Ohio Environmental Law Blog : Ohio Environmental Lawyer & Attorney : Joseph Koncelik : Frantz Ward Law Firm : Environmental Regulation, Land Use, Compliance : Cleveland, Ohio

Ohio's best hope for reducing its overwhelming dependence on coal for electricity generation is  biomass.  While wind and solar have significant benefits, it is unquestioned that current technology does not allow these renewable sources to be forms of base-load power generation. 

Biomass does have that potential in Ohio, as is evidenced by the recent announcements of the conversion of 312-megawatt First Energy's Burger coal-fired power plant to biomass generation.  Now that proposal is meeting opposition by environmental groups. As reported in Biomass Magazine:

The Ohio Environmental Council and Consumers’ Counsel have asked the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio to reject FirstEnergy’s request for classification of its project as a renewable energy facility on the grounds that it has not provided enough information to warrant the qualification...The two agencies are now requesting dismissal of the application altogether.  “The whole state could be deforested to produce energy for this one project.” (attorney OEC)

Opposition to the First Energy proposal will undoubtedly make movement toward biomass as a replacement for Ohio's coal dependence much more difficult. 

Studies have confirmed that biomass presents the best hope for Ohio re-aligning its generation portfolio. A 2004 study by The Ohio State University analyzed the potential of biomass as an source of electricity generation in Ohio:

Recent studies illustrate that Ohio as a relatively large biomass resource potential.  Among the 50 states, Ohio ranks 11th in terms of herbaceous and wood biomass and 4th in terms of food waste biomass.  As a result, using renewable biomass fuels in Ohio could lead to an estimated 27.6 billion in kWh of electricity, which is enough to fully support the annual needs of 2,758,000 average homes, or 64% of the residential electricity use in Ohio.

Now a new study calls into question a long held belief regarding the benefits of biomass power. It has always been assumed that biomass is better than fossil fuels in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The assumption is based upon the "carbon cycle:"

Through photosynthesis, biomass removes carbon from the atmosphere, thus reducing the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide, a major contributors to global warming.  When biomass is burned to produce energy, the stored carbon is released, but the next grown cycle absorbs carbon from the atmosphere once again.  (Public Utilities Commission of Ohio Webpage on Biomass Energy)

A new study now questions the "carbon cycle" benefits of biomass power.  It comes from a State that has historically been a very strong supporter of biomass energy- Massachusetts.   The Biomass Sustainability and Carbon Policy Study, released in June 2010, addresses the following issues:

• Sustainable forest management and ecological implications of biomass harvesting
• Carbon sequestration of forests with and without forest management
• Net effect of biomass energy on atmospheric carbon balance
• U.S. and international policies in regard to biomass and carbon neutrality

The study concludes that use of forest biomass actually has greater emissions of CO2 (a greenhouse gas) than commonly utilized fossil fuels.  The chart below from the study shows forest biomass (wood) generates 31% more CO2 than coal.

Does the conclusions of this study mean Ohio should no longer consider biomass as having the best renewable energy potential?

I don't think that is the case.  As discussed numerous times on this blog, the cost of coal is going to increase as a result of ever tightening environmental requirements (ozone & fine particle standards, MACT (mercury), revamped CAIR).  This doesn't even include eventual climate change regulations that target reductions from existing sources. Therefore, there is a very strong incentive for Ohio to continue to quickly re-balance its power generation portfolio. 

 Certainly the other benefits of biomass remain unquestioned.  These include:

• Renewable resource- sustainability of the resource
• Non-CO2 pollutant reductions
• Only alternative energy source with immediate base-load power potential

While development of biomass continues to make sense, it is important to continue to question assumptions regarding any alternative resource.  The recent Massachusetts study is worthy of consideration when making strategic decisions regarding re-balancing Ohio's generation portfolio.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On April 15, 2009 the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio finally adopted the long awaited rules that will govern Ohio's energy efficiency requirements and its Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard (AEPS).  Ohio was one of the last states to have adopted a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS)- more broadly defined as a AEPS in Ohio.  However, as one of the largest energy intensive states in the Country the finalization of the rules will surely spur growth of "green energy" related business in Ohio.

As a former regulator, a frequent mantra in describing the decision making process was- "if both sides are unhappy then you know you did your job well."   Well the Commission appears to have followed that mantra in responding to the vast amount of comments that were filed on the rules.  It sided with the Utilities on many issues and it sided with consumer and green groups on many issues.  It rejected many suggestions and complaints by Utilities and it rejected many suggestions and complaints by consumer and green groups.

The rules cover three major aspects of S.B. 221 passed by the Ohio Legislature in the summer of 2008:

1. Energy Efficiency and Demand Reduction Programs
2. Alternative and Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards
3. Greenhouse Gas Reporting and Carbon Dioxide Control Planning

Here is a brief recap of the changes made in response to comments.

Energy Efficiency and Demand Reduction Programs- The Commission completely restructured the rules governing energy efficiency and peak demand reductions.  The Commission revisions where designed to "reflect a focus on the program planning and review process."

• Cost Effectiveness- added new definitions of "cost effective" and "total resource cost test" that are applied to energy efficiency programs.
• Procedures for Review of Compliance Plans-  New hearing requirements were added on the planned portfolio of programs offered by an electric utility to meet energy efficiency benchmarks.  The hearing requirement was added in response to criticism that the benchmark review process be opened up and follow traditional Commission rate case procedures.
• Independent Auditors- Commission requires use of independent program evaluators (hired by the Utility but work at the direction of Commission Staff) to review and verify claimed energy savings and peak-demand reductions
• Calculating the Baseline for  Measuring Efficiency Improvements- the baseline will be measured by a "rolling average" of the last three years of kilowatt hours purchased instead of a fixed average of 2006 through 2008.  The Commission basically rejected claims by Utilities that using a rolling average keeps raising the bar because it incorporates the energy efficiency improvements each year.  As a result, the Utilities argued the energy saving requirement is closer to 39% than the 22.2% required in S.B. 221
• Banking "Overcompliance"- Commission will allow Utilities to "bank" over compliance with the energy efficiency benchmark and apply the overcompliance to future years
• Adjusting for Economic Growth- Baseline can be adjusted to account for either growth or reductions in economic growth.  The idea is to remove the influence of a changing economy on achieving energy efficiency improvements
• Mandated Efficiency Improvements- Utilities cannot count energy savings that result from customer installed appliances or equipment that are mandated by law including the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007

Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard- S.B. 221 splits the 25% of electricity energy by 2025 standard into two separate benchmarks- one for "alternative energy" sources and another for "renewable energy sources."  The rules put a lot more teeth into the renewable energy benchmark, including specific interim benchmarks. 

Overall, the Commission did not address significant concern with some of the loose aspects of the Alternative Energy benchmarks.  These include the definition of what constitutes "Clean Coal" as well as what can be counted toward meeting the Alternative Energy Benchmark.  However, as detailed below, the Commission did put teeth into the "cost cap" provisions associated with compliance with either benchmark.

• RFP- Rejected a suggestion that renewable and alternative energy be procured through a Commission sponsored RFP process to ensure transparency
• Biomass- with regard to wood resources, the Commission allows use of wood and paper manufacturing waste, urban wood and tree residues, forestry residues, forest management or other land clearing.  However, forest resources must be from "sustainable forest management operations."
• Clean Coal- the Commission rejected criticism that the current rule would provide credit to technology that is "designed" to reduce CO2 irregardless of whether the reductions are actually achieved.
• Co-firing- will qualify as a renewable energy resource as determined by the proportion of energy input from the renewable energy resource.
• "Delivered into this State"- Commission will still require a power flow study and/or deliverability study to show power in the PJM or MISO transmission systems are deliverable into the state.
• Distributed Generation- renewable energy credits (RECs) generated from distributed energy sources belong to the owner of the equipment
• "Double Counting"- cannot use one project to meet both the energy efficiency benchmarks and the AEPS
• "Unbundling"-  Cannot unbundle other positive environmental attributes associated with creation of a REC and sell those attributes separately.  The classic example is you cannot sell the climate change CO2 reductions as well as RECs from one project.  You will have to choose with credits are more valuable
• Energy Storage- by itself cannot be considered a renewable energy resource
• Cost Cap- rejected utilities argument that the advanced energy and renewable energy cost caps be aggregated as one 3% cap. Also, rejected claim that the 3% increase is measured by isolating cost of generating the renewable or alternative energy.  Rather, the cost cap is triggered only if overall cost of supplying all forms of electricity rises more than 3% in order to meet the alternative energy or renewable energy benchmarks.  This ruling makes it far more difficult for Utilities to trigger the cost cap provisions.
• "Catch-up Provision- Commission effectively drops the requirement that future year benchmark compliance requirements be increased by the amount of undercompliance of the previous year due to the 3% cost cap

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Requirements

The Commission rejected concerns raised by Utilities regarding the mandate in the rules to become participating members in the Climate Registry.  The Commission noted that  S.B. 221 requires reporting and tracking of CO2 emissions must be performed.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On August 20, 2008, the Public Utility Commission of Ohio (PUCO) put forth proposed rules governing alternative and renewable energy sources.  The rules main purpose was to govern implementation of the State's new Advanced Energy Portfolio Standard (AEPS) established in Senate Bill 221.  The AEPS is broader version of a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) adopted by other states which mandates a certain percentage of power come from designated renewable energy sources.

The PUCO set a very aggressive public comment period in an attempt to finalize the rules quickly.    The comment period closed on September 26, 2008.  In the short month long comment period, the PUCO received hundreds of pages of divergent comments on the proposed rules. (See my prior post: Issues with proposed rules governing the AEPS)  Since closure of the comment period, the PUCO has failed to developed a second version of the rules. 

Today, a company filed a new letter on the docket which discusses the real world impacts of the delay in finalizing the rules governing the administration of the AEPS in Ohio.  Until the rules are finalized, no one knows what the renewable energy credit (REC) market will look like in Ohio.   A REC is the certificate issued to generators of renewable energy sources.  The certificate can be sold to the utilities to meet their compliance requirements with the AEPS.  REC are seen as a way to encourage renewable energy development.

The problem is that there are so many questions left regarding the construction of the rules, no one can set a reliable price for RECs. S.B. 221 contained a cap on REC prices of $45 per megawatt which certainly is the ceiling on REC prices in Ohio.  However, that leave a huge range in potential prices that is highly dependent on the construction of the rules.

The compliance period for the AEPS in Ohio begins in 2009.  Without an established market projects will get delayed.  This will make it far more difficult for Utilities to comply with the AEPS mandates.  In 2009, Utilities must develop or purchase .25 % of their total generation capacity from renewable energy sources.  While a quarter of a percent may seem tiny, in an energy market as big as Ohio's there will be a significant need for RECs.

In 2008 Ohio generated 13,000 megawatts of power.  A quarter percent means the REC compliance market in 2009 will be around 32,500 megawatts.  This is certainly enough to drive a significant amount of project develop in the State. 

Until the rules are established, the market for RECs will be uncertain.  Without this needed certainty many will delay moving forward with projects.  Of the states with an RPS, Ohio was one of the last states to establish an RPS.  This has meant Ohio has been late to the game in attracting investment and green jobs related to the renewable energy market.  The rules need to be finalized quickly so that Ohio doesn't lag further behind. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks