PUCO sets workshop to
kickoff alternative energy rule review
The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) will host a workshop
next month to initiate its five-year review of Ohio’s alternative energy
portfolio standard and energy efficiency rules in case numbers 13-651-EL-ORD
and 13-652-EL-ORD.
The purpose of the workshop is to allow stakeholders to provide feedback and
propose revisions to existing rules before the PUCO staff issues draft rule
amendments later this year.
When and where will
the workshop be held?
April 23, 2013 at 10 a.m.
PUCO Offices, Hearing Room 11-B
180 East Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215
The workshop will be webcast
live and archived at www.PUCO.ohio.gov.
What topics will be
addressed at the workshop?
The workshop will include consideration of all existing rule
language in Ohio Administrative Code chapters 4901:1-39
and 4901:1-40,
including possible rule revisions resulting from the enactment of Ohio
Senate Bill 315.
Does this workshop
replace the PUCO’s formal comment process?
No. This workshop is not a substitute for the Commission’s
formal comment process. Instead, it serves to inform the PUCO staff about
stakeholder views. Once the staff has an opportunity to consider the
input received at the workshop, it will issue proposed rule amendments.
These draft rules will then be subject to a formal written comment and
reply comment period. All stakeholders, whether they choose to
attend the workshop or not, may file formal comments with the
Commission once the draft rules have been issued.
Questions and
additional information
Below is a list of questions and subject areas that the PUCO
staff is currently exploring with regard to the alternative energy portfolio
standard. Stakeholders should not limit their feedback to these topics. If you plan to attend the workshop, please
come prepared to discuss all energy efficiency and alternative energy rules as
they affect your organization. Written
handouts are encouraged.
Please direct questions about this workshop to AEPS@puc.state.oh.us. Additional information about Ohio’s
alternative energy portfolio standard is available at www.PUCO.ohio.gov.
Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard: Chapter
4901:1-40
- Do you have any concerns with revising the
automatic Renewable Energy Resource Generating Facility (REN) Certification
process to 30 days (down from the current 60-day process)? Do you have
any other suggested modifications to the REN certification process?
- Staff welcomes feedback on potential
modifications concerning the reporting requirement in Ohio Administrative Code
(OAC) 4901:1-40-03(C) and the annual compliance report filing requirement in
4901:1-40-05.
- Staff is interested in hearing from stakeholders
if the two attribute tracking systems (GATS and M-RETS) currently recognized by
the Commission are adequate, or if additional existing systems should also be
recognized? All facilities certified to date are using GATS, and all
companies have used GATS to demonstrate compliance. Is there perceived
value in continuing to recognize M-RETS?
- In the context of confidentiality vs. program
transparency, staff is interested in learning your thoughts on promoting
improved program transparency while also remaining sensitive to concerns
regarding the disclosure of confidential information. What data do you
think need protected, and is there a time after which that information is no
longer sensitive? What items currently not disclosed should be made
publicly available?
- SB 315 requires the PUCO to include average
annual renewable energy credit (REC) costs in its reports to the Ohio General
Assembly. To compile this data, including a requirement that companies
include cost data on GATS when transferring RECs/solar RECs to their reserve
sub-account for compliance demonstration may be a potential option. Such
information would not be available in public reports, but staff could access it
through its regulatory account. Staff believes this could be an efficient
process by which to collect the cost data annually while simultaneously
maintaining confidentiality. Staff is interested in your thoughts on this
potential approach. If you are not supportive of this approach, please
provide alternative methods for collecting this cost data (i.e., modify rule so
the cost data is included as a component of annual compliance filings).
Staff understands that M-RETS does not currently collect cost data, so any
company using M-RETS to demonstrate its compliance (i.e., retire RECs/S-RECs)
would presumably need an alternative methodology.
- SB 315, specifically Ohio Revised Code (ORC)
4928.01(A)(38)(b), includes certain facilities at state institutions of higher
education as renewable energy resources. Staff solicits suggestions as to
the output from such facilities that should be recognized as “renewable” for
purposes of REC creation – all electricity, only electricity stemming from the
use of recovered heat, steam production, etc.? If recognizing steam
production, what mathematical conversion factor should be employed to convert
the steam to MWHs for purposes of REC creation?
- SB 315, specifically ORC 4928.01(A)(34)(h) and
(i) includes several additional categories within the definition of advanced
energy resources. Staff welcomes comments on the placed in-service date,
if any, that should be applied to any facilities seeking qualification under
(h) or (i), particularly in light of the placed in-service language in ORC
4928.64(A)(1).
- There continue to be differing interpretations
as to the statutory language in ORC 4928.64(A)(1) that discusses
mercantile alternative resources and their need to integrate. Staff is
interested in suggested rule revisions on this topic that would clarify the
implementation of this section of the statute.
- The rules currently permit companies to file an
application requesting a reduced baseline to reflect new economic growth.
Staff welcomes any comments on this current rule – OAC 4901:1-40-03(B)(3) –
particularly as it relates to what constitutes “economic growth” and for what
duration it should be considered “new.” Any rule modification would need
to remain consistent with ORC 4928.64(B).
- Staff welcomes discussion on amending OAC 4901:1-40-03(B)(2)(b)
to explicitly require the use of actual sales data. The use of projected
sales, as detailed in this chapter, was intended to facilitate a company’s
compliance planning in that it could quantify its compliance requirements
earlier in the year. However, a number of companies have sought waiver
for this requirement, instead preferring to use actual sales data. Would
it make more sense to revise the rule rather than continuing to grant waivers?
- Staff is interested in feedback concerning the
definition of “double-counting” in OAC 4901:1-40-01. Specifically, Staff is
interested in your thoughts on the perceived need for language to emphasize
that certain marketing claims may result in the “consumption” of RECs, in which
case those RECs could not subsequently be sold and relied upon by the Buyer for
compliance purposes.
| 
