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:
- Energy Efficiency and Demand Reduction Programs
- Alternative and Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards
- 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.