Rep. Ross McGregor introduced H.B. 632 to require the Director of Natural Resources to establish a plan to make available for lease areas of the bed of Lake Erie for the purpose of wind energy development and to require Lake Erie wind farms to be certified by the Power Siting Board.

Legislation is necessary to create

On Friday, November 7th, the Ohio Air Quality Development Authority (OAQDA) held a bidders conference to launch the Advanced Energy/Job Stimulus Program.  The Job Stimulus package set aside $150 million (over three years) to increase the development, production and use of advanced energy technologies in the state.

Those interested can begin filing applications for either

On June 24, 2008, Governor Strickland signed Amended Substitute House Bill No. 562 (HB 562).  The legislation directed the Ohio Power Siting Board to adopt rules for the construction, operation and maintenance of electric generation wind facilities.  After receiving numerous comments from individuals, renewable energy associations, and other interests, the Power Siting Board has finalized the rule for wind facilities.  The rules outline requirements for issues including aesthetics, setback, noise levels, ice throw, blade shear and shadow flicker.  Here are some of the major issued under debated were resolved:

Siting of Wind Farms Treated Like Other Major Utilities

The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) argued that the siting of wind farms should not be treated like other major utility facilities.  As a result AWEA argued some of the standards and application requirements would not apply to siting of wind farms.  The organization cautioned that doing so may discourage development of wind farms in Ohio.  But the Board rejected this approach after the sponsor of the bill, Senator Seitz, indicated it was the legislature intention to treat wind farms equally. 

Noise Standards

One significant issue of debate among commenters was whether the rules should include noise standards.  The Staff responded to those comments by rejecting the proposal to adopt a specific noise standard and evaluate each project on a case by case basis:

The Board and Board Staff shall evaluate the noise levels in
association with each application on a case-by-case basis in
light of the composition of the area surrounding the proposed
facility and will impose conditions on the noise emissions
during construction and operation of the wind-energy facility
as the Board determines to be appropriate. Such conditions are
enforceable pursuant to Section 4906.98, Revised Code.
Accordingly, we find it unnecessary to impose noise standards
as proposed by E-Coustic or to adopt operational noise
standards and measurement protocols as proposed by UNU.

Under the rules, each applicant will have to use computer modeling software developed for wind turbine noise measurement or a similar wind turbine noise methodology, including consideration of broadband, tonal, and low frequency noise levels to evaluate operation noise levels.

Setback Requirements

Another issue of significant debate was requisite setback requirements from wind turbines.  Many individual commented that strong setback requirements were needed to protect their property values and for public safety.  Similar to the issue with noise levels, the staff of the PUCO has decided to evaluate setbacks on a case by case basis. 

 (Photo: Kevin Dooley/everystockphoto.com)Continue Reading Ohio Adopts Rules Governing Siting and Operation of Wind Farms

U.S. EPA is encouraging the development of renewable energy by identifying currently and formerly contaminated lands and mining sites that present opportunities for renewable energy development. The federal agency has prepared state by state maps and incentives fact sheets to provide easy access to information about development opportunities.

The attached map is a clip from

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)Continue Reading Major Issues Revealed With Ohio’s Alternative and Renewable Energy Rules