​I finally tracked down the reports to the PSC regarding utility compliance with the Alternative and Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (AREPS).  The AREPS requires utilities to hold "credits" for each MWh sold in WV. In essence that means that 10 % of their electricity must come from alternative and renewable sources by 2015, rising to 15 % by 2020, and 25 % by 2025.  Republican legislators have pledged to repeal this Act in 2015.

Sounds pretty aggressive right?

But up to 10 % of their required credits can come from natural gas, another 10 % from supercritical coal (Fort Martin, Harrison, John Amos, etc.).  Unlimited credits can come from coal-fired fluidized bed boilers such as MEA or Grant Town, or from pumped storage facilities, or from burning tires, or from coal with IGCC or CCS.  Because utilities get 2 credits per MWh for electricity from wind or hydro, these sources are "favored", but it also means that they need less wind or hydro to meet their demand.

Based on the data in their filings, it appears that First Energy (Mon Power and Potomac Edison) is getting most of their credits from fluidized bed boilers such as Grant Town and MEA.  They do claim something just under 20 % from a hydropower facility at New Martinsville.  But because excess credits can be "banked" for later use, it appears that First Energy would not need to acquire ANY new renewables until after 2035.

AEP (ApCo and Wheeling Power) gets a lot from four wind farms they acquired, and from hydro (including pumped storage).  Their supply is not quite as robust as FE, as they start drawing down banked credits after 2020.  But they also would not need new renewable credits until after 2030.

I conclude that, although the utilities are actually using some renewables to meet their AREPS requirements, these are almost all existing facilities.  No NEW renewables would be needed before 2030, at the earliest.

One other note, the PSC filings included compliance reports from five small utilities in WV (e.g., Harrison electric coop, Philippi, New Martinsville, etc.)  Some of these will have to acquire "credits", and the purchase of these in future years may run into the tens of thousands of dollars, so that is a potentially significant burden.

In addition, Bill Howley pointed out that the AREPS is the only place in state code that establishes net metering.  Any attempt to repeal AREPS in its entirety could also eliminate net metering.  (This might be considered a regulatory "takings" for those home-owners who bout solar panels or wind mills on the assumption that the utilities would help pay them back, so that is an argument we might explore.)

Options:

1) We could oppose any effort to repeal the AREPS?  It is the best we have, and improving it later might be easier than bringing it back, once it is repealed.

2)  We might acquiesce in the repeal provided that they retain the net metering provision.

3)  We might support a repeal for small utilities only, pointing out that large utilities really don't have to do anything to comply.

Whaddya Tink?

Jim Kotcon