Environmental groups quickly blasted the ruling, saying it strikes a blow against renewable-energy development in the state.
But at least one consumer-rights organization hailed the decision as a rare major victory for utility customers who would otherwise be forced to cover the cost of the power plants, even though state regulators said AEP Ohio didn’t show the facilities are needed.
The ruling doesn’t mean the projects – a 300-megawatt and a 100-megawatt solar farm in Highland County – are automatically dead. But it means that AEP Ohio will now have to try to find an alternative way to pay for them, such as entering into agreements with individual companies that use large amounts of power.
Under AEP Ohio’s request, a residential customer using 1,000 kilowatt hours of electricity would have initially paid an additional 28 cents per month to fund the projects, which would be built and owned by two solar companies that would sell the power to AEP Ohio. The utility said the plants would eventually save customers a total of $200 million over the next 20 years, though opponents have disputed that forecast.
However, the facilities are now two of the six solar projects eligible for subsidies under the recently-enacted House Bill 6. As a result, it’s now unclear exactly how much AEP customers would have been charged, according to AEP Ohio spokesman Scott Blake.
Under Ohio law, the PUCO could only approve the new charge if it found that the new facilities were needed. AEP Ohio argued they are needed, and that customers indicated they wanted them.
However, the commission unanimously ruled that the facilities are not needed, citing “numerous deficiencies” in AEP Ohio’s analysis, according to a PUCO news release.
“Having determined that the necessary demonstration of need was lacking, the commission concluded that its authority to approve the proposed charge is also lacking,” the release stated.
Blake, said AEP Ohio needed to review the PUCO’s lengthy decision before issuing a response statement.
Environmental groups were alarmed by the PUCO’s rejection of AEP Ohio’s request, saying it would have a chilling effect on future renewable-energy projects in the state.
“This is a clear sign that Ohio is not really pushing for the development of renewables,” said Neil Waggoner, campaign representative for the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign in Ohio. Rather, Waggoner said, House Bill 6 offers bailouts for nuclear and coal power plants in the state.
“Instead of embracing renewable technologies and innovation, today proved to be another step backward for Ohioans,” said Miranda Leppla, vice president of energy policy for the Ohio Environmental Council, in a release.
PUCO Chair Sam Randazzo, in a statement, denied that Thursday’s unanimous ruling was made out of animosity for renewable energy.
“Today’s decision is not about any particular generating technology,” Randazzo stated. “Rather, it is about what must be demonstrated by an electric distribution utility before Ohio law might allow the PUCO to approve the proposed charge."
However, Ohio Consumers’ Counsel Bruce Weston called the PUCO’s decision “a rare major victory” for consumers against “the powerful monopoly” of AEP.
“Renewable energy is a good thing, but the electricity from AEP’s proposed solar plants is not needed and would not even be sold to Ohio consumers,” Weston said in a statement. “Ohioans already have plenty of green options from the power-plant market that the Ohio legislature deregulated in 1999.”
Weston’s office noted that the Public Utility Commission of Texas previously shot down a similar AEP proposal to have customers pay for the construction of a wind farm in the Oklahoma Panhandle that would be the largest renewable-energy project in the country.
©2019 Advance Ohio Media, Cleveland. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
