilize Constellation NewEnergy’s comprehensive suite of Web-based tools (at www.newenergy.com) to help them manage costs, reduce overall power usage and access energy market updates.
About the AOBA Alliance, Inc.
The AOBA Alliance (www.aobaalliance.com), a subsidiary of the Apartment and Office Building Association of Metropolitan Washington, one of the largest customer-based energy aggregation groups in the US, offers the Washington region’s building owners and managers the opportunity to assert their collective buying power to achieve savings in the procurement of energy and energy-related services. Since its inception in 2000, the AOBA Alliance has saved participants over $500 million in electric and natural gas costs.
Subscribe to this blog's RSS feed
PPL’s off-peak prices can help save money
PPL Electric customers who haven’t selected a competitor to provide electricity might be eligible for an adjustable rate based on the time of day they use it.
Under the plan, customers will pay less for electricity consumed during low-demand times — such as evenings and mornings — but pay more for electricity consumed during peak-demand hours.
“It’s about giving the customer more choices,” said PPL spokesman Ryan Hill.
Prices PPL charges its customers went up about 30 percent this year as part of electric deregulation approved by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. Other companies are freely competing for new customers in the PPL service territory, which includes most of Monroe County.
Current PPL customers might reduce costs by opting for the time-of-use program, Hill said, but are still likely to reduce costs even more by selecting one of the competing providers.
“It’s not meant to compete with offers from competitive suppliers,” Hill said.
Competitors’ offers are for the cost of electricity, plus the cost those competitors pay to PPL to transmit that energy through PPL lines, and taxes. It is the so-called “rate to compare” cited in PPL customer mailings prior to deregulation on Jan. 1.
PPL is moving away from the business of supplying electricity while focusing its core efforts on operating the transmission system. Those who choose competitive suppliers will continue to receive a single bill from PPL that includes all charges.
For remaining PPL residential customers, the “price to compare” they currently pay is 10.445 cents per kilowatt hour. If those customers opt to join the time-of-use program, the “anticipated” off-peak non-summer use cost would be less — 10.157 per kWh — but on-peak use would be more — 13.709 per kWh.
To save money compared to PPL’s standard rate, customers would have to use considerably more power during off-peak hours than at on-peak hours. The good news is that only two hours each day — 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. — are considered peak hours between Jan. 1 and May 31, or October through December.
During the summer period — June through September — peak demand (and peak cost) hours are 1 p.m. through 6 p.m. Off-peak summer charge is 9.354 and the on-peak charge is 15.694.
PPL’s Web site provides an interactive energy calculator that consumers can use to see if the time-of-day program would save money.
“They can see where their energy dollars are going,” Hill said. “They can receive tips on how to save based on what they tell us about their home.”
Go to www.pplelectric.com/e-power.
Barrett-Paradise Friendly Library is hosting a PPL program today on energy-saving tips in the library’s community room at 1 p.m. Call the library at (570) 595-7171 to reserve a seat.
Lawmakers Want Awareness Of Electric Choice
Some Maryland lawmakers want the Public Service Commission to do more to advertise that residents have options in choosing electricity providers.
Delegate Dereck Davis gathered Thursday with leaders from the Retail Energy Supply Association to highlight legislation aimed at boosting public awareness about electricity options.
The measure would require the PSC to advertise how consumers can shop around for companies that can provide cheaper electricity.
Davis has introduced the House bill, while Baltimore City Democratic Senator Catherine Pugh introduced the Senate version.
Davis, a Prince George’s County Democrat who chairs the House Economic Matters Committee, says Maryland hasn’t done a very good job in letting people know what their options are.
The bills were introduced today as a coalition of electric companies and other groups released the results of a voter survey that found a majority favor electricity deregulation, but also a majority were unaware that they could choose their own electricity supplier.
Prince George’s County State Senator Jim Rosapepe told WBAL News the bills would allow utilities to raise electric rates to promote electric choice.
Jay Kooper, president of the Retail Energy Supply Association told WBAL News that Rosapepe’s claim of a rate hike is, “an exaggeration.”
He said the bill would draw money from the existing Public Service Commission budget, which is already funded by surcharges on electric bills.
Kooper said the legislation would require the PSC to have an electricity choice section on the commission’s website, as well as include inserts in consumer electric bills.
Robert Lang and Associated Press
Senate to vote today on APCo interim rate hike bills
The Virginia Senate is expected to approve identical Senate and House of Delegates legislation today that would suspend Appalachian Power Co.’s 12.5 percent interim rate increase until the State Corporation Commission rules on the rate hike request.
If that happens and the House approves the Senate bill, the compromise legislation is expected to go to Gov. Bob McDonnell next week, officials said. Del. Ward Armstrong, D-Collinsville, and House minority leader, said he has not talked with the governor, but he can’t imagine that McDonnell would not sign the bill. If he does, the legislation would go into effect immediately because it contains an emergency clause, officials said. Also, a bill introduced by Armstrong to return Appalachian to regulations in place in the late 1990s before deregulation was approved 7-4 by a House subcommittee Tuesday. That bill is scheduled to go before the House Committee on Commerce and Labor today, according to Armstrong and the General Assembly Web site. “As we speak,” Armstrong said late Wednesday afternoon, Appalachian Power “and their legion of lobbyists are pounding the halls of the General Assembly trying to kill my bill.” That indicates to Armstrong that the bill is “on the right track” and that “it’s going to be a tough fight to get this through committee.” The Senate bill to suspend Appalachian Power’s interim rate increase evolved from one originally introduced by Sen. Phillip P. Puckett, D-38th District. Puckett said he originally proposed a bill similar to one filed by Sen. Roscoe Reynolds, D-Ridgeway, to return Appalachian to regulations that existed before deregulation. The current bill, which a Senate committee substituted for Puckett’s original bill, was the result of a compromise between some legislators and Appalachian Power, Puckett said. “I agreed to have my bill changed to lift interim rates to give immediate relief to Appalachian Power customers,” he said. Under the House and Senate bills, Appalachian would suspend the interim rate increase until the SCC makes a ruling by July 15, “for rates to become effective for bills rendered on and after” Aug. 1. Puckett said that in the meantime he hopes to carry on negotiations with Appalachian Power to try to get rates that are fair to the company and customers and that allow the company to get a fair rate of return. He doesn’t think the rates are fair now, he said. Wednesday, Armstrong expressed concern that “last week (Appalachian Power) said they had reached an agreement with a number of legislators that in return for rolling back the interim rate increase that all other pieces of legislation would be defeated. The first inquiry I had was who made this deal? No deal was made with me. Moreover, why do we need to make a deal with” Appalachian that is not in the best interest of the public. Armstrong added that he is does not object to the lifting of the interim rate increase — “that’s a good thing — but it’s limited.” Armstrong said he has been told by the SCC that a customer using 1,000 kilowatt-hours a month would save about $12 a month if the interim increase was lifted. In his district, families use an average of about 1,200 kwh a month, which would be a $15 a month reduction. If the suspension of the interim rate increase is approved, it would last “maybe four or five months, and that’s all. I’ve characterized that as a good first step. By no means is that all we should be doing.” “We need to have regulatory reform regarding Appalachian. The only thing I know we can do quickly is go back to” the regulation that was in effect before deregulation, he said. Those regulations were in place for many years when Appalachian did not seek rate increases, he said. Another bill of Armstrong’s that is scheduled to come before a House committee today would consolidate, “or bundle,” Appalachian’s rate increase requests, he said. He added that in theory would result in lower increases. Todd Burns, corporate communications manager for Appalachian Power, said the company would like the interim-rate compromise bill that it worked out with most legislators in Appalachian’s service area to move forward. “It would provide immediate benefits for customers,” and he hopes it moves quickly, he said. Of Armstrong’s bill to return Appalachian to regulations in place before deregulation, Burns said, “we hope it goes nowhere. The bill would return Appalachian to a style of regulation that the General Assembly thought was outdated years ago.” He has said that much of the recent increase in electric bills is because of customers using more power because of prolonged cold weather.
By PAUL COLLINS
Why PG&E fears SSJID as well as Marin County
In order to sweet talk state politicians to deregulate them and other big power providers, PG&E proposed things such as helping irrigation districts enter the retail power business. After deregulation almost put the state in shambles they embraced another state-adopted concept known as community choice aggregation (CCA) to take the wind out of the backlash against PG&E.
The end result of deregulation was sky high power costs, roiling black outs, cutbacks in the PG&E rank-and-file to bolster corporate profits, and a shell game where PG&E created a holding company to allow the firm to essentially buy itself so they could re-depreciate assets to avoid taxes. And they did all this with state protection that assured them no matter how much they messed up they had an 11.45 percent profit margin. Naturally, they peeled off tens upon tens of millions of dollars for corporate toys such as a jet and big seven figure bonuses to the top echelon while shortchanging stockholders who saw a much smaller return.
PG&E is now crying foul because Marin County is actually moving forward to put a CCA in place.
The Marin Energy Authority – consisting of the county and most of its cities – has adopted a contract with Shell Energy North America to secure electricity from sources other than PG&E. The initial rates will match PG&E with the long range goal being to lower costs to customers.
PG&E would continue to own and operate the grid and would charge the authority for the cost of delivering the electricity to customers that sign on.
PG&E, of course, is howling louder than a Wall Street banker who got their bonus check slashed from $20 million to $5 million after receiving a taxpayer bailout to keep their company afloat. They are threatening not to deliver the authority’s power over PG&E lines and are whining that the authority should have been required to create an environmental impact report.
Too bad that the state law implicitly requires PG&E to deliver the power for communities that go with CCAs. Besides, it is not as if they are doing it for free or without profit. As for the environmental study, what is the impact? They are using the national electricity transmission backbone that is already in place plus using PG&E facilities. Is PG&E saying their current transmission system poses a threat to the environment? The only damage that is going to happen is to the environment of PG&E’s pocketbook since they won’t be able o make big profits off the sale of actual electricity and will have to settle for profiting from simply providing the transmission facilities in much of Marin County.
South San Joaquin Irrigation District wisely passed on going with community choice aggregation after PG&E two years ago lambasted the SSJID for not pursuing that instead of targeting a takeover of PG&E service territory in Manteca, Ripon, and Escalon. PG&E tried to whip up opposition to SSJID by saying CCA was a much safer and smarter move.
SSJID passed for two reasons. First, since they have their own hydroelectric generation they are in a position financially to indeed deliver bigger savings by being the retailer. Those savings will be at least 15 percent right -off-the-bat along with improved service. Second, and most important, they knew the PG&E echelon at Beale Street in San Francisco would ultimately do everything they could to block a CCA that would have saved less than actually taking over the system.
SSJID was the only irrigation district to try to enter the retail power business using PG&E’s promise codified in state law as part of a deal to secure deregulation PG&E strung SSJUD along for four years before the SSJID decided to try and start their own retail power system which is perfectly legal to do. Then PG&E stalled that by trying to block system inter-ties that state law allows. After that went nowhere fast and SSJID decided it made more sense to benefit everyone in the district instead of just a few power users that creating and building their own system would do. PG&E then offered to sell SSJID the dilapidated system near the Stanislaus and San Joaquin rivers to “help” them get into the retail business.
PG&E can ill afford Marin County to succeed. If their model works – and PG&E obviously knows it well – they will eventually start having lower power costs in Marin County than PG&E customers elsewhere. That will just encourage more CCAs to move forward.
SSJID is an entirely different case. PG&E knows that given SSJID’s hydroelectric arsenal and how well it has managed and operated its wholesale electric assets it is quite capable of delivering 15 percent savings out of the gate.
PG&E has been hiding behind state protection to essentially plunder and pillage the pocketbooks of its captive customers.
Champion Energy Services Wins Energy Contract With Carbon County, Pa.
HOUSTON, Feb. 2 /PRNewswire/ — Scott Fordham, president and chief executive officer, today announced that Champion Energy Services (www.championenergyservices.com) has secured a contract to provide electric energy for Carbon County, Pa.
The county held an electricity auction in mid-January to secure a better price for the 2.7 million kilowatt hours the county uses annually. Champion Energy was selected over eight competitors for the county’s 23-month fixed-price contract, effective February 1, 2010, which encompasses a ten percent green energy component.
Carbon County embarked on an auction scenario as a result of deregulation and electric rate hikes that took effect on January 1, 2010. In a deregulated environment, the county would have been paying PPL Electric approximately 30 percent more for its electricity during calendar year 2010.
Jason R. Ulshafer, principal of GreenPointe. Energy of Berwyn, Pa., hired by the county to execute the auction, confirmed that the switch to Champion Energy Services will save the county a significant amount of money on its electricity bill in 2010.
About Champion Energy Services
www.championenergyservices.com
Houston-based Champion Energy Services ranks among the top retail electric providers in the United States. Champion Energy currently serves residential, commercial and industrial customers in deregulated electric energy markets in Texas, Illinois and Pennsylvania and is slated to enter the Ohio market in 2010. The company serves 350,000 residential customer equivalents, with a peak load near 1,000 Megawatts. Champion Energy is backed by the financial strength of Texas-based Crane Capital. PUCT No. 10098.
SOURCE Champion Energy Services
RELATED LINKS
http://www.championenergyservices.com
Homeowners can lessen costs of energy
SOMERSET — Residents might be able to get a smaller increase in electric rates come next January than they otherwise might.
OnDemand Energy Solutions of suburban Pittsburgh aspires to work with Chambers of Commerce in Greater Johnstown to buy power in bulk for Penelec residents, passing the savings on to homeowners.
The company already is doing just that in PPL’s service area.
Rates went up Jan. 1 but, for OnDemand customers, not as high as they would have otherwise.
The hitch is that any discounts only would be available to employees of companies working through the Chamber of Commerce, said John Bodine, OnDemand vice president. The program is not available yet.
The latest estimates call for Penelec rates to rise 24 percent with the Jan. 1 deregulation.
“There are two ways to try to lessen costs:?On the supply side, with the lowest kilowatt hour (price), and to be on the lookout for energy-efficient incentives via Act 129,” he said. Bodine addressed residential costs after delivering a 90-minute class teaching businesses how to cut power costs.
Act 129 of 2008 mandates that electric companies cut overall use of power by customers by 1 percent by May 2011 and by 3 percent by May 2013.
The law will be enforced by potentially millions in dollars in fines that the state may levy against utilities, said Scott Surgeoner, spokesman for FirstEnergy, Penelec’s parent company.
“If you and I were each to make a series of small changes – not lifestyle changes – that 1 and 3 percent is totally realistic across the state of Pennsylvania,” Surgeoner said.
He suggested that people use fluorescent bulbs instead of incandescent, fans instead of air conditioning, close blinds during summer when the sun is hot, and switch to programmable thermostats and Energy Star appliances.
If Penelec’s incentives are approved by the Public Utility Commission, the company could offer rebates on programmable thermostats and efficient appliances. PUC approval is expected within weeks.
Rebates would be retroactive to Jan. 1 of this year, at least, Surgeoner said.
Free home energy audits – energy use analyses – would be available on the Internet, he said.
Customers will know of these programs through fliers in with their electric bills, separate mailings and local workshops.
As for kilowatt-hour cost comparisons between utilities, they can be found on the Web site of the Office of Consumer Advocate, Surgeoner said. That site is oca.state.pa.us.
By BERNIE HORNICK
The Tribune-Democrat
The AE Generation Plan’s Latest Monkey Wrench
On Thursday (Jan. 28), City Council discusses Austin Energy’s 2020 generation plan proposal, hoping to establish the right mix of traditional and renewable energy resources to power Austin’s homes and businesses through the next decade. Despite nearly two years of deliberation on the plan – and support for AE’s proposal from the Electric Utility Commission, the Resource Management Commission, and the Austin Generation Resource Planning Task Force – council is unlikely to be making any quick decisions. While the proposal fulfills Austin Climate Protection Plan goals, critics have charged it doesn’t go far enough, especially when it comes to phasing out coal; others have balked at the potential costs. As public debate has focused on balancing these issues, officials looking ahead to the next legislative session have hit upon yet another troubling concern: potential deregulation of Texas’ municipally owned utilities.
If publicly owned utilities such as AE were to some extent privatized and forced to compete in Texas’ energy market, the city of Austin could lose a substantial chunk of its income. (About 20% of the city’s money comes from utility fund transfers; it’s unclear whether deregulation would affect the entire AE amount or just a portion.) Rumors began circulating last fall that generation-plan skeptics might support deregulation efforts in 2011, in retaliation for passage of the plan, but supporters held their ground. “There certainly are always rumors about the industrials going to the Legislature asking for Austin to be deregulated,” said Public Citizen’s Tom “Smitty” Smith at the time. “And we fully expect they will, whether or not” AE takes a position favorable toward them, he added. Meanwhile, John Sutton of the Building Owners and Managers Association – a member of both the AE task force and the Coalition for Clean, Affordable, Reliable Energy, one of the most vocal critics of the plan – says he knows of no such efforts. “That [deregulation] was one of the things that we [at CCARE] threw out there as a possibility,” said Sutton recently, referring to discussions last fall, “but it didn’t really go very far.”
City staff and council members couldn’t point to a specific person or group professing to support deregulation, but several said the possibility can’t be ignored. City Council Member Bill Spelman said such opposition has “largely been motivated by folks who don’t realize our costs are going to go up anyway.” Still, he said, there’s reason to believe that the Lege is watching Austin. Last week, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst issued interim charges to the Senate Business and Commerce Committee to “study the generation costs of municipally owned electric utilities’ planned generation portfolios.”
“It doesn’t say, ‘Let’s talk about opening Austin up to competition.’ I think that’s what everybody’s reading into it, and I’m not even sure whether that’s appropriate. Maybe we shouldn’t be reading anything into it,” said Spelman. Nonetheless, he said, “I think we need to take it very seriously.”
While the generation plan remains on council’s regular Thursday agenda, the deregulation issue may stay behind closed doors for now, as council has also scheduled an executive session “to discuss or take action on a ‘competitive matter’ of Austin Energy.” The generation plan debate is likely to drag on for at least another month; city staff are planning a public forum on the plan for mid- to late February.
BY NORA ANKRUM
PPL sees 18% of customers switch suppliers
Retail electrical choice is off to a fast start in PPL Electric territory.
Nearly a quarter million PPL Electric Utilities Corp. customers – 18 percent – had switched to alternative power suppliers as of Monday, the Allentown utility said.
And state officials expect that more PPL customers will sign up with discounted suppliers after they glimpse their bills, which reflect a 30 percent increase for power consumed after Jan. 1.
“When people see that high bill – especially if they’re a heating customer and it’s a high winter bill – that’s certainly going to arouse more interest in switching power suppliers,” said Pennsylvania Consumer Advocate Irwin A. “Sonny” Popowsky.
Caps on PPL’s rates came off Jan. 1, and the utility’s 2010 default rate, based on power purchased from 2007 to 2009, increased 30 percent.
But alternative suppliers, which can buy wholesale power at current market rates, are offering discounts of more than 10 percent off PPL’s current retail rates.
The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission has certified eight alternative suppliers for PPL customers, including two that offer renewable power at a higher cost than PPL’s default rate of 10.45 cents per kilowatt hour.
According to the consumer advocate’s Web site – www.oca.state.pa.us – Gateway Energy Services Corp. is currently offering the best fixed-rate price for PPL customers: 9.35 cents per kilowatt hour for a 12-month contract.
A customer who uses 1,000 kilowatt hours a month would save $11 a month, “which I think is significant,” Popowsky said.
PPL Electric, which serves 1.2 million customers in eastern and central Pennsylvania, is encouraging customers to shop around because the utility does not lose money on customers who choose alternative suppliers.
Customers who choose an alternate supplier still get billed and serviced through PPL, which collects a standard fee for distributing the power through its lines.
Of 248,000 PPL customers who have switched, 205,000 are residential, said Ryan Hill, the utility’s spokesman.
Deregulation in PPL territory has more than doubled the number of Pennsylvania electrical customers who get power supplied by independent operators. Nearly 414,000 customers statewide are served by alternative suppliers, according to the consumer advocate.
Rate caps will remain in place in Peco Energy Co. territory through the end of 2010, when customers of the state’s largest utility are expected to get offers from alternative suppliers.
By Andrew Maykuth
Contact staff writer Andrew Maykuth at 215-854-2947 or amaykuth@phillynews.com
House lawmaker pushes power authority bill
HARRISBURG – A veteran House lawmaker is renewing a push for a bill to give the state a greater role in stabilizing electric rates and building new power plants.
The House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee will hold a hearing Wednesday on legislation to create a Pennsylvania Power Authority to buy power directly from wholesale suppliers under long-term contracts with the aim of securing cheaper prices.
The authority would sell this power to utilities. Ratepayers would benefit because the cost of electricity would be less susceptible to short-term price fluctuations in the wholesale market, proponents said.
“By creating a consumer-driven public power agency, Pennsylvania would free itself from the yoke of a broken wholesale power market condemning us to double-digit rate increases,” said Rep. Camille George, D-74, Houtzdale, the committee chairman and bill sponsor.
The authority also would finance construction or expansion of electric generating plants through direct investment or by providing low-interest loans.
Utilities have not built new generating plants in Pennsylvania during the past decade even though that was touted as a benefit of the state’s electric deregulation law, said George. Under the bill, the authority would consist of five members representing consumers, business, industry and agriculture.
George considers his legislation an alternative to the 30-percent electric rate hike for PPL residential customers that took effect Jan. 1 after decade-long rate caps were lifted.