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

A few weeks back I was contacted by the Cleveland Council on World Affairs (CCWA) to meet with a small delegation of representatives from Serbia who were interested in learning about environmental regulations, specifically those that relate to solid waste and/or recycling. While I was to be interviewed by the delegation members, I think I learned much more even though I wasn't asking the questions.  Here is a bit of background on the CCWA from their e-mail invitation:

The Cleveland Council on World Affairs (CCWA) hosts international leaders from all over the world year-round. Each year the CCWA hosts over 400 foreign nationals to meet and confer with their professional counterparts and to experience America firsthand. The visitors, who are selected by American Foreign Service Officers and U.S. Embassies overseas, are current or potential leaders in government, politics, the media, education, the arts, business and other fields. This program is sponsored and funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)

Members of the delegation worked in the following areas:

• Journalist reporting on environmental issues
• Manager of an electronic waste recycler
• Member of a trade association for chemical manufacturers
• Manager for a public utility company
• Members of Environmental Groups
• Local Government
• Green business consultant
• Small business owner with recycling operation

What jumps out at me from the list above is that you have the same cross-section of organizations and individuals involved in environmental policy in the U.S.  Each individual is interested in representing their own constituents, business or advancing their own environmental principles. 

During the exchange I was asked to describe various regulatory challenges faced by businesses.  I was also asked, generally, about general attitudes of citizens toward protecting the environment or environmental issues.  Here are a few interesting observations or conclusions I made from the meeting:

1. Management of Electronic Waste-  The delegation was interested to learn that there were no mandates requiring individuals or businesses to recycle electronic waste in Ohio.  I was pressed on this point several times by members of the delegation.  They thought it was interesting that any citizen could carry his old TV out to the corner to be thrown away in a landfill.   Here is Ohio EPA guidance encouraging recycling of electronic waste. 
2. Used Tires-  While I think elimination of used tire piles is one of the biggest environmental success stories in the State of Ohio, the delegation provided a different perspective.  The laughed and smirked when told that an individual was allowed to accumulate 23 million tires on their property (Kirby Tire Pile).  For a country known for its sophisticated (if not overly complex) environmental regulations, it is somewhat odd this slipped through the cracks.  As a result, Ohio was forced to enact a new tax on tires and it took nine years to clean up the Kirby Tire Pile.
3. Renewable Portfolio Standards-  I was asked to provide some pretty detailed information regarding Ohio's Advanced Energy Portfolio Standard, including use of alternative compliance payments and renewable energy credits (RECs).  I was told that Serbia was working toward a RPS standard.  I thought it was interesting that a small European country was developing a very sophisticated energy program.
4. Jobs and the Environment-  I was asked to comment on general attitude of the public on environmental issues.  Some were interested in understanding how those attitude vary depending on what state you called home.  Overall, there seemed to be general understanding among the delegation of the interplay between the economy and environmental regulation which challenged my perception those debates were less heated in Europe than in the U.S.  Just like in the U.S., I got the feeling there was a wide range of opinions within the room.  Those opinions can change with time as well.  As noted in CNN recent poll on attitudes of Americans towards the root cause of global warming.

Overall, some of my own perceptions or paradigms regarding environmental regulation were challenged.  It usually takes someone or a group of people from the outside to get you to re-examine your own perceptions.  I found it very enlightening even though I didn't get to ask a single question. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Here is a quick update on some of the important changes that were or were not included in the Ohio Budget (H.B. 1) that impact environmentally related issues and Ohio EPA's budget:

ERAC Deadlines-   As discussed in my previous post, the Ohio Budget included mandatory deadlines placed on ERAC for making determinations on appeals filed before the Commission.  Environmental groups wrote a strong letter to the Governor requesting a veto the ERAC deadlines.  The Governor did not veto the provision, however it appears likely the language will be tinkered with in the Budget Corrections Bill. 

Extension of Deadline for Construction after Issuance of Air PTI:  All air permits for construction and installation of new sources in the State of Ohio include a requirement that the permit expires after eighteen (18) months if construction of the source has not been completed.  An appeal of an air PTI can complicate financing efforts for projects.  Banks may not provide financing while an appeal is pending.  To address this and other issues associated with the construction deadline, the Budget Bill included new language that allows extension of that deadline for any of the following reasons (copy of amendment for exact language):

• Owner has undertaken a continuing program of installation or modification during the eighteen-month period
• Owner entered a binding contract for construction of the source within the eighteen month period
• Director of Ohio EPA issues an extension
• The air PTI is the subject of an appeal by a third party receives an automatic extension based upon the number of days the permit was under appeal
• Original permit is superseded by a subsequent air PTI

$1.25 increase in Solid Waste Tipping Fee to fund Ohio EPA:  The municipal solid waste tipping fee was increased by $1.25 a ton which raises the total fee from $3.50 a ton to $4.75 a ton. Of the increase, .25 goes to ODNR for the Soil and Water Conservation Districts. The remaining $1.00 will go to Ohio EPA to support its programs.  

The tipping fee increase was included, in part, to address a reduction in the amount of solid waste going into Ohio's landfills.  As the fee continues to increase, businesses will have a greater incentive to look for alternative ways to dispose of industrial waste other than sending it to a solid waste landfill.  One such option is beneficial use of the material.  Ohio EPA has yet to to release its second draft of the beneficial use rules, however, as costs of disposal increase interest in this option will rise.

Spending Authority Caps:  While the Legislature agreed to restore the $1.25 increase in tipping fees, it failed to remove the spending caps that were placed on Ohio EPA fee accounts in the Senate.  The practical ramification is that even though the accounts have fee revenue, Ohio EPA will be prevented from spending the revenue to support its staff and programs.  Ohio EPA intends to seek removal of the spending authority caps through the Controlling Board.  If Ohio EPA gets support from business groups it appears likely the caps will be removed and possibility of dramatic staff reductions appears unlikely.

Rejection of the Expansion of Renewable Energy Projects-  Ohio has one of the broadest definitions for what qualifies as "renewable energy source" for purposes of meeting the State's Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS).  Efforts were rejected to expand the definition to include burning of solid waste.

• 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

Governor Ted Strickland made his State of the State speech today.  While almost the entire speech was focused on education there were a few interesting nuggets relative to Ohio's progress in developing green jobs. 

"Over the last three years, Ohio has led the nation with 350 new or expanded facility projects in the renewable energy sector.

 Take solar energy, for example. The Toledo area has become an international center for solar research and production, with more than 6,000 people working in the solar industry. First Solar and Xunlight (Zun-light) both launched major expansions just this past year.

 All across the state we’ve seen advanced energy creating opportunities."

Later in the speech Strickland discussed Ohio's efforts to incorporate energy efficiency requirements into new government buildings:

Together we took the school building program that Governor Taft and the legislature created, and we expanded it to fund hundreds of new and renovated school buildings. And our new schools are being built to efficiency standards that will reduce our energy costs for the life of the building. In fact, Ohio has the largest energy efficient school building program in the nation.

The Governor should be commended for creation of a Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (Ohio calls it an "Advanced Energy Portfolio Standard").  His initial proposal was greatly improved upon in the Legislature.  However, the rules governing implementation of the RPS seem to be currently stuck at PUCO after the Commission was flooded with comments on how to improve them.  Without improvement we stand to lose the momentum gained through passage of the energy legislation.

The Governor also included Advanced Energy Grant Funding in the Job Stimulus package passed recently.  However, the size of the grants ($250,000 for non-coal projects) seem to be too small to attract major new development to the State.

Is Ohio losing the momentum on attracting green jobs and economic development? 

President Obama has made clear his priority is renewable energy, climate change and green jobs.  Given Ohio's importance in the election this seems like a perfect fit to start getting Ohio out of its economic crisis and create the jobs of the future. Unfortunately, the Governor included no new proposals or ideas for how to build on Ohio's recent momentum in his State of the State address. 

Many states recognize the huge changes that are coming as a result of climate change and energy.  Unfortunately, Ohio lags these other states in developing and attracting the talent to truly lead in these areas.  As purely anecdotal evidence, when I attend national conferences that discuss these issues I will sometimes be the sole representative from Ohio. Meanwhile the New England States and West Coast dominate these conferences. 

Granted I don't attend every conference in these areas, but Ohio has certainly not lead on renewable energy.  It was the 26th state to pass an RPS.  Ohio has not lead at all on climate change. Its efforts have been focussed on resisting rather than improving climate change proposals. 

When the major policy changes on climate change and renewable energy are put forward, where do you think the jobs will go? 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The gloom and doom of today's economy, especially in Cleveland, is covered almost daily.  Job's have been disappearing from the area at a rapid clip.  The front page of the Cleveland Plain Dealer has almost been dedicated to breaking the bad news.  See, Plain Dealer Article "Northeast Ohio Job Loses Spread."

The Article includes the graphic to the left which shows areas of job growth and declines.  The question swirling around Norheast Ohio is how to get the overall economy growing again. 

The most important change is to adopt a Statewide strategy to pursue jobs of the future, rather than putting most of our efforts and money to try and protect struggling industries like the auto companies. We need to look to where the jobs of the future are going to develop and be aggressive about jumping into that space.

Northeast Ohio has done that well with its efforts on attracting medical innovation investment.  Growth in health care is here to stay. 

So what is another job growth area of the future?  It has been discussed with ever increasing regularity- Shifting towards attracting clean technologies jobs that will be associated with the monumental changes associated with energy and Climate Change. 

I am by no means the first to point out Northeast Ohio needs to be aggressively positioning itself to attract those jobs.  For example, locally we have had champions like the Cleveland Foundation pushing leaders to fully embrace a strategy to attract Clean Tech to Northeast Ohio (see, Rich Stuebi's recent op-ed piece in the Plain Dealer)  And leaders are paying attention.  You may not know this but the Greater Cleveland Partnership was the only chamber of commerce in Ohio that supported including renewable mandates in Ohio's Energy Bill that passed this summer.

Progress is being made, but we better double our efforts or will be beat out by other states and regions who have their eyes on the same jobs.  Like it or not, Northeast Ohio's chances at success are intertwined with State leadership efforts on developing a Clean Tech economy.

What is leadership?   Leadership means being out front, not coming late to the party.  For example, Iowa long ago embraced wind energy and has a large portion of generation from wind.  So which state is landing a multi-million dollar new manufacturing facility? Of course it is Iowa.  Meanwhile, Ohio was one of the last states to adopt a mandate on renewable energy.

Texas has also been taking notice and positioning itself to tie its economy to the forthcoming growth in Clean Tech.  An organization call Catalyst just completed a study of Clean Tech opportunities in Texas.  The study includes a series of recommendations for State leadership to adopt to ensure Texas is well positioned. 

Below I have taken out the recommendations that are included in the Texas study and provided my own analysis as to how Ohio is doing in these areas.  It is intended as a scorecard on Ohio's strategy to attract Clean Tech jobs.

Market Recommendations

• Spur the creation of renewable energy markets by modernizing the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard to promote non-wind generation, and update the state’s wind policy to promote the next generation of wind investment. (Ohio passed S.B. 221 that includes a broad RPS to encourage varies technologies.  The key issue with Ohio's RPS are the "out clauses" if costs to comply exceed 3%. Hopefully these clauses don't render the mandate useless)
• Incent and reward residential and commercial energy customers who choose renewable electricity options, including aggressive rebates or tax credits for solar installation or other distributed generation. (Ohio does include some limited incentives for renewables. The Ohio Department of Development (ODOD) has information regrading solar for consumers.  But an analysis should be done to compare Ohio incentives to those provided by other states. Growth in residential demand helps attract companies to Ohio.)
• Promote Texas companies by tying customer rebates and incentives to products designed, manufactured or marketed by Texas companies. (I am not aware that Ohio is doing anything in this area.  I know there is a "Buy Ohio" program, but I don't think it has much value in the Clean Tech arena)

Economic Development Recommendations

• Conduct a comprehensive analysis of how Texas' new energy economic development incentives compare to those of other key states. (Ohio should perform such an analysis.  Ohio has new funding for alternative energy projects through the Ohio Air Quality Development Authority (OAQDA).  However, more information is needed as to whether this is enough of an incentive to put Ohio ahead of other states)
• Consolidate existing and new incentives into a comprehensive and simple New Energy Incentive Package, and actively promote and market it by establishing a visible, coordinated state office to serve as a single point of entry for new energy economic development inquiries. (Ohio gets a mixed scorecard on this one.  Governor Strickland gets credit for creating an Energy Advisor position.  Also, he has increased available incentives.  However, authority and funding is split between OAQDA and ODOD.)
• Commit specific and significant portions of the Emerging Technology Fund and Texas Enterprise Fund to companies and efforts in new energy industries. (Again, Ohio has created the Alternative Energy Fund as part of its Job Stimulus Package.  However, grants are limited to between $50,000 to $250,000 on renewables which seems hardly enough to attract series development. It may be a good program for helping bridge research to commercial deployment, but a larger effort is needed.)
• Create a state-sanctioned venue through which university and community college officials, workforce development officials, regional and local chambers of commerce, and state leaders can develop a Green Jobs education and training strategy. (This has not been done at all in Ohio.  Efforts are scattered and not coordinated across the State.)

State Reputation Recommendations

• Change the political rhetoric surrounding the new energy economy. The world has recognized this is no longer a partisan issue, but an economic opportunity. As long as Texas leaders position the future—and the new energy economy—as bad for Texas’ economy, businesses will go to other states where they’re welcome. This will require current leadership to demonstrate more enthusiasm for the future economy. (This same sentiment can apply equally to Ohio.  Due to its historical manufacturing base and reliance on coal, associations and leaders view major changes such as Climate Change as only bad for Ohio's economy.  To be a leader, the State must be willing to embrace the changes and work to take advantage of them.)
• Convene a blue-ribbon commission on the new energy economy—consisting
  of traditional energy companies, renewable energy companies, universities,
  entrepreneurs, utilities and economic development entities—to design
  a long-term new energy economic development strategy for the state. This strategy should build upon the general suggestions of the Governor’s Competitiveness Council’s Report and State Energy Plan, and provide specific, executable strategies for promoting the new energy economy in Texas. (Another suggestion that would be wise for Ohio to adopt.  While there have been smaller efforts, development of a comprehensive plan is the only way to position the State for success.  A piece meal approach to incentives, RPS and training only means Ohio will be at best a middle tier state in attracting Clean Tech jobs)
• Appoint a statewide, cabinet-level New Energy Economy Czar, responsible for identifying, articulating and executing a statewide strategy for maximizing Texas’ New Energy economic development opportunity. (Governor Strickland did create the position of Energy Advisor filled by Mark Shanahan. However, this position certainly does not have equal status to the recommendation in the Texas study.)
• Launch a Manhattan Project-style initiative to design the model “future grid” that could serve as a national proving ground for emerging energy technology and a model for networks nationwide.  (While I don't have enough insight to determine if this is a worthwhile recommendation, the notion is correct that the State must take nationally visible efforts to distinguish itself from all the other States competing for these jobs.)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

When a former Secretary of State (George Shultz) and a Vice President (Al Gore) can't seem to navigate local ordinances to install solar systems on their own homes, what are the chances for everyone else? 

These are two high profile examples cited in a recent report that discusses streamlining the local approval process for solar and small wind projects-  Taking the Red Tape Out of Green Power.  

After interviewing experts from around the Country regarding various local impediments, the study includes seven principle recommendations:

1. Remove barriers to photovoltaics (PV) systems from building and zoning codes.
2. Simplify PV permit application forms and review processes.
3. Adopt flat permit fees or fee waivers for PV and small wind systems.
4. Incorporate information about wind energy opportunities into municipal comprehensive planning.
5. Establish small wind turbines as permitted uses, with appropriate design guidelines, performance standards, and review processes.
6. Ease permitting processes by establishing statewide interconnection standards and educating building and electrical inspectors about proper installation procedures for distributed renewable energy systems.
7. Adopt legislation at the state level mandating consistent and appropriate permitting requirements for distributed renewable energy systems.

A review of recent articles from around the Ohio shows zoning ordinances pertaining to solar and wind projects have become a hot topic.  Local governments would be wise to examine the study to determine ways to draft ordinances and administer local permit processes to encourage development of renewable energy projects. (See Dispatch:  "To avoid fights, set rules for windmills now")

Granville- debate over allowing solar panels in a historic district.

Morrow County-  Established zoning ordinances governing utility scale wind projects, but local governments ignore standards for small scale wind project. 

Hamilton County Planning and Zoning Officials- Consider an array of zoning regulations including restrictions on height, noise and placement for energy-generating windmills, solar panels and outdoor furnaces. Example regulations:

• Windmills may not exceed 100 feet in height, cannot be in front or side yards, and their noise may not exceed 62 decibels between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. (roughly the volume of a conversation).
• Solar panels on roofs may not be taller than the highest point of the roof. Detached solar panels may not exceed 14.5 feet.

Clermont County- Windmills and outdoor furnaces are lumped into the "accessories" category of the zoning code which means there is a 14-foot height limit without a permit.

City of Columbus-  According to an article appearing in Ohio Planner's News (November/December 2006 Issue) discussed some Ohio zoning code application to solar and small wind turbine projects.

The City of Columbus staff recommends that the request for a solar installation be preceded by “preliminary zoning clearance review,” which is an official way of saying, “bring in your request and a map of the property.” According to the plans examiner, a solar installation would probably be handled under local code enforcement by your contractor (under the engineered systems section) and comply with the National Electric Code regulations per Article 690 Solar Photovoltaic Systems and Chapter 14 of the Ohio Mechanical Code.
 

The City of Columbus also states that, “A wind tower as a principal use on residentially zoned property does require a use variance (Council variance) because said use is not permitted in many districts. However, a wind tower as an accessory use to a principal dwelling may be permitted but most certainly is subject to specific development standards…” Notice the distinction between “principal use” (the only use for the property) and “accessory use” (a use that fulfills a need for the house) and the ability to avoid a variance. The distinction is critical for easy success in the hearing process.

For additional Resources:

Wind:  The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) has a web site that goes state by state discussing various aspects of small wind projects.  The AWEA also has put together various resources to assist in permitting small wind projects as well as local policies to encourage their development.

Solar:  GE has a list of frequently asked questions about residential solar projects.  However, there is also plenty of information provided at the state level regarding residential solar project.  For example, the Ohio Department of Development also has made available resources for Ohioans interested in installing solar panels on their home, including the Ohio Consumer Guide to Buying a Solar Electric System.

See http://www.green-energy-efficient-homes.com/green-electricity.html for more information on green energy options for your home.

(Photo:  Great Valley Center Image Bank/everystockphoto.com)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

Have you ever heard of the irresistible force paradox?  What would happen if an irresistible force met an in-movable object?  I think this paradox may describe what will happen when the Obama Administration's environmental agenda meets the reality of the economy. 

Remember a few months back when oil peaked around $140 a barrel.  Of course you do...But do you also remember the momentum that the green movement due to the reality of limited resources and escalating energy prices.  Everything looks possible- a shift to renewable energy, energy conversation, higher gas mileage vehicles, and climate change legislation.

Now, only a few months later and oil is around $60-70 a barrel (I just filled up my gas tank for $1.90 per gallon)  We saw an economic meltdown the likes that has not been seen since the Great Depression.  How did this effect the momentum (the irresistible force) behind the Green Movement.  Let's take a sampling of recent headlines....

• Many Solar Energy Firms Likely to Fold During Economic Crisis- Analysts say nearly three-fourths of all solar energy companies could go out of business due to extremely tight credit, intense competition to produce solar panels, and falling prices.
• Local Government's Reconsider Costs of Green Building Mandates- The poor economy means tight budgets for most local governments.  This has forced local governments to begin questioning the costs associated with mandating LEED certification on new construction.
• T. Boone Pickens Places Wind Farm On Hold-  The dramatic drop in the cost of natural gas and the global credit crunch makes wind less competitive, according to Pickens.  As a result, he is putting on hold or scrapping plans for his massive 4,000 megawatt wind farm in Texas. (comment:  I guess Mr. Pickens is still a business man and not just motivated by getting us off of foreign oil)
• Renewable Energy Blues-  As reported in the Wall Street Journal, "when fossil fuel prices were soaring, things like offshore wind farms suddenly looked appealing, and guaranteed electricity prices from wind farms looked like a bargain. But with fossil fuel prices headed south and capital getting more expensive, renewables are losing some of their glow." (see also "Clean Energy Meltdown, Now GE is Bailing")
• Will EU Member States Use Economic Meltdown to Avoid Climate Targets-  When the economic crisis spread to Europe, the EU's ambitious goals on Climate Change were second guessed.  The current EU target of a 20% reduction in emissions by 2020 is set to automatically increase to 30%. Recently, Poland, Greece, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria have opposed an increase in reduction targets.   Other EU countries are also second guessing their commitments. As reported in the Wall Street Journal, Germany’s foreign minister said recently: “This crisis changes priorities.” 

Exit polling from yesterday's election indicated that around 60% of the people who cast their vote made their decision based on issues associated with the economy.  After a quick search I could not even find where the environment ranked as a motivating issue.  I'm willing to bet it was a non-issue for the majority of the voters.

When the Obama Administration takes office and develops their environmental agenda it is likely to include: strong climate change legislation, renewable energy mandates, and policies that will not favor fossil fuels.  However, that Agenda will meet an immovable object that will likely cloud Obama's entire first term...the economy.  What emerges from the collision is anyone's guess.

(Photo: Flickr Transplanted Mountineer)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

The initial comment period is now closed on the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio's (PUCO) draft rules for implementation of the Alternative and Renewable Energy Requirements. The PUCO received hundreds of pages of comments from a wide variety of perspectives: Utilities, Renewable Energy Developers, Industrial Customers, Environmental Groups, Clean Coal Technology Providers, and Consumer Groups.

The rules were set in motion by passage of Ohio’s comprehensive Energy Legislation (SB 221) which includes provisions designed to promote alternative and renewable energy development.  The legislation includes both an Advanced Energy Portfolio Standard (AEPS) and a more traditional Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS). 

While the Legislation was very complex, major policy issues were left to be sort out through rule promulgated by the PUCO.  The comments received on the first draft of the rules for implementation of the AEPS and RPS reveal significant differences of opinion over critical issues.

Here is my critical issue list.  The rules must address squarely these issues to determine the direction of Ohio's energy policy.

1. What are "advanced energy"  resources and projects and how best to promote it?  For example, right now the rules contain no standards for what qualifies as clean coal.  Comments I submitted pointed out that a simple reduction of a few pounds from a 500 mw source that emits a 1,000 tons of pollution could still be considered a "clean coal" source.  Worse yet, the entire generation could qualify toward meeting the AEPS.  Without modification the AEPS could be rendered effectively meaningless.
2. Double counting environmental attributes- It appears from the comments that Ohio doesn't recognize this debate has been going on nationally for some time.  Many of the 26 or so states that have had RPS standards have been sorting this type of issue out.  The standard practice emerging nationally is not to allow CO2 emission reduction credits to be separated from a Renewable Energy Credit (REC).  Allowing otherwise distorts the voluntary CO2 and REC markets.
3. How much teeth does the RPS have?  Many comments were submitted that the rules would grant the PUCO too much discretion to waive compliance with the RPS standard based upon a "act of god" (force majeure).  Also, SB 221 allowed compliance with RPS benchmarks to be waived if electric rates rise as a result of the RPS by more than 3%.  But how you measure the 3% increase is critical to determining whether there truly will be a RPS requirement in Ohio.  It seems the rules have to answer the question-are we serious about having an RPS standard in Ohio?

 (a summary of the major comments on the AEPS and RPS by clicking on "continue reading" below)

(photo: Kevin Dooley/everystockphoto.com)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On August 20th, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) proposed administrative rules for the implementation of Ohio's Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard.  Approximately 26 states have enacted renewable portfolio standards (RPS) that mandate a certain percentage of electricity supplied in the state come from renewable sources.  Only one other State, Pennsylvania expanded the mandate to cover additional sources of energy beyond renewables. 

Ohio has now gone beyond Pennsylvania in promoting other "advanced energy sources."  Ohio is the first State in the Country to allow the following resources to be eligible toward meeting the advanced energy mandate:

• Clean Coal Technology
• Technology or improvements that reduce CO2 emissions
• Enhancement of Nuclear Power

Under Senate Bill 221, and as set forth in the proposed rules, 12.5% of power supplied in Ohio must come from these and other advanced energy sources (fuel cells, distributed generation, fuel cells, solid waste to energy and energy efficiency projects) by 2025. 

The proposed rules are pretty standard on the renewable side.  The include provisions used by other states who have already had an RPS.  The rules provide for annual benchmarks, alternative compliance payments, use of renewable energy credits (RECs) and costs caps on meeting the RPS. 

It is significant that Ohio has developed a more complex and interesting portfolio standard for advanced energy sources.  However, where the SB 221 was very prescriptive as to meeting the renewable standard requirements, the legislation was vague on the advanced energy side of the standard.  Unfortunately, the draft rules fail to provide much needed detail.

Here are some issues that should be addressed to better promote advanced energy sources:

1. Benchmarks-  SB 221 did not include them for meeting the advanced energy standard.  The rules should at least require meaningful evaluation as to progress toward meeting the mandate to supply 12.5% from advanced energy sources by 2025.
2. Establish a Currency-  On the renewable side, Ohio is following the well established method of buying and selling renewable energy certificates (RECs).  One megawatt of renewable power equals one REC.  There is no such currency established for the advanced energy portion of the standard.
3. Better define each advanced energy resource-  Most importantly, the definitions of what types of projects qualify are far too vague.

• Example 1: The rules say "a significant improvement to an existing nuclear" facility qualifies.  There is no definition of "significant."  What type of enhancements are we trying to promote?  If one change is made, does the whole plant qualify as an advanced energy resource?
• Example 2:  "Clean Coal Technology"- the rules don't provide anymore specification then SB221.  The bill just says qualifying technology is something that reduces pollutants like arsenic, chlorine, nitrous oxide, mercury, sulfur dioxide.  By how much?  Again, does a small reduction, like one particle of mercury, make the whole 500 megawatt plant an "advanced energy resource?"

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks