By Mark Carpenter-

An AEP Ohio clean energy project that was expected to create jobs and boost economic growth across southwest Ohio could be blocked by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO).
Ohio regulators began hearing evidence Jan. 17 that will decide the fate of AEP’s proposal to build the largest solar facility in Ohio history near Mowrystown in Highland County.
The PUCO staff, on Jan. 10, recommended against the project, claiming there is no need for it.
During the first week of the evidentiary hearing expert witnesses provided compelling testimony in support of the project that will, if completed, generate 400 megawatts of solar power.
AEP’s solar farm proposal was developed in accordance with the company’s 2015 commitment to develop 900 megawatts of renewable energy in the region.
The project is expected to result in 4,000 construction jobs and 150 permanent jobs. Estimates indicated that typical AEP customers using 1,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity a month would initially owe 28 cents more per month.
AEP officials said over time that number would drop and eventually lead to credits on customer bills.
The evidentiary hearing process is expected to determine whether there is a true need for the project based on projections from AEP’s Ohio utility.
AEP and the project’s supporters say the evidence will show ample need for the facility, for Ohio generally and especially for Appalachian Ohio.
While the Ohio Consumer’s Council opposes the plan saying AEP hasn’t demonstrated that consumers need the power, surveys conducted by AEP reveal their customers show a strong desire for access to renewable energy options.
One major hurdle AEP must overcome is Senate Bill 3 – which deregulated power plants in 1999 to fuel competition and give consumers more options. The bill also prevents utilities from owning power plants.
To get around Senate Bill 3, the company is relying on another Ohio law that allows an exception if, among other things, the PUCO determines there is a “need for the facility based on resource planning projections” from the AEP.
While the PUCO asserts rightly that there is ample megawatts of power for Ohio customers, supporters of AEP’s plan say other factors offering peripheral benefits should be considered.
“Our proposal makes it clear that our state needs renewable generation resources to make Ohio even more attractive to companies looking to come here, address customer demand for renewable energy, and foster the development of a clean energy economy in Ohio,” said AEP Ohio spokesperson Scott Blake in a press release. “Renewable energy projects help develop a skilled workforce that can offer hope to workers and transform a region for generations.”
According to Holly Johnson, Director of the Adams County Economic Development Office, having a massive solar farm just 40 miles north of the county’s now-shuttered power plants could be a real plus for the region, economically and environmentally.
“It’s a clean form of energy generated by the sun that produces no harmful emissions. It’s also reliable and makes us less dependent on others,” says Johnson. “Tax credits and local incentives vary and are subject to change, but one thing for sure is the sun rises every day.”
But does local consumer demand and potential economic benefits rise to the level of need?
That is the question PUCO Commissioners are attempting to answer this week, according to Julie Theado of the Ohiosolarjobsnetwork.com.
In another press release, Theado said AEP experts kicked off the hearing by providing an overview of the renewable energy projects and made the case for the need in Ohio.
“These experts noted that large corporations now have aggressive renewable energy procurement goals,” Theado wrote in a Krile Communications article, adding, “These goals are driven by both the environmental benefits as well as the economic savings and fuel price risk hedging benefits of renewable energy.”
AEP’s experts also say that Ohio has consistently failed to produce ample electricity within the state to meet usage requirements. They further argued that the growing number of retired Ohio utilities, including coal and nuclear generation plants, will increase the gap between supply and demand within the state and require Ohio to continue relying on energy produced in other states to meet the needs of its people, businesses, and industry.
The end result, according to Theado, is that energy dollars from Ohio customers are being exported to power generators outside of Ohio and providing economic development benefits to residents and businesses in other states.
Expert witnesses from Navigant Consulting testified on behalf of AEP Ohio saying that utility’s customers are expecting, and in some cases, are demanding cleaner, renewable energy, and further have a preference those renewables be generated in Ohio.
Navigant conducted an independent survey titled, “AEP Ohio Voice of the Customer: Attitudes and Expectations for Renewable Energy which shows: 86 percent of residential and 73 percent of small commercial and industrial (C&I) customers think AEP making greater use of renewable energy is moderately to very important, and an average 74 percent of residential and 62 percent of C&I customers said they would be willing to pay more than they currently do to increase the use of renewables.
All of the factors examined by Navigant indicate that AEP Ohio customers are planning for and expecting to be served by, more renewable generation to supply their energy needs.
There’s also the matter of money, according to Kathiann M. Kowalski of the Energy News Network.
Kowalski reported that AEP forecasts show customers will save more than $200 million over a 20-year period. “That doesn’t count either the projects benefits for reducing greenhouse emissions in order to rein in and improve resilience to climate change, nor does it include health benefits from reduction in other pollutants that lead to more cases of asthma and other disease,” she added.
The evidentiary hearing in the case is expected to run through Jan. 25. It’s unknown how soon after the Commission will rule on the issue of need for the project
Dan Sawmiller, Ohio energy policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council told Kowalski, “The opponents here want to limit, limit, limit what counts as need,”
Sawmiller said rejecting AEP’s project would be “unwise” and “short-sighted”.
He joins AEP and other supporters in asking the Commission to consider all other factors that show a need for the project.
“The opportunity that this project presents in Appalachia cannot be ignored,” he said. “You can’t just look the other way and pretend these benefits don’t exist or don’t matter – these are important benefits for the Commission to consider and they do matter.”