Appalachian Power’s plan to repackage power from existing renewable energy projects in its portfolio into a new, higher-priced green option hit a bump this week when a hearing examiner for the Virginia State Corporation Commission recommended rejection of the tariff, saying it wasn’t a good deal for consumers.
Approval of the tariff would have allowed APCo to block competition from other renewable energy suppliers. Virginia law provides that if a customer’s own utility doesn’t offer a tariff for 100% renewable energy, the customer has the right to buy from any other provider.
APCo had argued its tariff met the letter of the law, and that should be the end of the SCC’s inquiry. Since it was a voluntary tariff, customers could take it or leave it. Hearing Examiner A. Ann Berkobile disagreed. Because approval of the tariff would adversely affect competition and restrict the rights of customers, she found, the tariff could only be approved if APCo proved it was “in the public interest and its rate is just, reasonable and unlikely to prejudice customers.”
In this case, she concluded, APCo failed to do so, having “made no effort to establish the reasonableness of its proposed Rider REO rate.”
She went on: “Stated somewhat differently, Rider REO has the potential to suppress or even curtail customer access to 100 percent renewable energy by precluding sales by [Competitive Service Providers] while at the same time offering an incumbent utility alternative that is simply too costly for customers to bear. The overall price of Rider REO (and associated rate) should, therefore, be considered when deciding whether to grant approval.”
Testimony in the case had established that the existing wind farms APCo proposed to use were providing power at a higher price than could be obtained from new sources, which the Hearing Examiner suggested made the proposed tariff rate unreasonable. In addition, using old sources rather than new ones would not “promote the development of renewable energy in accordance with the objectives of the Commonwealth Energy Policy set forth in §§ 67-101 and 67-102 of the Code.”
The Hearing Examiner’s report is only a recommendation to the SCC, which will have the final say. The case is PUE-2016-00051.
Ruling could affect Dominion tariff
If the SCC adopts the Hearing Examiner’s recommendation, that could also affect the SCC’s evaluation of Dominion’s proposed 100% renewable commercial tariff. Dominion’s tariff will likely use biomass as a source because of Dominion’s insistence that a 100% renewable product must use sources that together produce renewable energy 100% of the time. But while Virginia’s overbroad definition of renewable energy includes “biomass, sustainable or otherwise,” biomass often doesn’t satisfy corporate sustainability goals. As the Hearing Examiner’s opinion suggests, it’s not enough for a tariff to meet the requirement of providing 100% renewable energy if it isn’t also good enough to attract customers.
The Hearing Examiner’s emphasis on the cost to consumers is also a relevant consideration. If the SCC affirms the APCo decision, Dominion would have to justify using higher-cost biomass over much cheaper wind and solar.