By Christen Smith

The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio last week delayed ruling on the need for two solar projects proposed by American Electric Power after the company asked for a “brief hold” to update its filings to reflect the impact of the recently approved Clean Air Act.

In its request filed Sept. 20, AEP said certain provisions of the new law — also known as House Bill 6 — convey potential benefits to the 300-MW Highland Solar and 100-MW Willowbrook facilities proposed in its long-term forecast report filed last year. The company offered very few details of how the legislation changes its proposal, citing confidentiality agreements, but did ask for a 60-day delay in proceedings.

“The new filing, if successful, would present the commission with additional options and flexibility as compared to the company’s existing proposal filed in these proceedings,” Steven Nourse, AEP’s attorney, wrote in the request. “Moreover, it is the company’s view that the new filing will ameliorate many of the concerns and objections raised by opponents in these proceedings. Such developments should be viewed as helpful regardless of whether the potential opinion and order scheduled for consideration on Wednesday would have initially rendered a positive finding or a negative finding on the need issues.”

The $170 million Clean Air Act, signed into law in July, curtails the state’s current renewable portfolio standards and tacks on monthly fees — ranging from 80 cents for residential customers to $2,400 for large industrial plants — to electricity bills, mostly for FirstEnergy Solutions’ Davis-Besse and Perry nuclear facilities. Some $20 million of the fees collected will support six solar power projects, including Highland Solar and Willowbrook, in rural areas of the state. (See Ohio Approves Nuke Subsidy.)

AEP submitted documents last year seeking cost recovery under the state’s renewable generation rider (RGR) for 500 MW of wind and the Highland and Willowbrook solar projects.

PUCO said last year that it would first determine the need for the projects before approving cost recovery mechanisms. On Sept. 19, the commission indicated it would announce a decision in the first half of the proceedings at its Thursday meeting; however, the agenda item was subsequently withdrawn. PUCO spokesperson Matt Schilling said the commission gave no reason for the change, telling RTO Insider that “it’s not uncommon to pull cases from the agenda to allow for more time to consider.”

Protesters — including the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel, Direct Energy, IGS and IGS Solar — urged the commission to rule in the case anyway, calling the bill irrelevant to “the statutory issue of whether Ohio utility consumers need electricity from the proposed solar plants.” Kroger and the Ohio Coal Association also opposed AEP’s request.

“HB 6 did not alter Ohio law that strictly limits a utility’s ability to seek PUCO approval of customer-funded subsidies for new generation plants that it proposes to own or operate,” the protesters wrote in a joint filing. “This separate funding for a monopoly utility generation project (including solar) can only be approved by the PUCO if the utility can show, among other things, that utility consumers need the electricity from the proposed power plants. As has been shown in this case, Ohio consumers don’t need electricity from AEP’s proposed plants, as the competitive market provides more than an adequate supply of power.”

The companies further allege that AEP doesn’t need a second revenue stream on top of the money afforded to the projects via HB 6.

“An outcome that could actually ‘ameliorate many of the concerns and objections raised by opponents in these proceedings,’ as AEP asserts, would be for AEP to withdraw its proposal and to develop the contested renewable projects through a separate affiliate,” the companies wrote. “Of course, AEP is free to undertake that endeavor outside this proceeding, without a delay in the PUCO’s decision.”

Scott Blake, an AEP spokesperson, told RTO Insider on Monday that concerns about the company collecting twice on the same projects presuppose the commission would accept the proposals as filed — an unlikely scenario given the impacts of HB 6 and the points raised by protesters within the proceeding.

“The HB 6 credit would also be factored in to any customer charge,” he said. “Under the proposal, we would purchase power at a fixed cost per megawatt-hour from the developer of the project. The credit from HB 6 would be included in the cost and used to calculate the customer portion.”