According to GCBL's 2005 regional emissions inventory, half of Northeast Ohio's greenhouse gas emissions result from electricity usage. Northeast Ohio has relatively carbon-intensive electricity since more than 70% of the region's electricity is generated from the burning of coal. By comparison, only half of the nation's power is from coal.

Related sources

• Northeast Ohio's emissions inventory
• Background information and reports

Cited and additional resources

----

Electricity Generation Climate Action Plan for Northeast Ohio

Outline
Vision
Assumptions
Background
Goal 1: Meet growing demand for electricity with energy efficiency
Goal 2: Increase combined heat and power (CHP) distributed generation capacity
Goal 3: Increase sources of renewable and alternative energy
Goal 4: Increase energy storage capacity

---

Vision
Northeast Ohio is a leader in energy efficiency and renewable energy resources. Energy efficient buildings and policies that promote efficient appliances and electronics greatly reduce a projected growth in demand for electricity. And as the State's aged coal-fired generators and nuclear power plants reach the end of their design life, low carbon and renewable energy sources replace them.

Assumptions

1. There will be a nationwide cost for carbon pollution within the next few years
2. The national electricity grid will get smarter in the near term and a national Smart Grid will be a reality by 2030
3. Energy storage technology will greatly improve and capacity will increase
4. Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles(PHEVs) and electric vehicles (EVs) will have moderate market penetration by 2030
5. We can meet Northeast Ohio's electricity needs without constructing new nuclear or coal fired power plants

Background
Current demand and generation fuel mix
In 2005, our seven-county region consumed 33,443,279 MWh of electricity, more than 20% of the State's total. The region's industrial sector was the largest consumer, using more than 40% of this. The residential and commercial sectors used 31% and 28% respectively.

FirstEnergy's Ohio coal burning power plants
Akron-based FirstEnergy Corporation supplies about 90% of Northeast Ohio with electricity. The other 10% is distributed and/or generated by two rural electric associations (REA) and members of American Municipal Power of Ohio (AMP Ohio).

Most of FirstEnergy's Ohio generating capacity is coal-fired. The company owns and operates 22 coal burning generators at six Ohio plants. Combined they have a summer capacity of about 4,955 MW. Slightly more than 63% of these megawatts are generate by 19 units, all of which are more than 40 years old. The remaining three units are younger and larger; they generate the remaining 37% of FE’s Ohio coal generated capacity. If we assume that a coal fired generator has a lifespan of about 60 years, all of these plants will expire by 2032. The two oldest units, R.E. Burger generating units 1 and 2, were out of service in 2005.

FirstEnergy's nuclear power plants
FirstEnergy owns three nuclear plants, Perry and Davis Besse in Ohio and Beaver Valley in Pennsylvania. FE’s Northeast Ohio companies, Ohio Edison and Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, have partial ownership of each. Of the potential 3,835 MW of capacity, FE’s Northeast Ohio companies own about 2,200 MW.

The licenses of two units, which generate about 35% of FE's nuclear capacity, are set to expire around 2017 and the licenses for the other two units are set to expire around 2027 (see table below).

The typical design lifespan of a nuclear plant is between 30 and 40 years. The license expiration dates of the FE’s plants reflect the upper threshold of the design lifespan. But according to the Deputy Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Yuri Sokolov, it’s feasible to operate plants beyond this with proper management and safety enhancements.

In August 2007, FirstEnergy applied for a license renewal on both units at the Beaver Valley plant. This application is still under review with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). This analysis assumes that both Beaver Creek Units will receive extensions. We also assume that the Perry plant will apply for and receive a license extension. But due to Davis Besse's track record of being the site of two of the nation's top five nuclear incidents in the nation, this analysis does not assume that the plant's license will be extended.

Update: The NRC issued 20 year license extensions for both Beaver Valley reactors in early November 2009. 

 

FirstEnergy's other Ohio capacity
Much of the rest of FE’s Ohio generating capacity is fueled by distillate fuel oil and natural gas. Combined these make up slightly more than 12% of the company's Ohio generating capacity and are mostly only used to supplement baseload coal and nuclear in periods of peak demand.

There are 10 natural gas burning units, all but two of which are less than a decade old, and 20 units that burn distillate fuel oil as a primary energy source, nearly all of which were built in the early 1970s or earlier.

Other generating capacity
While FirstEnergy provides about 90% of the region's electricity, much of the remaining 10% is provided by American Municipal Power (AMP) Ohio. AMP Ohio has a relatively young coal-fired power plant with a 200 MW capacity, the Richard Gorsuch plant.

In addition to Gorsuch, some of AMP Ohio's member communities have small generating units. Most of these smaller units are peaking units fueled by natural gas or fuel oil.

Projected demand and planned generating capacity
Projected demand
Over the last half century the growth in demand for electricity has progressively slowed in the U.S. The Energy information Administration's (EIA) projects that this slowdown in growth, which has primarily resulted from rising energy prices and mandated efficiency standards, will continue through the next quarter century.

According to the EIA's Annual Energy Outlook for 2009 the growth in demand for electricity is projected to be 1% per year. A low growth scenario shows a 0.8% annual increase in demand.

The region’s population hasn’t changed significantly in the past ten years and we don’t anticipate that it will grow significantly in the near future. The state ranked 46th in terms of increasing annual electricity consumption between 1980 and 2005. For these reasons we assumed the low growth scenario for Northeast Ohio.

While this analysis assumes the low growth scenario it also includes aggressive yet realistic targets for conservation and efficiency – 35% by 2030 and 50% by 2050.The cleanest and cheapest way to reduce the carbon footprint of our power is to reduce the amount of power we need through conservation and efficiency. Energy conservation and efficiency is not about making sacrifices and going without, it's about wasting less. There is immense opportunity to save and better use electricity in Northeast Ohio.

Reducing the projected demand for 2050 by 50% through efficiency and conservation will reduce demand by nearly 24 million MWh, or 72% of Northeast Ohio’s 2005 consumption. More than 13.8 million tons of CO2 emissions will be avoided, accomplishing 48% of our 2050 emission reduction goal.

Planned capacity increases
The generating capacities of FirstEnergy’s nuclear plants reported in this analysis were from the year 2005. According to FirstEnergy’s Energy Efficiency Initiatives report released in December of 2008 the company increased its nuclear capacity by 106 MW by 2007 and expected to add another 57 MW in 2008. An additional 251 MW are planned between 2011 and 2014 from uprates in existing plants. These additions should increase FirstEnergy’s total nuclear capacity from 3,835 MW in 2005 to 4,249 MW in 2014.

FirstEnergy purchased a partially completed natural gas fired combined cycle generating plant in Fremont, Ohio. When complete this plant will have a load following capacity of 544 MW and a peaking capacity of 163 MW; anticipated operation is 2012.

AMP Ohio is planning to begin construction on a 960 MW coal-fired generating station, the American Municipal Power Generating Station (AMPGS), in 2009, although rising costs and public opposition have caused some speculation as to whether or not the project will come to fruition.

Update:  American Municipal Power announced on November 25, 2009 that the AMPGS project will no longer move forward as a pulverized coal plant. "AMP will explore developing the project as a natural gas combined cycle facility supplemented with market purchases and pursue future enhancements for the project, such as biomass or another advanced energy technology." (Updated Nov. 30, 2009)

Update: "FirstEnergy Corp. has taken the first step toward developing a huge natural gas and compressed-air power plant -- capable of generating as much electricity as three nuclear reactors." This plant will be located in Norton, Ohio, on the border of Summit and Wayne Counties.

Further details, such as expected date of operation and total capacity have not yet been released, although the project's previous owners, Haddington Ventures and its subsidiary Norton Energy Storage LLC, had anticipated to start operating the plant in 2003 and for it to have a total capacity of 2,700 MW.  (updated: Nov. 25, 2009)

Back to top 

GOAL 1: Meet growing demand for electricity with energy efficiency

• CO2 Savings: 18% or 7.1 million tons by 2030 and 30% or 13.8 millions tons by 2050.

• Trend: Ohio’s Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard (full text of SB 221, summary of SB 221) went into effect on July 31, 2008. An Energy Efficiency Resource Standard included in the legislation mandates energy reductions from utilities of 22.2% by 2025, starting at 0.3% reductions in 2009 and increasing annually.
• Trend: Ohio’s Energy Efficiency Loan Program was established in 1999. It is financed through an electricity bill rider authorized to collect $100 million over a 10 year period. Among deregulated states this is one of the lowest System Benefits Charges to support energy efficiency and renewable/alternative energy.

  Roughly $15 million was collected in 2005. In 2006 the collection dropped to $5 million; it is scheduled to collect $5 million per year until 2011. Increasing the rider to just below the national average of $4.65 per person per year would collect approximately $45 million per year for energy efficiency programs and renewable energy projects.

• Trend: The efficiency of average home appliances has significantly improved in the last decade. According to the Associate of Home Appliance Manufacturers, since 2000…
  • Clothes washer energy consumption has decreased 63% - tub capacity grew 8%
  • Dishwasher energy consumption dropped nearly 30% - water consumption declined 29%
  • Refrigerator energy consumption decreased 30% - efficiency increased 39%.
• Trend: According to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE)…
  • Variable speed air conditioning and heat pumps units can save up to 25% electricity compared to traditional thermostat controlled systems.
  • The efficiency of lighting technologies and options has greatly improved in recent years. Compact Fluorescent Lights (CFLs) consume about 75% less energy than traditional incandescent lights and last about 10 times longer. Light emitting diode (LED) lighting, although not yet cost permissive for widespread use, is even more efficient and requires even less maintenance.
• Trend: Between 35 and 40% of delivered electricity is wasted through inefficient use. These losses are the easiest and most affordable to eliminate.

• Chart: Power delivery equipment cost increases since 2003

• Implementation activity 1.1: Align utility profit motives with energy efficiency investments
  • Background: Historically Ohio’s utility regulatory structure, sometimes referred to as “cost plus” regulation, aligned profits and revenues to unit sales, disincentivizing the implementation of strong energy efficiency programs.
  • Background: SB 221 gives the PUCO the ability to "establish rules regarding the content of an application for approval of a "revenue decoupling mechanism" - a rate design or other cost recover mechanism that provides the recovery of the fixed costs of service and a fair and reasonable rate of return, irrespective of throughput or volumetric sales."
  • Background: Efficiency Vermont is an independent, nonprofit statewide energy efficiency utility created to implement comprehensive energy efficiency programs. It was created by the state legislature and the Vermont Public Utilities Board. Its funded through a separate charge on utility customers' bills, this however is not an added charge to the customers; electric utilities had been charging customers for energy efficiency programs. These charges remained but were reallocated to Efficiency Vermont.

    Hawaii also has a third party energy efficiency administrator. Legislation in 2006 authorized the Hawaii Public Utility Commission to create an energy efficiency utility. Funding was established by redirecting all or a portion of funds collected through a demand side management surcharge into a public benefits fund.

  • Policy 1.1.1: Consider following the “energy efficiency utility” model of Efficiency Vermont and Hawaii and consolidate the energy efficiency programs of the state’s investor owned electric utilities into a single nonprofit corporation focused solely on increasing energy efficiency in all sectors.
  • Policy 1.1.2:

• Implementation activity 1.2: Improve the efficiency of appliances, electronics and lighting used in Northeast Ohio/Ohio
  • Background: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act includes $6.3 billion dollars for state and local energy efficiency and clean energy grants.
  • Background: “Appliance standards rank with automobile fuel economy standards as the two most effective federal energy-saving policies.”
  • Background: According to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) widespread economical use of power electronics can save 15% of U.S. grid energy.
  • Background: According to a 2000 analysis by the U.S. Department of Energy and the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), national efficiency standards first enacted in the mid-1980s have reduced electricity use by 2.5%. And as old equipment wears out and is replaced energy savings are anticipated to grow to 6.5% of projected electricity use by 2010.
  • Background: California has long been a leader and innovator in energy efficiency policy. In response to a legislative mandate to reduce energy consumption, California’s Appliance and Efficiency Regulations were established in 1976. Since the 1970s, California’s per capita electricity consumption has remained nearly constant. Today, over three decades later, the average Californian consumes about 40% less electricity than the average American.
  • Background: Appliance recycling programs have many environmental benefits beyond reduced energy consumption. Discarded appliances are second only to automobiles as a source of recycled metals, particularly steel. Appliance recycling programs can also help ensure that refrigerants (many of which are powerful greenhouse gases) are properly removed from refrigerators, freezers and air conditioners.
  • Background: The Energy Policy Act of 2005 contains provisions on the energy efficiency traffic signal and pedestrian modules. It requires that signal modules manufactured or imported after January 1, 2006, must meet or exceed the energy efficiency requirements specified in the legislation, but does not require retrofitting of existing traffic signals.
  • Policy 1.2.1 Consider state appliance and equipment efficiency standards that exceed national standards. Ex) California’s Appliance and Efficiency Regulations (California Code of Regulations, Title 20, Sections 1601 through 1608)
  • Policy 1.2.2: Adopt minimum efficiency standards for common appliances not covered by the national standards
  • Policy 1.2.3: Develop and implement a rebate driven appliance recycling program (ARP) for operable but inefficient room air conditioners. Ex) NYSERDA’s ”Keep Cool” Air Conditioner Replacement and Bounty Program
  • Policy 1.2.4: Develop and implement an ARP for operable but inefficient refrigerators and freezers. Ex) Southern California Edison’s Appliance Recycling Program
  • Policy 1.2.5: Start (or bring) a company that runs a bounty program in Northeast Ohio. Ex) Appliance Recycling Centers of America, Inc. (ARCA) , JACO Environmental Inc., or Conservation Services Group (CSG)
  • Policy 1.2.6: Get state and local governments to commit to efficiency standards for equipment and appliances. Ex) ENERGY STAR, Electronic Project Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT)
  • Policy 1.2.7: Provide commercial and industrial incentives in the form of rebates and low interest financing to increase lighting efficiency. Ex) Xcel Energy’s Lighting Efficiency program
  • Policy 1.2.8: Develop a rebate program for commercial and industrial Motor and HVAC replacement. Ex) PG&E Motor and HVAC Distributor Program
  • Policy 1.2.9: Consider adopting and adapting other exemplary programs outlined in the ACEEE’s Compendium of Champions

• Implementation activity 1.3: Reduce barriers to customer participation in the energy efficiency market
  • Background: Failures and barriers in the energy efficiency market include:
    1. Emergency or impulse purchases that do not leave buyers time to educate themselves
    2. Inadequate or misleading information regarding product performance
    3. High first costs for efficient equipment due to small production quantities
    4. Lack of information/knowledge
    5. Performance uncertainties
    6. Product unavailability
    7. Mispricing of electricity (electricity prices do not include the many negative external costs associated with the burning of fossil fuels for power)
    8. Imperfect competition in the market/market flaws
    9. Misplaced incentives (e.g. a landlord or developer purchasing appliances for which he/she will not be paying the utility bill)
  • Policy 1.3.1: Consider state appliance and equipment efficiency standards that exceed national standards and adopt efficiency standards for common appliances not covered by the national standards (same as policy suggestions 1.2.1 and 1.2.2). Appliance standards will help to reduce or eliminated barriers 1-7 as identified above.
  • Policy 1.3.2: Identify and target all markets. Ohio currently has two state sponsored residential energy efficiency programs, the Electric Partnership Program and the Home Weatherization Assistance Program, and both specifically target low-income households. These programs should be expanded consumers of all income levels.
  • Policy 1.3.3: Promote energy efficiency activities that address the needs specific to individual markets (e.g. low-income vs. large suburban costumers)
  • Policy 1.3.4: Create opportunities/incentives for retailers, manufacturers and contractors to develop and deliver energy efficiency awareness and education campaigns.
  • Policy 1.3.5: Northeast Ohio should grow energy literacy among all sectors by drawing upon the expertise of with organizations with established and proven energy literacy programs (e.g. Ohio Energy Project (OEP) and Green Energy Ohio (GEO))
  • Policy 1.3.6: Develop a comprehensive and strategic program to disseminate strong user awareness programs and materials (workshops, seminars, handouts, etc) about current and available energy efficiency technologies and practices. The purpose of these programs should be to improve energy user knowledge and encourage capital investment in energy-efficient technologies.

• Implementation activity 1.4: Reduce electricity usage in Northeast Ohio buildings
  • Background: The Northeast Ohio building transition plan developed by the GreenCityBlueLake Institute defines a pathway to increase the energy efficiency of Northeast Ohio’s buildings 40% by 2030 and 70% by 2050.
  • Background: Using today’s best practices, builders have demonstrated that it is possible to design and construct new houses that are 30 to 40% lower in energy intensity than a typical code house, at little or no extra cost.
  • Background: Non-profit group Architecture 2030 has issued a The 2030 Challenge asking the architecture and building community to adopt fossil fuel reduction standards of 50% relative to the regional or country average for new buildings and renovations in 2009. This target increases to 60% in 2010 and an additional 10% every five years until all new and renovated buildings are carbon neutral in 2030.
  • Background: On September 27, 2007, the Ohio School Facilities Commission (OSFC) passed Resolution #07-124, requiring that all K-12 public school projects approved by the OSFC meet a minimum of LEED for Schools Silver certification. The resolution directs OSFC to cover all LEED registration and certification fees and to provide a supplemental allowance to project budgets for the incorporation of sustainable, green strategies.
  • Background: Governor Schwarzenegger’s executive order S-20-04 mandates, among many other energy efficiency measures, that all new and renovated state-owned facilities paid for with state funds achieve a “LEED Silver” or higher rating.
  • Background: “Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs) allow Federal agencies to accomplish energy savings projects without up-front capital costs and without special Congressional appropriations.”
  • Policy 1.4.1: Follow the recommendations put forth in GCBL’s building sector transition strategy for reducing the carbon intensity of the region’s building sector
  • Policy 1.4.2: Challenge Ohio’s governor and mayors to adopt a resolution similar to that of the OSFC and Gov. Schwarzenegger’s Executive Order and require that all new and renovated state and city buildings achieve a LEED silver certification or higher
  • Policy 1.4.3: Consider following the recommendations by the ACEEE Report, Shaping Ohio's Energy Future: Energy Efficiency Works, (report number E092) regarding extending Ohio’s ESPC program to local governments

Back to top

GOAL 2: Grow the region's combined heat and power (CHP) distributed generating capacity. Combined heat and power systems will play an important role in reducing the carbon footprint of Northeast Ohio's electricity generation. But in order to achieve the emission reduction targets identified in this plan, new CHP systems will need to be fueled by natural gas and biomass.

• Trend: Between 7 and 10% of the electricity that enters the grid is lost in its transmission and distribution on the grid. Distributed power generation such as combined heat and power (CHP or co-generation) systems can help to greatly reduce these losses by increasing generation efficiency and reducing the distance between generation and use.
• Trend: The simultaneous generation of electricity and heat in CHP is considerably more efficient than producing electricity and steam independently. Much less of the potential energy within a fossil fuel is lost since the “waste” heat is captured and put to use for non-electricity energy needs; fuel use efficiency increases from about 30% to about 75%. Transportation and distribution losses and costs are also reduced because transmission distances are greatly reduced.
• Trend: Ohio has 45 installed CHP systems generating 665 MW of electricity (200 MW is AMP Ohio's Richard Gorsuch Plant). Of these 45, 13 are in Northeast Ohio; they generate about 120 MW of electricity.
• Trend: CHP Systems installed after January 1, 1998 qualify as "alternative energy resources" under Ohio's Alternative Energy Resource Standard (SB 221)
• Trend: Advanced wood combustion (AWC) as a source for heating, cooling and/or power can achieve system wide thermal efficiencies of about 90%. Use of AWC is growing Europe and can be seen in action in Akron and Oberlin Ohio.
• Trend: Initiatives in the U.S. to increase the use of biomass for heating and powering schools include Vermont’s Fuels for Schools and the multi-state Fuels for Schools and Beyond (Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and North Dakota).

• Chart: Efficiency of CHP vs conventional generation

• Chart: Existing CHP facilities in Northeast Ohio

• Implementation activity 2.1: Reduce market and regulatory barriers to combined heat and power (CHP) distributed generation
  • Background: One of the largest barriers to distributed generation in general, not just CHP, is uncertainty in cost. Utilities have some level of control over net-metering rates, stand-by rates, and interconnection fees.
  • Background: Lack of information or knowledge about systems and the process is another large barrier to more widespread use of CHP.
  • Background: Utilities are required to offer “nondiscriminatory technology neutral interconnection to all customers who generate electricity”. But according to the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy “utilities have not been quick to improve their interconnection practices in the manner required.”
  • Background: In 2007, Ohio adopted new interconnection standards applicable to distributed generation, including CHP. Ohio’s interconnection standards now separate interconnection into three tiers, to allow for easier and more streamlined applications for the smallest generators and a similarly streamlined application for larger generators that are still smaller than 2MW. A third tier provides a process for generators up to 20MW. A plain-language guide to interconnection accompanies the new tiered system. Ohio’s standards are also compatible with IEEE’s 1547 Standard for Interconnecting Distributed Resources with Electric Power Systems
  • Policy 2.1.1: Provide performance based incentives to utilities that demonstrate good performance in terms of interconnection services and fees (e.g. low tariffs for standby and supplementary power services).
  • Policy 2.1.2: Address CHP in building codes to facilitate reductions in delays, expenses and uncertainty for project developers.
  • Policy 2.1.3: Advocate for better implementation and enforcement of the requirements for Ohio’s interconnection standards.
  • Policy 2.1.4: Conduct or commission a study to identify the technical potential and generating potential for combined heat and power projects in Northeast Ohio (e.g. those area where natural gas infrastructure already exists, where the electrical system is stressed, or where viable waste/renewable biomass resources are available)
  • Policy 2.1.5: Adopt the U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s goal of doubling CHP capacity by 2010 through the Combined Heat and Power Partnership.
  • Policy 2.1.6: Promote the EPA’s CHP Partnership and encourage local municipalities, institutions, large commercial and residential buildings and industrial manufacturers to join the partnership.
  • Policy 2.1.7: Provide financing opportunities and incentives (e.g. grants, loans and tax incentives) for CHP facilities/systems.
  • Policy 2.1.8: Create standards for and endorse the use of AWC through programs like Vermont’s Fuel for Schools program and the multi-state partnership program Fuels for Schools and Beyond.

Back to top

GOAL 3: Grow the region's renewable and alternative energy sources to obtain approximately 25% of electricity from renewable sources by 2030 and about 80% by 2050

• Trend: The costs of fossil and nuclear fuels and electricity infrastructure have risen considerably in the last six years.
• Trend: Ohio’s Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard (SB 221) mandates that 25% of the state’s electricity be generated from alternative energy sources by 2025, and that half of that has to be from renewable sources. Of the 12.5% required to be renewable half of that has to be generated in state and 0.5% should be solar.
• Trend: "The Smart Grid's ability to dynamically manage all sources of power on the grid means that more distributed generation can be integrated within it." (resource link)

• Chart: Generation fuel cost increases since 2003

• Implementation activity 3.1: Reduce market and regulatory barriers to small-scale, distributed, renewable generation options (primarily solar and wind)
  • Background: Failures and barriers in the renewable energy market include:
    1. High initial equipment costs
    2. Relatively high transaction costs e.g. siting, permitting, servicing (especially for small scale)
    3. DG equipment viewed as a discretionary expense rather than a living expense
    4. Lack of information/knowledge - technically involved process
    5. Product unavailability
    6. Mispricing of electricity (electricity prices do not include the many negative external costs associated with the burning of fossil fuels for power)
  • Background: Net metering is an important incentive for small scale renewable electricity generation. Ohio's net-metering policy:
    • Covers most renewable technologies, including solar thermal electric, photovoltaics, wind, landfill gas, biomass, hydroelectric, fuel cells and microturbines,
    • Covers all customer classes,
    • Has no limit on system size although the system should be matched to the customer's load,
    • Has no aggregate capacity limit (SB 221 eliminated a 1% limit)
  • Background: Cash rebates are among the more successful form of financial incentives for small scale renewable. New Hampshire offers a “one time cash incentive payment of $3 per watt of nominal generation capacity up to $6000 or 50% of the system costs, whichever is less” for generators with peak capacity of less than 5 kW. California’s Emerging Renewable Program offers cash rebates worth up to $2.50 per installed watt of capacity for the first 7.5 kW, and $1.50 per watt after that up to 30 kW.
  • Background: Feed in tariffs for renewable energy generation (a.k.a. advanced or renewable energy tariffs) are widely used in Europe as a means of increasing demand and growing a market for renewable energy. FITs are mandated prices paid by electricity companies to renewable energy generators for a specified period of time. They offer straightforward renewable energy generation incentives to a wide variety of players while requiring very little to no administration. Germany, Spain and France are world leaders in renewable energy development. The use of feed in tariffs has been the major impetus in this success.
  • Policy 3.1.1: Under current net-metering standards, net-metered customers can request a refund for any net excess generation (NEG) at the end of a 12-month period. This policy should be changed to allow for the rollover/carry over of NEG as per the Interstate Renewable Energy Council's (IREC) Model Net-Metering Rules.
  • Policy 3.1.2: Develop simplified, consumer friendly interconnection agreements for small wind that define turbine specifications, permitting and design requirements, technical requirements for interconnection, conditions under which the turbine is to be disconnected, and legal liability.
  • Policy 3.1.3: Provide performance based incentives to utilities that demonstrate good performance in terms of interconnection services and fees (e.g. low tariffs for backup and supplementary power services).
  • Policy 3.1.4: Streamline small scale wind zoning and permitting to help reduce the time and cost of residential and commercial wind. AWEA’s Small Wind Toolbox offers model ordinances and recommended practices.
  • Policy 3.1.5: Provide financial incentives, such as a statewide renewable energy revolving loan fund, for small scale wind and solar installations.
  • Policy 3.1.6: Incentivize third party financing for distributed solar generation by establishing that third parties will not be considered utilities and therefore not regulated by the PUCO. Oregon established such a ruling in summer of 2008.
  • Policy 3.1.7: Launch a series of information campaigns to educate consumers about....

• Implementation activity 3.2: Grow the region's electricity generation from wind by 13% by 2030 and 30% by 2050
  • Background: Ohio’s best wind resources, those best suited for utility scale wind power, are located off the shores of Lake Erie in Northeast Ohio.
  • Background: In Denmark and Germany wind cooperatives have helped to boost the development of wind power. Locally owned community scale wind helps enhance the local economy by creating jobs and keeping money spent on energy local. And community involvement can lend to more acceptance of wind power.
  • Graphic: Ohio wind power at 50 meters Link
  • Chart: Below is an example scenario demonstrating how 16 windfarms with a total of 375 turbines can achieve 30% of Northeast Ohio's projected demand for 2050. A capacity factor of 20% was used for this analysis - this is a low estimate for the region's onshore wind. If all of the projects in the scenario below were to be located offshore, the total power generated would be close to double.

  

  • Policy 3.2.1: Northeast Ohio should develop a wind cooperative
  • Policy 3.2.2: Encourage and promote the formation of renewable energy purchasing partnerships among large power customers. Ex) City of Chicago, Chicago Park District, Chicago Transit Authority and City Colleges along with 48 suburban governments.
  • Policy 3.2.3:
    

• Implementation activity 3.3: Grow the region's electricity generation from solar by 5% by 2030 and 30% by 2050
  • Background: Ohio's (Cleveland area) solar insolation
    • Low - 2.69 kWh/m2/day (1 kW system --> about 82 KWh per month)
    • High - 4.79 kWh/m2/day (1 kW system --> about 146 kWh per month)
  • Background:
  • Background: In Germany 90% of all photovoltaics systems are building integrated systems. Building integrated PV (BIPV) systems will be essential to achieving 5% solar power by 2030.
  • Background: In 2006 Germany had the second largest solar market in the world; Ohio’s solar resources are superior to Germany’s indicating that there is great untapped potential for solar generation in Ohio.
    
  • Background: The world's largest BIPV system, located in Spain, has a capacity of 11.8 MW, but most of the top 25 range between 2.5 and 5 MW.
  • Chart: Example scenario for achieving 5% solar energy with existing technology (a solar insolation of 3.12 kWh/m2/day was used for this analysis) 

  

  • Policy 3.3.1: A solar urban master plan should be commissioned for the high density areas in the region to identify building integrated solar potential for city sectors/neighborhoods. It should take into account orientation and annual shading, technological and legal feasibility as the energy demand of the building/area.
  • Policy 3.3.2: A "quarter million rooftops" campaign should be launched with the goal of installing 330 MW. If 10% of the households in the region supported a 1 kW system and another 10% supported a 2 kW system, more than a quarter of region's 2030 solar goal would be achieved.
  • Policy 3.3.3:
    

• Implementation activity 3.4: Grow the region's electricity generation from biomass by about 8% by 2030 and 22% by 2050
  • Background: FirstEnergy recently announced plans to repower units 4 and 5 of the R.E. Burger plant to operate on biomass. The plant is anticipated to generate as much as 312 MW of electricity or about 3.5% of FE’s total Ohio generation enough to meet their renewable energy obligations through 2015. Once complete the Burger plant will be the largest
  • Background: Ohio has 25 operational landfill-gas-to-energy projects, six of which are in Northeast Ohio. Three of these six projects produce electricity; the other three use the gas directly. The combined generating capacity of the electricity generating projects is 14.4 MW, about a third of the state’s capacity. An additional seven landfills in the region have been identified as sites with potential for such projects. (U.S. EPA Landfill Methane Outreach Program)
  • Policy 3.4.1: Identify opportunities for biomass fueled CHP systems

Back to top

Goal 4: Grow the energy storage capacity of Northeast Ohio

• Background: Energy storage is defined as "the conversion of electrical energy from a power network into a form in which it can be stored until converted back to electrical energy."
• Background: Energy storage is essential to improving the efficiency, reliability and cost effectiveness of the electricity system and effectively integrating renewable. Storage of energy generated from renewable energy sources will help supply meet demand when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining.
• Background: Energy storage can help defer investments in transmission and distribution infrastructure needed to meet rising peak loads.
• Trend: Large scale energy storage in the form of pumped hydro is fairly common and widely used, especially in regions with significant topographic relief.
• Trend: An old concept, but not widely practiced, is compressed air energy storage
• Trend: Distributed energy storage by making ice in off-peak hours for cooling in peak hous is an old technology that is getting new life with the green building trend. Ice Energy is a company with a distributed energy storage technology designed to reduce daytime peak demands in warmer climates and seasons by shifting electricity used for cooling to off-peak hours. FirstEnergy is testing the technology at the new West Akron Campus facility.

• Implementation activity 4.1: Explore opportunities for pumped hydro storage capacity
  • Background: Pumped hydro requires topographic relief
  • Background: FirstEnergy owns the Seneca Pumped Storage Generating Station near Warren, Pennsylvania. The plant began operating in 1970 and is rated at 435 MW.

  
  

  • Policy 4.1.1 Conduct or commission a study to investigate the technical potential and economic feasibility for expanding micro pumped hydroelectric storage capacity.
  • Policy 4.1.2:

• Implementation activity 4.2: Encourage and plan for increased market penetration of plug-hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV)
  • Background: PHEVs with vehicle to grid (V2G) technology, still in development, would be able to act as a distributed storage devices, able to feed energy back to the grid during times of peak use or power outages.
  • Background: A report by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and Natural Resourced Defense Council (NRDC) found that even with the nation's current electricity generating infrastructure, PHEVs emit fewer greenhouse gases than conventional vehicles.
  • Background: Recent changes in CAFE standards mandate fleet averages of 35.5 by 2016. These changes along have caused some automakers accelerate their development of PHEVs. Both GM and Toyota have a plug-in hybrid vehicle expected to be commercially available by 2010.
  • Background: A 50% market penetration of PHEVs by 2050 would require only a 4% increase in generating capacity. PHEV-Primer

  
  

  • Policy 4.2.1: Market integration of PHEVs in Northeast Ohio should be accelerated through financial incentives and consumer education. One such example is Austin Energy's rebate fund. FirstEnergy should follow this model and offer their customers rebates for the purchase of PHEVs when they become commercially available.
  • Policy 4.2.2: Northeast Ohio governments should develop plans to phase PHEVs into their fleets and place soft orders for PHEV fleet vehicles.
  • Policy 4.2.3: PHEV charging infrastructure should be integrated into regional and urban planning to enable

Back to top