Update: The Commission issued a finding and order on January 15, 2014 adopting proposed amendments to its rules contained in Chapter 4901:1-10, Ohio Administrative Code (O.A.C.), including the rules on net metering.
Specifically, the Commission chose not to implement virtual and aggregate net metering through this rulemaking, stating that they appreciated the comments provided by stakeholders and that they will take them into consideration when making revisions in the future. However, the Commission stated that further collaboration between EDUs and CRES providers is necessary for the appropriate implementation of virtual and aggregate net metering. To this end, the Commission stated that it will open a new docket to explore and evaluate the issues regarding virtual and aggregate net metering.
In the order, the Commission accepted Staff’s proposal that a rebuttable presumption be created that a customer-generator is primarily intending to offset part or all of its requirements for electricity when the customer-generator generates less than 120 percent of its requirements for electricity. OMA opposed Ohio Power’s proposal that the threshold be lowered to 110 percent. The Commission found that a threshold of 120 percent was reasonable and would protect customer-generators who incidentally generate more than their requirements for electricity.
The Commission also adopted Staff’s proposal that a customer-generator’s requirements for electricity should be determined by the average amount of electricity consumed annually over the previous three years. OMA suggested that the three year average was not a good indicator because it may not reflect rising consumption by Ohio manufacturers. The Commission found that the 12-month peak consumption period from the previous five years, as suggested by OMA, may lead to manufacturing facilities being deemed excess generators and could result in manufacturing facilities needing to downsize their net metering systems when consumption is decreasing. Accordingly, the Commission adopted Staff’s three year average.
The Commission declined to adopt Staff’s proposal to include a definition of “Microturbine.” OMA opposed FirstEnergy’s proposal that the proposed definition of “Microturbine” should limit the output of turbines to 500 kW. The Commission did not include a definition of “Microturbine” in its proposed rules but it did state that there is already an implied limitation on the size and number of microturbines, which is the size and number necessary for the customer-generator to intend primarily to offset part or all of its requirements for electricity.
The Commission also adopted Staff’s position that a monetary credit for excess generation should be included on the next month’s bill. OMA, among other parties, had suggested that customer-generators should have the option to receive the monetary credit in the month that generation occurs. The Commission provided no explanation in the order for why it adopted Staff’s position that the monetary credit should be on the next month’s bill.
As suggested by SolarVision, MetroCD, and Duke Energy Retail, the Commission made amendments so that the rules, conditions, and procedures for excess generation are uniform across the state and so that utilities are required to make information relating to net metering available to all customers. To ensure that procedures and rules for excess generation are uniform, the Commission revised Rule 4901:1-10-28(B)(3), O.A.C., to indicate that a net metering application packet should be created that provides complete information regarding the terms and conditions of net metering service, facility qualification, and utility charges, along with the possible consequences of excess generation if a customer-generator does not intend primarily to offset part or all of its requirements for electricity. The Commission also amended the rules so that the utility would be required to notify the customer-generator and work with the customer-generator to appropriately identify a way for the customer-generator to intend to primarily offset part or all of its requirements for electricity.
The Commission also revised Rule 4901:1-10-28(B)(3)(a) and (b), O.A.C., to provide that the utility shall disclose on its website the contact information for the net metering department or contact person within the utility. The proposed rules also provide that the utility shall provide all necessary information regarding a customer’s potential enrollment in net metering on the utility’s website. These changes force the utility to make information available to all customers.
Further, the Commission declined to adopt the suggestion of SolarVision, The Ohio Consumers’ Counsel (OCC), and IREC that the definition of premises be expanded to include adjacent lots. These stakeholders requested that the rules be revised to expand the scope of “premises” to include not only contiguous lots, but also adjacent lots. The Commission rejected this proposal finding that the rule is clear in recognizing that contiguous lots are considered the customer-generator’s premises, whereas adjacent lots or areas are not. It is our belief that the Commission may still experience issues with this definition of “premises” in situations where a lot is divided by an easement, but is still technically one lot.
Finally, the Commission accepted the proposal of DP&L and Ohio Power which allows utilities to recover the costs of reprogramming or setting up a meter for net metering customers. The way the rule is written potentially allows for abuse from the utilities, as there is no limit on the cost passed on to the consumer, and because competitive market forces are not involved, the customer has no choice. The only requirement is that the utility provide a detailed cost estimate prior to the work being performed.
Applications for rehearing must be filed by February 14, 2014.
